Today’s News 3rd October 2019

  • We'll "Definitely" Interfere In 2020, Just "Don't Tell Anybody": Putin Mockingly Tells NBC Reporter
    We’ll “Definitely” Interfere In 2020, Just “Don’t Tell Anybody”: Putin Mockingly Tells NBC Reporter

    Absolutely no laughing matter for the likes of Rachel Maddow and others who have now spent years locked deep in their ‘Russiagate’ navel-gazing, but at least Putin still hasn’t lost his sense of humor about it. 

    While speaking on a panel of industry and political leaders at the Russian Energy Week conference, Putin mocked reports already alleging Moscow plans to interfere in the 2020 US presidential election. When pressed by NBC News correspondent Keir Simmons over whether former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was accurate in predicting Russia would “attempt to interfere” in the 2020 election, Putin leaned forward in a gesture to act like he was whispering a ‘secret’:

    “I’m going to tell you a secret,” Putin said, leaning forward. 

    “Yes, we will definitely intervene, don’t tell anybodyhe continued to an applauding crowd.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “You know, we have enough of our own problems,” Putin continued. “We are engaged in resolving internal problems and are primarily focused on this.”

    His characteristic public sarcasm was a hit with the crowd, at an event which included OPEC Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo and others. He followed on a more serious note by calling it “ridiculous” that Russia would interfere in the 2020 election. 

    He also talked down his relationship and interactions with President Trump, describing that the two leaders have never been close. 

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

    “In my opinion, we have good, businesslike relations, and a relatively stable level of trust,” he said during the conference’s plenary session. “We’ve never been close, and aren’t now.”

    However, Putin did come to the US president’s defense when asked about the Ukraine call transcript.

    “From what we know, I don’t see anything compromising at all,” Putin told the audience. “I didn’t see that during this phone call Trump demanded compromising material from Zelenskiy at any cost and threatened him that he wouldn’t help Ukraine.”


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/03/2019 – 02:45

    Tags

  • Twisted Pair, Part 2: US & UK "Barrelling Towards Great Troubles"
    Twisted Pair, Part 2: US & UK “Barrelling Towards Great Troubles”

    Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    The US and UK are both at risk of severe legal challenges and hence “barrelling down towards great troubles” as I wrote yesterday in Twisted Pair 1 – US.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The reasons are not exactly the same in both cases, but they’re close. It’s about who holds the ultimate power.

    Before moving on to the UK’s specific issues, I want to share this from the BBC, one of many pieces yesterday that discuss President Trump talking to foreign leaders, and that all accuse him in one way or another of wanting to ‘dig up dirt’ about Joe Biden (something that could just as well be defined as trying to find out how Russiagate started).

    This one is about Trump asking Australia for help because obviously there’s a strong connection to the country in the person of former Australia High Commissioner to the UK Alexander Downer, who claims Trump ‘aid’ George Papadopoulos told him in May 2016 that Moscow had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos has always denied saying it.

    But it appears the world media have made it their task to vilify Trump’s efforts to investigate Russiagate, so expect much more of it. The article for instance also mentions Bill Barr talking to Italian and British intelligence. Yeah, they’re serious about wanting to find out what happened. I’d suggest you get used to that. But here’s what I want to share:

    [..] while the Ukraine call is linked to the serious issue of potential influencing of an upcoming US election, the Australian one refers to events around a past election. White House spokesman Hogan Gidley suggested this was uncontroversial. “I’m old enough to remember when Democrats actually wanted to find out what happened in the 2016 election,” he said.

    I thought that was pretty good.

    But on to Albion, where the legal mess is likely much bigger than in the States, because its laws are so opaque. Sure, NOW people are clamoring for a written constitution, but NOW is a tad late. I read the other day in a Dutch paper that Queen Elizabeth had asked her advisors if she could sack Boris Johnson, and couldn’t find coverage of it in any UK paper. Still can’t. Isn’t that curious? We’ll have to do with yesterday’s New York Post: “It was the first time in her 67-year reign that the Queen asked for clarification on how to dismiss a British prime minister, the report claimed.”

    The Queen didn’t actually look to fire Johnson, she simply didn’t know the laws surrounding the topic, she wanted to know what her legal position is. And that seems to typify the entire situation unfolding in the country. Nobody has any idea who has the -ultimate- power to execute any far-reaching policies and decisions. That would appear to be a very dangerous conundrum, because it may allow the loudest, -physically- strongest and perhaps even most deceitful to prevail.

    There was someone in a recent Automatic Earth comments section who listed all 11 UK Supreme Court judges and concluded they were all “Remainers”. That is a slippery slope too many. Because if you intend to disqualify the highest court in a country, you invite in anarchy. Now, you may favor “Leave”, but that kind of thing will surely come back to bite you in the face.

    Besides, the Supreme Court decision to declare Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful was the only one a highest court could possibly have made. Because Britain, like so many other western nations, is a parliamentary democracy. The only thing I’ve seen that looks like a constitution there says in eight words that parliament is senior to the monarch. That means it is senior to the executive branch as well. It has to.

    Whereas a Scottish court ruled a few weeks ago that the prorogation decision was justiciable, and declared it unlawful, a lower UK court said it was non-justiciable, that is was up to Parliament, and that Parliament could “sit” whenever it wanted. But Parliament hasd just been prorogued, and therefore could NOT sit whenever it wanted. That lower court even contradicted itself: “Parliament is the master of its own proceedings. It is for parliament to decide when it sits. Parliament can sit before and after prorogation..”

    So they have to make up their minds. It would be demonstrably silly if the Queen could fire the Prime Minister. It would be much less silly if Parliament could do it, though. Which would also be less silly than the Prime Minister being allowed to shut down Parliament with impunity in a parliamentary democracy. You have to look at the legal implications.

    Now, the world is increasingly divvied up in antagonistic (i.e. twisted) pairs.

    In the US, if you don’t hammer Trump ten times a day and twice on Sundays, you get accused of effectively supporting him. In the UK, if you question Boris Johnson’s quest towards Halloween Brexit, you’re against ‘the people’, and their will. And that’s why we have laws. It’s just that British laws are terribly vague, and that’s why the courts became involved (as I predicted they would for a long time).

    Today, Boris Johnson is sending a ‘plan’ to Europe that he has labeled ‘take it or leave it’. Which leads many to question his desire to reach a deal at all. More importantly, the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019, aka the Benn Act, was passed by parliament last month and requires the government to ask for an extension until 31 January 2020 if no deal is agreed.

    Boris has suggested he will ignore it. But that would mean the executive branch is effectively senior to the legislative branch. It would also mean the end of the parliamentary democracy that Britain has been for what is it, 400 years?! I have no horse in this fight or dog in this race, but that to me looks extremely dangerous. Be careful what you wish for.

    The UK Supreme Court is in for the by far busiest time of its existence. And by the way, you can criticize the court, but only really by criticizing the way the judges on it are appointed, and then take action to change that way. If you try to question its credibility, however, you destroy the credibility of the entire judicial system, all of it.

    Again, be careful what you wish for. It’s not hard to understand why and how people point to the 2016 Brexit referendum to justify a Brexit strategy, but they too will still have to follow the rules and laws, or they will create mayhem. That goes for both sides, of course, but for Boris Johnson to try and take the UK out of the EU in violation of the Benn Act would unleash a lot of disorder that he and his people may not fully comprehend yet

    And there’s something else going on in the UK that I wrote about recently in “The Will of the People”, but which still doesn’t generate much interest. That is, this whole issue is no longer about Leave vs Remain, there is a third group, Leave But With A Deal. Ironically, the Leave side seeks to group these people in with the Remainers, which is both not honest and may not serve their own interests.

    That is because Leave But With A Deal may well be the largest group out there. There are Tories and Labour supporters in it, plus independents and some LibDems, and they’re there for the taking for Boris. Only, they insist on a deal with the EU being in place. If there’s no such deal on October 19, they automatically become Boris’s opponents. But why would he let them? Why not get a serious deal on the table?

    Johnson will attempt to blame the failure of his latest proposal, plus all previous ones, on the EU. But has Brussels been all that unreasonable in the negotiations? I’m no EU fan, but it’s an honest question. They have one large issue: Ireland. The Good Friday agreement is sacred for them, because it is for Ireland. And Boris today allegedly proposing some kind of border infrastructure regardless will not fly.

    A difficult topic, for sure, but then we’re 3,5 years on from the referendum, and what has the UK done since then? London gives the impression that peace in Ireland is less important for them than it is for Brussels, and that is not wise. As former Northern Ireland negotiator Jonathan Powell said in a video I posted earlier today, what will happen is easy to predict:

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

    Even if you just put in a camera on the border, the dissident Republicans will shoot at it. Then you put in police to protect the camera, they’ll shoot at the police. Next up is the army to protect the police, and so on and so forth. Perhaps a unified Ireland is a solution, though that will take time, but a hard Brexit certainly is not. But Boris appears to play games with this, suggesting there will have to be customs facilities some way or another: “Each of the IRA campaigns started as a border campaign”, says Powell.

    Summarized, we have this third group, not Leave or Remain but Leave But With A Deal, and they are being ignored and/or labeled Remain. Whereas they could be key to Johnson and his supporters’ desire to Leave. Look, Boris has no majority in Parliament anymore, not even if the DUP he apparently sucked up to vote with him. He needs something else but is running out of time.

    Then again, Boris has pledged to Leave by Halloween. Now his personal credibility is at stake, and it’s become more important than the credibility of his party, of Parliament and even of the entire court system. Next up: the Queen. Who didn’t want to sack him but was royally miffed about him advising her to prorogate which put her in a very not amused position when her own Supreme Court declared her decision unlawful.

    It would appear to be in Johnson’s own interest, if he wants to carry through Brexit, for him and his team to do a lot more homework. He’s already mightily miffed the Queen, the Supreme Court has accused him of attempting to push through an unlawful act, and he’s lost his party’s majority in Parliament.

    Boris’s support may seem solid in his own party conference in Manchester today, but let’s hope he doesn’t get even more blinded by that than he already is, because the consequences could well be catastrophic. And of course I see, and understand, all the people who want the result of the referendum honored, but there’s a whole new ball game underway today, and it would be foolish to ignore that.

    You can still go for Brexit, but Good Friday is a giant and unnecessary leap too far to achieve it. As is trying to make the executive branch claim seniority over the legislative one, or the Supreme Court, to achieve your goal. You can wish, but beware.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/03/2019 – 02:00

  • International Criminal Court To Mull MbS Probe For "Crimes Against Humanity"
    International Criminal Court To Mull MbS Probe For “Crimes Against Humanity”

    A US-based law firm has sent a formal petition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague calling for an investigation into Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman over the Jamal Khashoggi murder and other crimes against humanity

    This after a recent UN report holds the Saudi government responsible for the Oct. 2, 2018 grizzly killing of the journalist at the consulate in Istanbul, which MbS in a “60 Minutes” interview this week said was a “mistake” that was ultimately his “full responsibility” — while also vehemently denying that he ordered the hit. According to CNN,

    Attorneys Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, and W. Bruce DelValle drafted the petition on behalf of the National Interest Foundation, a Washington nonprofit frequently critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, saying Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “has ruthlessly and systematically persecuted his political detractors, opponents, or rivals,” since being elevated to his position in June 2017. The petition was submitted in July but had not been made public.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The document charges the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia with “a widespread… systematic attack directed at civilian political opponents” in and out of the kingdom – no doubt a reference to both Khashoggi’s death as well as a crackdown on political opponents and dissidents, likely including the ongoing Saudi-led bombing of Yemen. 

    The filing further said he’s “guilty of murder, torture, rape, extortion, illegal detentions, wrongful prosecutions, and the death penalty, i.e., crimes against humanity as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute.”

    “A component of the crown prince’s systematic attacks or persecution of his opponents,” the filing states, “was his order to assassinate courageous journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which was executed by the Saudi Raid Intervention Group by killing and dismembering… him in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.”

    “Nothing of significance happens in the kingdom absent the crown prince’s direction or approval,” the filing states.

    “Even if he said he did not order the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi, the law makes him culpable for it,” one of the filing attorneys, Bruce Fein, told Al Jazeera. “As someone who knows everything of significance in Saudi Arabia, MBS should have known about the planned murder even if he was not supervising his thugs.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, via Reuters.

    Interestingly, the crown prince’s admissions in the 60 Minutes interview could be used against him in any ICC court proceedings, given he essentially admitted government “responsibility” while claiming no personal knowledge of the planned murder. 

    “This was a heinous crime,” Prince Mohammed, 34, told “60 Minutes” in an interview that aired Sunday. “But I take full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government.”

    Asked if he ordered the murder of Khashoggi, who had criticized him in columns for The Washington Post, Prince Mohammed replied: “Absolutely not.”

    If the Hague-based ICC should move forward with charges against MbS it would be devastating to the ‘reformist’ prince’s image and to the prospects of the kingdom’s economically ambitious Vision 2030 makeover. 

    However, it would remain only symbolic in that the Hague has no ultimate enforcement power in terms of bringing rulers to justice  typically unless Western allies assist, as has been the case with war criminals in Africa or the 1990’s Balkan conflict. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/03/2019 – 01:05

  • Brandon Smith: Trump Cannot Be Anti-Globalist While Working With Global Elites
    Brandon Smith: Trump Cannot Be Anti-Globalist While Working With Global Elites

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    In the summer of 2016 during the election campaign I examined the Trump phenomenon and how it relates to the globalist narrative. I concluded that Trump would be president based on the fact that having a (supposedly) hardcore nationalist and populist conservative in the White House over the next four years would in fact be highly beneficial to the elites. At the time the Federal Reserve was getting ready to tighten liquidity, which would inevitably lead to market volatility and a crash in fundamentals. By the end of Trump’s first term, or perhaps at the beginning of his second term, the recessionary crisis would become obvious to the general public. Trump, and all conservatives, would be blamed for the resulting disaster that the banking elites engineered.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    During the election it was unclear to me if Donald Trump was a puppet of the elites. He could have simply been a convenient scapegoat for the coming crash. Today, it is obvious that he is indeed controlled opposition.

    As I’ve noted in numerous articles, Trump’s associations with the globalists go way back. He was saved by the Rothschild banking family from crippling debts in multiple property developments in Atlantic City during the 1990’s. The Rothschild agent that handled Trump’s bailout was none other than Wilbur Ross, the senior managing director of Rothschild New York. Ross is now Trump’s Commerce Secretary, which indicates that his relationship to the Rothschilds continues to this day.

    In 2016 Trump offered positions in the White House to a vast array of global elitists, some of them from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank whose stated goals include the erasure of borders and the end of national sovereignty. These members include:

    Elaine Chao, United States Secretary of Transportation

    Jamie Dimon, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum

    Jim Donovan, Deputy Treasury Secretary

    Larry Fink, Member of Strategic and Policy Forum

    Neil M. Gorsuch, Supreme Court Justice

    Vice Admiral Robert S. Harward, National Security Advisor (declined appointment)

    Trump then went on to bring in long time elites with ties to the globalist establishment and the Federal Reserve such as John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Robert Lighthizer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Mnuchin, etc. The list goes on and on…

    During the campaign, Trump consistently (and rightly) criticized Hillary Clinton’s many ties to the banking cabal, including her close relationship with internationalist banks like Goldman Sachs. He also made multiple criticisms against globalism.  Then, he argued that the economic recovery under Obama was actually a massive financial bubble – the markets were artificially propped up by the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and low interest rates, and indicators like unemployment stats were rigged.  Again, this was all true.

    Yet, after his election Trump proceeded to saturate his cabinet with the same banking elites he once attacked, and then he took FULL CREDIT for the markets and the fake employment and GDP numbers only months later.

    Once in office, Trump suddenly abandoned his promise to indict the Clintons, and any pursuit of fighting the globalists fell by the wayside. Instead, Trump turned all his attention on China, opening the door to an economic war as a useful distraction for the globalists while they continued to pull the plug on financial life support. If Trump was going to do battle with the globalist establishment, why would he surround himself with so many elites and why would he hold up China as a primary threat instead of global banking institutions?

    We still hear Trump talk about how the Federal Reserve is run by ignorant people, and how the “future belongs to patriots, not globalists”, but Trump’s hyperfocus on the markets and the trade war with China do nothing to combat the globalist agenda. In fact, these actions help the globalists immensely.

    Trump is sticking to the pattern of criticizing the Fed’s higher interest rates as the cause of the economic downturn while AT THE SAME TIME continuing to take full credit for the same fraudulent economic data and the market bubble he once admonished.  What does this accomplish?  Well, Trump’s job is to undermine conservatives and the liberty movement by pretending to be one of us.  His attacks on the Fed, while legitimate (in part), are meaningless if he maintains that he is the sole reason why the economy and the markets move.

    In essence, the globalists are using Trump to delegitimize anti-Fed arguments by attaching him to those arguments AND the failing economy simultaneously.  As he falls from fiscal grace, the intent is that all anti-fed and anti-globalist arguments will die with him.  Who would want to take the same ideological stance as the man who brought the global economy to ruin?  Currently, the mainstream media is focusing on Trump’s hypocrisy in demanding a weaker dollar after calling for a STRONGER dollar during his campaign.  They are also insinuating that Trump is trying to deflect blame onto the Fed while his trade war is the “real cause” of the recession.  I’ve been warning about this outcome for quite some time, and now it’s happening.

    Trump’s bizarre behavior vindicates my deepest suspicions during the election – Trump is not just an unwitting scapegoat, he is a participant in the game, playing a theatrical role, a bumbling villain. In the script, he is the anti-globalist who trips over his own hubris and causes the downfall of the American empire. He is playing the pig-headed conservative that proves once and for all why conservative philosophy is “evil” and why the leftists were right all along. Part of his job is to co-opt the liberty movement, redirect its energies into pointless pursuits, and to make us look ridiculous or dangerous by the end of his presidency.

    However, there is a bit of a conundrum forming for the elites…

    Trump’s true nature is slowly being revealed as we cross the point of no return on the economy and the “global economic reset”.  When Trump openly supports Red Flag gun laws designed to usurp gun rights through back door confiscation, or when he commits to a military buildup by sending troops to Saudi Arabia in an obvious first step towards war with Iran, this causes many conservatives in the liberty movement to question Trump’s loyalties (as they should).  The elites have to find a way to keep conservatives and liberty activists blindly riding the Trump train for as long as possible, for if we begin to question the narrative too soon, it becomes harder for them to draw us into supporting actions which will be blamed for the burgeoning economic and geopolitical crisis.

    To be sure, some people in the liberty movement have attached themselves to Trump so completely that there is no escape.  They will now be tempted to double down on their defense of his actions and his associations, forever claiming that Trump is “playing 4D chess” and that he is “keeping his enemies close”, no matter how insane these assertions are.  Some have even argued that conservatives should “go to war” if Trump is impeached.  This is foolish.  Most of us are NOT interested in fighting a civil war over Trump.  If we fight a civil war, it will certainly not be over a puppet of the banking establishment.

    Some of these activists are well meaning, but they are playing right into the hands of globalists.  Others are so desperate to maintain relevancy that they will say anything to get attention.

    It is vital that liberty activists understand that the Trump presidency is a psyop aimed first and foremost AT THEM. As the leftist media outlet Bloomberg once happily predicted in an editorial titled ‘The Tea Party Meets Its Maker’, Trump could absorb conservative movements (those they called the “Tea Party”) and destroy them once and for all.

    Recent events and Trump’s rhetoric are carefully staged to make him appear anti-globalist, but the aggressive nature of this propaganda was predictable. The elites have to draw conservatives back into the fold somehow, and so they are throwing as many crumbs as they can from Trump’s table without him actually accomplishing anything in our favor.

    Getting rid of John Bolton was the beginning of the latest psyop campaign, as Bolton represents a hated element among many liberty activists and the establishment had no choice but to finally reduce his footprint in the White House. However, this was too little too late, as many conservatives are already well aware of the many other elites permeating Trump’s cabinet. He would have to get rid of ALL of them in order to impress us. And so, the elites moved on to phase two…

    The latest Ukrainian scandal and the potential impeachment of Trump is a perfect example of globalist reverse psychology. Like Russiagate, the impeachment inquiry will likely go nowhere, and it’s not meant to go anywhere.  The elites have no intention of removing Trump from office and they never did.  The purpose of the Ukraine scandal is actually twofold: 

    First, it will indeed pull many conservatives back onto the Trump train as they assume the establishment is “out to get him” even though he is working directly with them.

    Second, the Ukraine scandal will blow back on Joe Biden, removing him from the Democratic running for president, leaving the door open for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  The elites do not appear to want Biden in 2020 and are constructing a narrative in which he bows out of the race or loses extensive ground in the primaries.  I continue to predict, as I did in July, that Elizabeth Warren will be the Democratic candidate in 2020 (some people laughed when I suggested this in July…I don’t see too many of them laughing now as Warren pulls into a virtual tie with Biden in the polls).  Whether or not this will translate to a second term for Trump, or the end of the line, it is too early to tell.

    I would note, however, that Warren was the first Democratic candidate to suggest that an economic crash was on the horizon, and I believe this is setting the stage for her to become an “I told you so” candidate in 2020.  If this is the case, then Trump is probably slated to lose the election.

    Another crumb thrown to conservatives is the sudden reopening of discussion on the Clinton emails.  This will lead some liberty activists to assume that MAYBE, this time, Trump is going to follow through on his claim that he would investigate and prosecute the Clintons.  I say this, though I think many reading this already know:  Trump is not going to touch the Clintons. But he will pretend he is looking into the matter if it helps lure conservatives back into the false narrative, but that is all.

    Trump’s UN speech in which he criticized globalism was the latest and perhaps the most blatant attempt to sucker conservatives into thinking maybe Trump is indeed “playing 4D chess”. He’s not. Rather, Trump is playing the role he has always played, just as he played his role on WWE Wrestling, or his role in The Apprentice; it is Trump’s JOB to attack the globalists, and it is their job to PRETEND to attack him. All the while the real targets of attack are conservatives, sovereignty activists and freedom advocates.

    What is the purpose of this facade, this fake wrestling match between Trump and the elites? To get conservatives invested in a false paradigm, to co-opt our movement and our momentum, and ultimately to chain us to Trump’s reputation and then drown us when he goes down. While activists wait around for Trump to take action against the globalists, they sit idle accomplishing very little. While activists put all their hopes in Trump as a solution to the globalist problem, they remain unprepared for the fallout when it’s revealed that he was a complete waste of time. The masterstroke of the elites using Trump as a weapon is that ONE MAN might be able to nullify the activism of millions.

    The solution?  To remain continually vigilant of Trump’s rhetoric and policies and to call him out when he does anything that violates constitutional principles or anything that aids the globalists in their efforts to trigger an economic reset.  I have to laugh, because the globalists may have made a fatal error in relying on Trump as a means to bring down conservatives and the liberty movement.  By placing all their eggs in one basket (or all their strings on one puppet), they have left themselves open to influence by liberty activists.  The more we call out Trump on his strange behaviors, his connections to the establishment and his flip flopping, the less useful he is to them.  They will have to continually adapt their tactics to us (they already have been), or perhaps even postpone efforts to crash the markets or implement draconian Red Flag laws.  By our investigative efforts, we can buy time for the movement to grow, and this bodes ill for the elites in the long run.

    *  *  *

    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, 10/03/2019 – 00:15

    Tags

  • Global Opinion On China Is Divided
    Global Opinion On China Is Divided

    China has marked the 70th anniversary of Communist Party rule with a parade involving 15,000 soldiers and advanced military hardware.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the celebrations have been overshadowed by the outbreak of fierce anti-government protests in Hong Kong which have occurred in defiance of a protest ban.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At least one of the activists is in a serious condition after being shot in the chest at point blank range by the police.

    Amidst the demonstrations and celebrations, a Pew Research Center survey found that global views of China are mixed.

    Infographic: Global Opinion On China Is Divided | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The infographic above shows a selection of countries from the polling with 85 percent of respondents in Japan holding a negative view of China. Unsurprisingly given the trade war, 60 percent of people in the U.S. also hold an unfavorable view of China.

    The Russian public is far more positive with 71 percent viewing China favorably, according to Pew Research.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 23:55

    Tags

  • Which Data Skills Do You Need To Get Ahead In The Next 10 Years?
    Which Data Skills Do You Need To Get Ahead In The Next 10 Years?

    Submitted by Priceonomics,

    In 2011, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen famously posited thatsoftware is eating the world. His point was that nearly all industries are being upended by software and as a result, the seemingly safe jobs of senior executives could evaporate unless they adapt with the times. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Today, data is eating the world. Artificial intelligence, machine learning, the internet of things and data analytics are creeping into companies across the globe, and being data literate will be table stakes for business leaders. In this article, we aim to document the growing belief among senior business executives that learning data skills are critical to their jobs and future career advancement.

    Earlier this year, Splunk commissioned a survey of over 1300 global business leaders to help determine just how important data skills are, which countries value them the most for career advancement, and which skills in particular are most prized.

    The survey found that well over 80% of executives say that data skills are required for promotion in their companies. Of all the countries analyzed, executives in China said their companies valued data skills the highest. However, while many executives noted data literacy was critical for advancement, the survey shows that many executives are actually resistant to learning new data skills. Why? When asked, many business leaders simply stated they were “too old” to learn, which was another way of saying data is hard

    ***

    The value of data in the enterprise is multifold. The Economist has declared data to be the world’s most valuable resource while Forrester states it’s “the new currency of business.” When asked, executives in the survey tend to agree; data drives organizational success on multiple vectors:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In nearly every aspect of management, data is rated as extremely or very valuable. While data has traditionally been used to drive efficiency, the above chart hints at its emerging use cases for identifying growth and innovation, as well as a cybersecurity line of defense.

    It’s potentially challenging to get 80%+ of executives to agree on anything, but the survey reveals that business leaders think data skills are now a requirement for becoming a senior leader and those skills will only become more valuable over time.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The survey also looked at geographic variation in how business executives view the value of data skills. Is data literacy disproportionately a requirement for success in one country versus another?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On each question regarding the value of data skills, Chinese business leaders scored highest on emphasizing its importance. Over 90% of respondents in China noted that they need data skills to get promoted and that data literacy was a requirement for entering senior management. Even for  general office work, 88% of respondents in China noted that data skills were a requirement. If data skills are table stakes for competing in the global economy in the future, Chinese businesses are foremost in recognizing this education need.

    Just what does it mean to be data literate in the modern enterprise? Data literacy can be split into two different components: hard skills such as using programs to analyze the data and soft skills such as using judgment to visualize and interpret the data. Hard skills involve working with data sets and using programs to produce results. Softer skills are often built up over time by practicing your hard skills and gaining a judgment around how to interpret and confidently lead data-driven teams.

    Given that nearly all executives surveyed recognized the value of data skills, it was surprising that many business leaders are reluctant to pick up new data skills later in their career. 73% of executives surveyed stated that data skills were more difficult for them to pick up than other business skills. Additionally 53% of those surveyed stated they felt they were “too old” to learn data skills (qualitative research on the same leaders shows what they’re really saying is “data is too hard”).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Executives know they need to pick up data skills to stay competitive in the workplace yet resist doing so because of the perceived difficulty. For companies, investing in data skills training programs is a way to upskill their workforces with skills that executives may not pick up on their own.

    Demand for data skills continues to rise

    The demand for data skills in the enterprise continues its inexorable rise. If a company’s existing workforce is slow to pick up data skills, companies look to external hires to fill the gaps. This trend is evidenced by job sites where data-related positions are skyrocketing. On LinkedIn, data related jobs dominate the “fastest growing jobs” lists.

    On the Indeed job search engine, the growth in data-related job postings continues. One proxy for this is to look at the rate of job postings for data scientists, which has grown over 50% in just the last 2 years:

    While data science jobs get a lot of publicity as a “hot career,” the reality is data science is not the only data-related career with high growth and demand. Dataquest, a data learning company, notes that jobs as diverse as operations analyst to digital marketing manager all require some level of advanced data skills, are highly demanded by employers, and command high salaries. 

    ***

    At a recent conference, Morgan Stanley CTO of Infrastructure Tsvi Gal stated “We [may be] in banking, but we live and die on information…. Data analytics is the oxygen of Wall Street.” As more traditional industries compete on the basis of gleaning insights from data, the demand for data literate executives will continue to rise. The dominant companies of the 21st century may not just be those that use data most effectively, but those who successfully retrain their existing workforce to effectively compete in a world where data is eating everything.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 23:35

  • Vindicated 'FX Cartel' Trader Accuses Citi Of Trying To "Frame" Him, Sues For $112 Million
    Vindicated ‘FX Cartel’ Trader Accuses Citi Of Trying To “Frame” Him, Sues For $112 Million

    Six years after prosecutors in New York and London cracked down on Citigroup, JPM, Deutsche Bank and a handful of others in the so-called foreign exchange “cartel” case – the sequel to the persecution of banks for rigging benchmark interest rates (most notably Libor) to benefit their own positions – one of the traders who just barely escaped a lengthy jail term for his alleged role in the plot is fighting back against the bank he said spread lies about him and deliberately tried to “frame” him.

    In yet another market manipulation case that could have “potentially profound implications for the way banks and regulators treat individuals connected to allegations of industry-wide wrongdoing”, the former head of Citigroup’s European FX trading desk is suing his former employer for throwing him under the bus, the FT reports. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Rohan Ramchandani

    The trader, Rohan Ramchandani, claimed in a civil suit filed in New York on Wednesday that Citi “singled him out” for “intense scrutiny” from US and UK regulators. Ramchandani’s lawyers described the alleged plot as a “secret scheme” to “dirty up” their client’s name.

    After accusing Citi of using him as a human shield to absorb scrutiny as the scandal unfurled, Ramchandani’s legal team said their client is seeking ~$112 million in damages. Even though he was acquitted in a criminal trial that wrapped up late last year (three years after Citi reached a $1.3 billion settlement with the DoJ and the Fed over the allegations), Ramchandani says he has struggled to find another job in finance.

    “Employers should not be allowed to throw innocent employees under the bus, nor to play judge, jury and executioner, in an attempt to limit their corporate liability,” Ramchandani said in a statement to the FT.

    Later, the lawsuit reads:

    “Citi quite literally fabricated an antitrust case for the DoJ against Ramchandani based upon knowingly false allegations that he engaged in market manipulation and collusion.”

    In response, the bank dismissed Ramchandani’s claims as being “without merit,” and vowed to “contest them vigorously.”

    If Ramchandani had been convicted, he would have spent more than a decade in prison. Fortunately for him, he didn’t pursue a plea deal and was correct in his conviction that he would be acquitted (which he was).

    In his lawsuit, Ramchandani describes how Citi “knowingly” pushed the DoJ to pursue a criminal case against him, even “without probable cause” in a bid by the bank to shield itself from prosecution. Moreover, a former lawyer for Citi and Ramchandani’s boss both claimed that he had done nothing wrong. The lawyer even described him as “collateral damage”.

    What’s worse, Citi’s press office was also involved in a smear campaign against Ramchandani, coordinating “negative leaks” about him to try and deflect scrutiny away from Citi. Ramchandani’s former boss Jeff Feig, who has since left the bank, wrote to him during the trial to say he was “shocked and appalled” by the whole affair. Feig added that he was “praying the jury sees your innocence.”

    Ramchandani was indicted in early 2017 alongside a former Barclays trader and a former JPM trader. All three men were indicted over their involvement in the ‘cartel’ case, and a New York grand jury approved all three indictments, despite the fact that all three men had been living and working in London for most of their careers. The three traders all voluntarily surrendered to American authorities.

    At the time, authorities claimed the three men used an online chatroom dubbed “the Cartel” to coordinate their market manipulation. The scandal had erupted four years earlier in 2013; the three traders weren’t the first to be arrested, and Citi used the complaint against Ramchandani as the basis for its own guilty plea. Most of the traders later claimed that the chatroom was dubbed “the Cartel” in jest.

    by the spring of 2015, Citigroup had reached a settlement with regulators in the UK and US: The bank agreed to pay a total of more than $2 billion in fines. It also joined four other major banks in submitting to a parent-level guilty plea.

    But by basing its admissions of guilt on Ramchandani’s alleged wrongdoings, Citi managed to avoid a class-action lawsuit and protect its ability to continue participating in US markets.

    Which means: Whatever amount the bank must expend settling Ramchandani’s claims will have been worth it, seeing as the alternative – that is, not using him as a pariah during the ‘cartel’ case – could have resulted in serious repercussion.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 23:15

  • Central Bankers Go Green… Why?
    Central Bankers Go Green… Why?

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    I was told many depressing things as a child.

    Watching World Vision infomercials educating the west to the want and misery suffered by millions of children in the third world, I wasn’t alone in asking adults “why”? When I enjoyed all the comforts of food security, electricity and running water, why were these other children living in poverty? I know that I was not the only bewildered child to receive the shallow response that I did from family and teachers when I was told that this “simply is the way it is”. At best, we privileged few in the 1st world could hope that $1/day would alleviate their pain, but really there was no great solution.

    Later in life, as my closest friends found themselves enmeshed in university political science and economic programs, the innocent curiosity that recognized injustice for what it was not only died under the weight of materialist theories of human nature which their parents paid good money to feed them, but upon leaving school, those same friends actually became witting accomplices in that very system which their youthful hearts recognized as wrong so many years earlier. Since humanity was intrinsically selfish and our economic system so immutable, the best we could hope for was success in life and enjoy being on the receiving end of destiny.

    Again, I know that I’m not alone in this experience, as tens of millions of citizens took to the streets all around the world on September 27 to march for the earth, repulsed by corrupt consumerism and celebrating the advent of a Green New Deal.

    This activation of “people power” driven by such institutions as the Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for the Future and the young Greta Thunberg could never have occurred had not a deep sense of injustice and malaise not already been festering in our collective hearts. That sense of injustice and malaise connects us to our deepest humanity and is a purity which unites each of us in a field of compassion with the whole of which we are but parts, and should be celebrated and protected at all costs.

    In spite of that purity something much darker showed its ugly face on September 27 which used that inherent goodness to its dark advantage. It is that dark something that I would like to discuss.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    You Know Something Isn’t Right When…

    The first clue as to the ugly problem can be found in the simple fact that leading central bankers had already issued a call for the same new green banking system which Greta and the countless masses also demanded long before Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for the Future or There is No Time were ever created.

    While officially announced on September 22nd at the opening of the UN Climate Summit in NY, a Central Banker’s Climate Compact was unveiled under the leadership of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney that had already been in the works for over 18 months representing over 130 of the world’s largest and corrupt banks calling for a radical decarbonisation of the world economy by 2/3 according to commitments laid out in the 2015 Paris Climate accord.

    Bank of England head and Chair of the Bank of International Settlement’s Financial Stability Board (2011-2018) Mark Carney announced at this venue that “climate disclosures must become comprehensive, climate risk management must be transformed and sustainable investing must go mainstream”. Carney then took on a more threatening tone by saying “the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.

    Now Mark Carney has been hailed by the environmental lobby as the leading “eco-warrior” of central bankers and those doing the hailing seem to rarely take notice of the blatant fact that the person who sits atop the technocratic power structure that has given rise to the world’s greatest economic and environmental injustices for decades is also the person designing how this dysfunctional world is supposed to be restructured.

    So how do Carney and his fellow hive of central bankers propose the world transform?

    The New Green System Becomes…

    For starters, Carney believes that a new global reserve currency must replace the U.S. Dollar.

    What should this post-dollar system be based upon? Well, as of August 23, during a central bankers’ summit in Jackson Hole Missouri, Carney stated that it should be modelled on Facebook’s cryptocurrency the Libra, which is scheduled to start issuance by early next year. Unlike the Libra however, Carney’s cryptocurrency will be entirely controlled by private banking institutions and totally removed from sovereign nation states, which are just too influenced by short term political interests rather than an “enlightened technocratic elite” who know how to truly think long term.

    Knowing that China’s Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly becoming the foundation for a viable new economic order, and knowing that the financial oligarchy’s monopoly over world finance will come undone if that were so, Carney also warned that a crypto-digital currency is the only way to stop the Renminbi from becoming the US dollar’s replacement. Carney called his digital solution to be a “synthetic hegemonic currency… through a network of central bank digital currencies” which would base their value upon new standards not existent in the 1971-2019 globalized model.

    Redefining value

    In a 2015 Lloyds of London Speech preceding the Paris COP21 Climate summit, Carney stated “the desirability of restricting climate change to two degrees above pre-industrial levels leads to the notion of a carbon “budget”- an assessment of the amount of emissions the world can “afford”.

    This statement essentially defines the parameters which Greta and her minions of green followers are being induced to call for as a new “post-consumerist” world of monetary valuation while actually merely destroying what little remains of a middle class and empowering an already entrenched oligarchy.

    Like all good lies, this one hinges upon a truth.

    Carney and the green new dealers recognize that pure “market demand” has totally failed as a standard of assessing “value” of money or any other primary asset in our economy. $4.5 trillion of currency speculation grows like a cancer every day without any positive payback to the real economy while $700 trillion of derivatives hover like a Damocles sword over the world waiting to fall at any moment that “market confidence” disappears as it did in 2007.

    But after that truth is acknowledged, what does the “carbon budget” entail which professes to somehow lower the world temperature to within two degrees of pre-industrial temperatures which we must assume to be a solution to an under-defined problem?

    According to the Green New Deal proposed by Carney and his allies, in order to bring world carbon dioxide production down to net zero emissions by 2050 as demanded by COP21, several things must happen.

    • Green bonds must be expanded en masse, in the similar fashion that victory bonds were created in WW2 to pay for the growth of industry needed to battle Hitler. In this 21st century version of course, it is the Bank of International Settlements which financed Nazism which today wishes to define how the new victory bonds will behave. Rather than finance industrial and scientific growth as occurred in the 1940s, these new bonds promise to shrink it. The associated constraints upon humanity’s ability to support its 7 billion lives is not lost to some cold hearted technocrats and their aristocratic managers at the top.

    • In reducing industrial growth through the transition from a carbon-based society towards a “green” energy- fueled society of windmills and solar panels, carbon footprints must be diminished. The degree to which humanity diminishes its carbon footprints is the degree to which Carney and his masters promise to reward economic players with monetary profit. Again this is the very opposite process when compared to the 1938-1971 system of industrial growth which tied dollar values to the growth of the REAL economy (agriculture, industry, science and technology) which tied money to the betterment of human life.

    • Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade mechanisms must become hegemonic which then creates measurable values for the reduction of humanity’s carbon footprint.

    Embarrassingly Bad Science

    By acting on a purely emotional state of fear and panic as Greta demands we do, Carney-ite technocrats hope that no one bothers to shine light upon the blatant scientific fallacies underlying the entire “green new deal” which the Bank of England is proposing the world adopt.

    We must ignore the fact that the “99% of scientists who all agree that global warming is caused by human activity” is really only based upon a survey of 79 anonymous scientists (77 of whom believed in the claim).

    We must believe that it has been proven that CO2 is a cause of climate variation, even though all long term measurements of climate and temperature indicate that CO2 follows rather than precedes temperature changes.

    We must also believe that this reduction in humanity’s contribution of CO2 to the entire greenhouse effect (which accounts for less than 0.1% of the total) would have any impact whatsoever upon a 2 degree reduction of the global mean temperature from pre-industrial levels (which we have no ability to assess anyway).

    We must ultimately assume that perpetual economic growth is a delusion which only fools believe in and that population growth is a problem which must be corrected by a technocratic elite who have the “stomachs to handle the bloodletting”.

    Breaking out of our Carrying Capacity

    The fact is that there has always been a carrying capacity to humanity and no one should try to deny that reality.

    What green technocrats hate to admit is that humanity’s carrying capacity is very different from that found among all other species of life in the biosphere.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While other species find their population potential limited by genetic traits, and environmental constraints, humanity alone can transcend those material limits by leaping into the creative realm of discovery both in the sciences as well as in the arts. The fruits of humanity’s discoveries as outlined in Abraham Lincoln’s brilliant speech On Discoveries and Inventions (1860) is entirely connected to our unbounded capacity for scientific and technological progress.

    The reality of the coherence between mankind’s creative powers and the creative power shaping the universe as a whole has been a powerful concept identified millennia ago by Plato, St. Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa and his followers Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin and Friedrich Schiller. Its expression (though not always fully understood by those acting upon it) has been the object of hate and fear by an entrenched oligarchy which has launched innumerable wars, assassinations and regime changes to prevent its awakening.

    The New Silk Road… Not the Green New Deal

    Today, Russia and China have recognized this necessity of unbounded human progress and are fully committed to integrating their economies into an “alternative” financial system centered on the Belt and Road Initiative. While 135 other nations have increasingly joined in this new system, the oligarchy which signs Carney’s paycheques is well aware that a USA under the control of a president who says “the future belongs to patriots, not globalists” creates an intolerable risk that may re-orient America towards this new system and that cannot be tolerated.

    Most importantly, when one truly inspects the Belt and Road Initiative’s accomplishments both in Asia as well as Africa and the Middle East, it becomes apparent that the only system which truly has the means to not only replace our bankrupt order while also eliminating war, environmental destruction and squalor is tied directly to what China has built and which has already pulled over 800 million souls out of poverty. NASA even recently confirmed that earth’s biomass grew by 10% entirely because of India and China’s commitment to industrial progress- overturning the foolish notion that economic growth and environmental health must always be at odds.

    This is the system which existed only as a dream unknown to most in the west as I watched World Vision programs encouraging me to beg my mother to give $1/day to a kid in Guatemala whose life had been destroyed by that same system which today threatens to destroy what little is left of the third world through a Green New Deal.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 22:55

  • NeedWork: WeWork Expands Executive Purge Of Neumann Allies
    NeedWork: WeWork Expands Executive Purge Of Neumann Allies

    The management purge that began with the firing of former We Company CEO Adam Neumann has gone international, Bloomberg reports.

    WeWork has named a new head for its Japanese operations, replacing Chris Hill, who led Japanese operations for the company since it entered the market in 2017. Hill also served as ‘chief product officer’ at WeWork’s parent, the We Company, and has long been seen as a close ally of Neumann’s. He will be replaced by Kazuyuki Sasaki, a former managing director at WeWork Japan.

    The management turnover comes as landlords cool to the idea of renting to the company, which could run out of money as soon as next year without the capital infusion that its now-cancelled IPO was supposed to provide. Earlier this week, BBG reported that WeWork had pulled out of a deal to rent office space at Central Quay, an office block in Dublin’s docklands neighborhood.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hill is one of several executives who are leaving the company now that Neumann has stepped down from the CEO role (he’s still chairman of the board). Neumann stepped aside in a desperate attempt to assuage investors’ concerns about WeWork’s governance, though the company abandoned its IPO anyway. Hill had a family connection: He’s Neumann’s brother-in-law.

    WeWork hasn’t broken down revenues by region, but Japan is one of the company’s most important markets, if only because it’s the home of the company’s biggest investor: SoftBank, the Japanese telecoms giant with a VC arm attached. SoftBank and its Vision Fund have together poured nearly $11 billion into the We Company (the firm was also reportedly behind WeWork’s decision to abandon its IPO and its CEO).

    SoftBank also reportedly put up another $500 million for a 50% stake for the Japanese joint venture with WeWork. Using that money, WeWork Japan expanded into 21 locations across five cities in just 20 months (the firm is also reportedly designing SoftBank’s new headquarters on the waterfront in Tokyo).

    Per BBG, the management purge has also claimed several other members of Neumann’s inner circle: including Michael Gross and Wendy Silverstein, the company’s vice chairman and co-head of its real estate investment arm, respectively. Neumann’s wife, Rebekah Paltrow Neumann, also departed the company after a stint as its “chief brand” and “chief impact” officer.

    In a separate report, BBG revealed that WeWork is trying to repair its hard-partying reputation by toning down the launch party for its new European headquarters in London’s Waterloo district, where the company is preparing to open what it has billed as “the largest co-working space in the world.”

    The launch ‘event’ will include food and drinks and run for ‘a couple of hours’ said one of BBG‘s sources, unlike previous WeWork parties, which sometimes continued late into the night, with copious amounts of drugs consumed.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 22:35

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 2nd October 2019

  • Norway Unexpectedly Pulls $400 Million From Sovereign Wealth Fund
    Norway Unexpectedly Pulls $400 Million From Sovereign Wealth Fund

    While analysts focus on rumors that Germany might be heading toward fiscal stimulus, another Northern European economic powerhouse might already be preparing for a government spending spree.

    According to Bloomberg, which cited data from the Norwegian Treasury, the biggest oil and gas producer in Western Europe unexpectedly withdrew 3.6 billion kroner ($395 million) from its $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund, one of the biggest piles of capital in the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This marked the first time money has ever been withdrawn from the fund, which was set up in 2016 to manage Norway’s oil wealth. After oil prices crashed, the fund’s size stagnated. But Norway was able to start depositing money again in June 2018, and, until August, had deposited at least some oil proceeds every month since.

    Then again, the fund’s decisions often take the broader investing community by surprise.

    In an attempt to diversify away from energy, the fund dumped shares of “pure-play exploration companies” (a sizable chunk of its energy-related holdings) earlier this year. The fund also sold EM bonds to make more room for equities, another smart move that has paid off this year.

    Similarly, the decision to withdraw money from the fund last month was particularly unexpected because the Norwegian government said in its latest revised budget that it expected to deposit a total of 34 billion kroner ($3.7 billion) into the fund during 2019. As of August, the fund has seen net inflows of 19.9 billion kroner ($2.2 billion), putting the government slightly behind its goal for the year.

    Although the government refused to comment on the circumstances behind the withdrawal. But one possible motive can be found in the global oil market: Prices tumbled in August, sticking the Norwegian government with a hole in its budget. Benchmark Brent crude hit a seven-month low of about $56 a barrel in early August amid global growth concerns.

    That’s well below the government’s oil-price forecasts from its revised budget. The Norwegian government had forecast prices between $67 and $70 a barrel between August and the rest of the year.

    So, there’s one possible reason. 

    Then again, maybe Norway didn’t decide to pull money out simply to pump back into government services. Perhaps there’s some insight to be gleaned from the fact that the perennially bullish sovereign wealth fund has decided to take some profits?


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 02:45

  • Brexit Isn't David Cameron's Legacy… Libya Is!
    Brexit Isn’t David Cameron’s Legacy… Libya Is!

    Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

    The MSM’s total disregard for the apocalyptic destruction of the most developed nation in Africa is a crime…

    “The strong man with the dagger is followed by the weak man with the sponge.”

    – Lord Acton

    David Cameron has a book out. You’ve probably heard. There’s a lot of press coverage. The BBC did a retrospective documentary about him to coincide with it, The Guardian had a review of the book, a review of the documentary, and an interview with the man himself.

    Oh, and then another article about how it’s selling less well than Blair’s biography.

    This is obviously just about journalists reporting the news, you understand.

    It is absolutely not at all a mass marketing strategy camouflaged as “current events”.

    Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

    Naturally, as is always the case when ex-Prime Ministers make appearances or churn out autobiographies, there is plenty of talk about “legacy”.

    Well…what is David Cameron’s legacy?

    The media are pretty clear: Brexit.

    The BBC documentary is entitled The Cameron Years. It’s in two parts, somehow bloated out to two whole hours in runtime, and is only concerned with the Brexit vote. The first part is entirely dedicated to it, that’s literally all it’s about, with the second half being more general, but still very Brexit-centric.

    The reviews of the book are no better. In fact they are worse.

    The Telegraph liked it, as did the TimesThe Guardian and Independent didn’t, as much, but still praised its “honesty”. They all talk almost entirely about Brexit. Bloomberg headline “David Cameron Wants You to Remember Him for More Than Just Brexit”, pointing out: “The former prime minister’s new memoir, For the Record, spends just 50 of 700 pages on the disastrous referendum”…before going on to review just those fifty pages.

    In fact, I’ve read over half-a-dozen reviews of this book, and none of them talks about anything but Brexit.

    There is not a single use of the word “Libya” in any of them. Not anywhere. Not in even in passing.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Not. One. Single. Use.

    For those of you foggy on the details, Libya was a place that used to look like this:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    …and now looks like this:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    You would think that the total and complete destruction of the most developed nation on the African continent would warrant at least brief discussion in the “legacy” of the Prime Minister responsible but, apparently, you would be wrong.

    (I know we’re only Britain, and we only do what America tells us, but “Only following orders” didn’t work for Goering and probably shouldn’t work for anybody else. Cameron included).

    The press silence on Libya is on another level.

    They grudgingly discuss Iraq as a “mistake” or “blunder”, they carry on their insane propaganda-war on Syria with fresh gusto every few months (or whenever they need a distraction), but Libya…Libya is the country that must not be named.

    Take Jonathan Freedland. He was ALL OVER Libya back in 2011. He campaigned for NATO to do something, preaching about the West’s “responsibility to protect”. Does he mention Libya once in his review of this book? Nope.

    He even has the gall to open the piece with this:

    Just as the 700 pages of Tony Blair’s autobiography could not escape the shadow of Iraq, so the 700 pages of David Cameron’s memoir are destined to be read through a single lens: Brexit.

    As if his decision to totally disregard a war crime he not only apologised for, but cheerfully encouraged, was somehow just fate and totally beyond his control.

    That’s probably got something to do with the organ trafficking and open-air slave markets.

    This was no accident, you understand, Libya is exactly what NATO set-out to make it – a failed state where absolutely everything is for sale. A true capitalist paradise. But discussing that would make it harder to sell “R2P” in the future.

    Better to just endlessly rant on about Brexit instead.

    Now, obviously, Brexit is (potentially) an important decision for the fate of the country. You can’t deny that.

    BUT – let’s be real here – Even IF we leave the EU (and right now that is far from guaranteed), and even IF our leaving is as bad as the worst doom-sayers are predicting, London isn’t going to end up like this…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    ….or this:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    ….or this:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And at the end of the day, THAT is Cameron’s legacy.

    Just as it’s the legacy of the all slimy apologists who cheered him on, and the narrow-minded, self-centred xenophobes who clean up after him.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 02:00

  • Guns-For-Hire: No, The Government Shouldn't Be Using The Military To Police The Globe
    Guns-For-Hire: No, The Government Shouldn’t Be Using The Military To Police The Globe

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

    Eventually, all military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and spending themselves to death.

    It happened in Rome.

    It’s happening again.

    At the height of its power, even the mighty Roman Empire could not stare down a collapsing economy and a burgeoning military. Prolonged periods of war and false economic prosperity largely led to its demise. As historian Chalmers Johnson predicts:

    The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire.

    The American Empire—with its endless wars waged by U.S. military servicepeople who have been reduced to little more than guns for hire: outsourced, stretched too thin, and deployed to far-flung places to police the globe—is approaching a breaking point.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    War has become a huge money-making venture, and America, with its vast military empire and its incestuous relationship with a host of international defense contractors, is one of its best buyers and sellers. In fact, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.”

    Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. military is dropping a bomb every 12 minutes.

    This follows on the heels of President Obama, the so-called antiwar candidate and Nobel Peace Prize winner who waged war longer than any American president and whose targeted-drone killings resulted in at least 1.3 million lives lost to the U.S.-led war on terror.

    Most recently, the Trump Administration signaled its willingness to put the lives of American troops on the line in order to guard Saudi Arabia’s oil resources. Roughly 200 American troops will join the 500 troops already stationed in Saudi Arabia. That’s in addition to the 60,000 U.S. troops that have been deployed throughout the Middle East for decades.

    As The Washington Post points out, “The United States is now the world’s largest producer — and its reliance on Saudi imports has dropped dramatically, including by 50 percent in the past two years alone.”

    So if we’re not protecting the oil for ourselves, whose interests are we protecting?

    The military industrial complex is calling the shots, of course, and profit is its primary objective.

    The military-industrial complex is also the world’s largest employer.

    America has long had a penchant for endless wars that empty our national coffers while fattening those of the military industrial complex.

    Aided and abetted by the U.S government, the American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.

    Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined. Indeed, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

    Unfortunately, this level of war-mongering doesn’t come cheap to the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill.

    Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $32 million per hour.

    In fact, the U.S. government has spent more money every five seconds in Iraq than the average American earns in a year.

    With more than 800 U.S. military bases in 80 countries, the U.S. is now operating in 40 percent of the world’s nations at a cost of $160 to $200 billion annually.

    Despite the fact that Congress has only officially declared war eleven times in the nation’s short history, the last time being during World War II, the United States has been at war for all but 21 of the past 243 years.

    It’s cost the American taxpayer more than $4.7 trillion since 2001 to fight the government’s so-called “war on terrorism.” That’s in addition to “$127 billion in the last 17 years to train police, military and border patrol agents in many countries and to develop antiterrorism education programs, among other activities.” That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the 800-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe.

    The cost of perpetuating those endless wars and military exercises around the globe is expected to push the total bill upwards of $12 trillion by 2053.

    The U.S. government is spending money it doesn’t have on a military empire it can’t afford.

    As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card, “essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

    War is not cheap, but it becomes outrageously costly when you factor in government incompetence, fraud, and greedy contractors.

    For example, a leading accounting firm concluded that one of the Pentagon’s largest agencies “can’t account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending.”

    Unfortunately, the outlook isn’t much better for the spending that can be tracked.

    Consider that the government lost more than $160 billion to waste and fraud by the military and defense contractors. With paid contractors often outnumbering enlisted combat troops, the American war effort dubbed as the “coalition of the willing” has quickly evolved into the “coalition of the billing,” with American taxpayers forced to cough up billions of dollars for cash bribes, luxury bases, a highway to nowhere, faulty equipment, salaries for so-called “ghost soldiers,” and overpriced anything and everything associated with the war effort, including a $640 toilet seat and a $7600 coffee pot.

    A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As the report noted, the American taxpayer paid:

    $71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000 percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.

    That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control “we the people” have over our runaway government.

    There’s a good reason why “bloated,” “corrupt” and “inefficient” are among the words most commonly applied to the government, especially the Department of Defense and its contractors. Price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire.

    It’s not just the American economy that is being gouged, unfortunately.

    Driven by a greedy defense sector, the American homeland has been transformed into a battlefield with militarized police and weapons better suited to a war zone. Trump, no different from his predecessors, has continued to expand America’s military empire abroad and domestically, calling on Congress to approve billions more to hire cops, build more prisons and wage more profit-driven war-on-drugs/war-on-terrorism/war-on-crime programs that pander to the powerful money interests (military, corporate and security) that run the Deep State and hold the government in its clutches.

    Mind you, this isn’t just corrupt behavior. It’s deadly, downright immoral behavior.

    Essentially, in order to fund this burgeoning military empire that polices the globe, the U.S. government is prepared to bankrupt the nation, jeopardize our servicemen and women, increase the chances of terrorism and blowback domestically, and push the nation that much closer to eventual collapse.

    Making matters worse, taxpayers are being forced to pay $1.4 million per hour to provide U.S. weapons to countries that can’t afford them. As Mother Jones reports, the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Finance program “opens the way for the US government to pay for weapons for other countries—only to ‘promote world peace,’ of course—using your tax dollars, which are then recycled into the hands of military-industrial-complex corporations.”

    Clearly, our national priorities are in desperate need of an overhauling.

    As Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez rightly asks:

    Why throw money at defense when everything is falling down around us? Do we need to spend more money on our military (about $600 billion this year) than the next seven countries combined? Do we need 1.4 million active military personnel and 850,000 reserves when the enemy at the moment — ISIS — numbers in the low tens of thousands? If so, it seems there’s something radically wrong with our strategy. Should 55% of the federal government’s discretionary spending go to the military and only 3% to transportation when the toll in American lives is far greater from failing infrastructure than from terrorism? Does California need nearly as many active military bases (31, according to militarybases.com) as it has UC and state university campuses (33)? And does the state need more active duty military personnel (168,000, according to Governing magazine) than public elementary school teachers (139,000)?

    The illicit merger of the global armaments industry and the Pentagon that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against more than 50 years ago has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation’s fragile infrastructure today.

    The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.

    This is exactly the scenario Eisenhower warned against when he cautioned the citizenry not to let the profit-driven war machine endanger our liberties or democratic processes:

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

    We failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning.

    The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.

    What we have is a confluence of factors and influences that go beyond mere comparisons to Rome. It is a union of Orwell’s 1984 with its shadowy, totalitarian government—i.e., fascism, the union of government and corporate powers—and a total surveillance state with a military empire extended throughout the world.

    This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the growth of and reliance on militarism as the solution for our problems both domestically and abroad bodes ill for the constitutional principles which form the basis of the American experiment in freedom.

    After all, a military empire ruled by martial law does not rely on principles of equality and justice for its authority but on the power of the sword. As author Aldous Huxley warned: “Liberty cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.”


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/02/2019 – 00:05

  • The U.S. Cities With The Most Homeless People
    The U.S. Cities With The Most Homeless People

    Over half a million Americans are facing the prospect of being homeless this holiday season.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, after a period of progress and decline, the U.S. homeless population has increased slightly for the second year in succession according to a report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It now stands at 553,000 with 65 percent of that total living in sheltered accommodation. 17 out of every 10,000 people in the U.S. has now experienced homelessness on a single night in 2018.

    Half of all homeless people are in one of five states – California (129,972), New York (91,897), Florida (31,030), Texas (25,310) and Washington (22,304). It is primarily an urban issue and more than half of the homeless population are scattered across the country’s 50 biggest cities. Nearly a quarter of them live in just two cities – New York and Los Angeles. Despite its considerable homeless population, New York can at least claim that 65 percent of its rough sleepers are given sheltered accommodation. The same cannot be said of Los Angeles where 75 percent are out on the street.

    The following infographic shows the top-10 worst cities for homelessness across the U.S. with New York in first place with 78,676.

    Infographic: The U.S. Cities With The Most Homeless People | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    It’s important to mention that in this comparison, the data is broken down by CoC – those are Continuums of Care that are local planning bodies coordinating responses to the issue. Los Angeles is in second place with nearly 50,000 while Seattle/King County comes third with 12,112.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 23:45

  • 5 Unanswered Questions That Remain 2 Years After The Vegas Shooting
    5 Unanswered Questions That Remain 2 Years After The Vegas Shooting

    Authored by Matt Agorist via The Free Thought Project,

    It has been exactly two years since Stephen Paddock allegedly busted out the windows of his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Casino Hotel and opened fire on concert goers below. In total, 58 people would be slaughtered and hundreds of others injured. Sadly, in all the time and all the police state tactics and technology at their fingertips, investigators are still unable to even come close as to why Paddock did what he did. With questions unanswered and families and victims still seeking information, the FBI officially closed their investigation earlier this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “It wasn’t about MGM, Mandalay Bay or a specific casino or venue,” said Aaron Rouse, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Las Vegas office when the FBI closed the case in January.

    “It was all about doing the maximum amount of damage and him obtaining some form of infamy.”

    Paddock, according to the FBI’s official story, acted alone and murdered dozens to simply go down in history.

    Before the FBI closed their investigation, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo declared the case closed as well and vowed never to speak Paddock’s name in public again. Like the FBI, the LVMPD closed their investigation without ever finding a motive and leaving countless questions unanswered.

    The Vegas massacre, which is now referred to as 1 October, has only gotten stranger as things progress. Following the tragedy, law enforcement engaged in a series of narrative changes, deliberate blocking of information, and appeared to be working directly with the casino to make sure Americans never know the entire truth.

    For months after the shooting, the LVMPD refused to release any information. Only after they fought the release all the way to the state supreme court, and were handed down a ruling forcing them to release information, did they ever budge.

    However, after the court forced them to release information on the October 1 massacre, the Las Vegas police department—in an insultingly futile attempt at transparency—randomly began dumping information related to the shooting. In what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters, much of the video released by the department had no time stamps and was provided without context.

    Luckily, outlets like the Las Vegas Review-Journal were persistent in scrubbing the details of this case. However, because the mainstream media no longer reports on this information, it was essentially buried upon its release. The Free Thought Project has compiled a list of five major questions — all of which were swept under the rug by the MSM — that still remain in regards to what actually took place on 1 October.

    1. Report suggests Paddock’s girlfriend worked for the FBI

    In August 2018, a report surfaced suggesting that Stephan Paddock’s girlfriend, Marilou Danley could’ve been an FBI asset. According to a credit application, as reported by True PunditDanley listed the FBI as an employer.

    According to the publicly available intelligence obtained from a consumer credit reporting bureau, Danley claimed she previously worked at the FBI. While anyone can certainly claim anyone else as an employer, according to True Pundit, they contacted the FBI who said their “bosses are concerned” over this revelation.

    When contacted, one FBI source said the Bureau “might have made payments to Danley but it is above my level,” the source said referring to access to the FBI’s confidential informant participant and payment records. The source said “bosses are concerned” with the new revelations about Danley’s financial relationship with the FBI.

    In FBI speak, Danley could have been a paid asset. And ‘concerned’ means folks are getting ready to cover their own butts if payments were made to Danley either before or after the massacre.

    Perhaps FBI Director Christopher Wray can shed light on the matter.

    Or Danley. If you can find her. It took the FBI days to locate her and interview her after the Mandalay Bay massacre.

    Danley is an Australian national. She is not a U.S. citizen.

    Of course this bombshell Intel is coming from FBI sources in the beltway, not the corrupt Las Vegas FBI field office headed by Aaron Rouse. The same FBI field office that has not been able to pinpoint a motive for the Oct. 1, 2017 massacre that killed 57 people.

    Little wonder why the narrative doesn’t fit the crime if the person whose fingerprints are on the ammunition also happens to be on your FBI payroll.

    Why did the mainstream media never report this? In a case that has been shrouded in mystery and narrative changes, the idea that the person closest to the suspect in the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, could possibly be an asset to the FBI, is chilling.

    2. Officers seen on body camera footage cowering in fear as Paddock murdered people one floor above them

    When Nikolas Cruz opened fire on students in a Parkland, Florida high school, it would later be revealed that the school resource officer cowered in fear instead of trying to stop the massacre. When this was discovered, news media across the country reported on it and the officer subsequently became known as the “Coward of Broward.”

    However, when similar footage showed Vegas police officers cowering in fear as Paddock mowed down concert goers, this barely registered as blip in the media.

    The damning video puts officer Cordell Hendrex on location and only one floor below Paddock during the shooting. Hendrex and his rookie partner are seen on camera walking down the hall of the 31st floor as Paddock murders people on the ground below.

    “Holy f**k,” Hendrex says when he hears the sound of shots above him. Hendrex could’ve run to the stairs, gone up a single floor and engaged Paddock and saved countless lives. Instead, he called everyone back and cowered in fear. Where were the calls for Hendrex to be fired? Where were the reports in the mainstream about him standing down?

    3. Paddock Reportedly Warned His Brain was ‘Hacked’ and He Was Under Gov’t Control

    Last year, shocking information surfaced that went largely ignored by the mainstream media. The report entails testimony from one of Paddock’s high-priced escorts who blew the whistle on how a prostitute who met with the deranged shooter just before the massacre went missing and noted how Paddock thought he was under the control of the government.

    The escort was reported missing by her boyfriend just after the shooting and a former escort who once dated Paddock spoke out about the sheer insanity involved in this case.

    “She was telling girls after work that she was scared something would happen to her,” claimed former escort Mikaela, whose full name was withheld to protect her identity according to Radar Online. “She was booked the day before or the day of the shooting before she disappeared.”

    According to her testimony, Paddock claimed to be a government experiment.

    “There’s messages where Stephen is telling her he’s a government experiment and that they are listening to everything he says and does, and they can hack into his brain and take over,” Mikaela said.

    This information was simply ignored by the media and still is to this day, why is that?

    4. Information suggesting Paddock was an arms dealer completely ignored by MSM

    In August 2018, the arms dealer who admitted to selling Paddock his ammunition for the massacre was indicted. Douglas Haig was charged with a single count of “engaging in the business of manufacturing ammunition without a license.”

    What makes his arrest so noteworthy is the fact that emails released by the FBI suggest Paddock may have been an arms dealer as well.

    As The Free Thought Project reported in 2017, a series of unsealed court documents gave insight into Paddocks communications in the months leading up to the shooting, and revealed that he apparently referred to himself as some kind of arms dealer:

    In the first message, Paddock claimed that the recipient would have the opportunity to try out the weapons before they purchased them. He then wrote “We have huge selection,” indicating that he was not working alone, and he said he was located “in the Las Vegas area.”

    ***

    the email exchanges released by the FBI indicate that Paddock was presenting himself as some sort of arms dealer, sending an email that said, for a thrill try out bumpfire ar’s with a 100 round magazine.”

    Again, although the original emails made it into the mainstream briefly, the question remains as to who Paddock was selling arms to, and is that why he had so much ammunition in his hotel room?

    5. Vegas police seen on video being instructed to turn off their body cameras

    In June of last year, in part of the random dumping of information by the LVMPD, video footage was discovered which showed officers being told to turn off their body cameras.

    According to the chatter captured on the video, the strike team was prepping to enter the hotel.

    “Officers are waiting. They’re waiting,” says a male voice off screen. “Officers are waiting to get in there.”

    As police stand in line waiting to enter the hotel, multiple body cameras show a female officer walking down the rows, instructing the officers to turn off their cameras.

    “Cameras are off? Cameras off? Cameras are off?” she says.

    An officer repeats “Camera is off,” and each video ends.

    The disabling of body cameras is against the LVMPD’s own regulations which is news enough. However, this was done on the night of the deadliest mass shooting in recent history and it was completely ignored. How can that be?

    The more information that comes out on the horrific events of that fateful night, the more questions the public has. The uncooperative behavior by the Las Vegas Metropolitan police department was a kick in the teeth to the victims and their families. Sadly, now that all the authorities investigating the tragedy have ended their investigations, we may never know all the details that led to shooting.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 23:25

  • How Military Spending Has Changed Since 2009
    How Military Spending Has Changed Since 2009

    China has celebrated 70 years of Communist Party rule by holding a massive military parade in Tiananmen Square in front of past and present leaders. Even though the event has been somewhat overshadowed by protests in Hong Kong, it still allowed China to showcase its technological achievements and newfound military prowess. 15,000 soldiers marched in the parade, accompanied by tanks, artillery pieces and nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, as well as a military flyover.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China has increased investment in its military in recent years, seeking to replace its outdated Soviet equipment and turn the PLA into a state-of-the-art force by 2049.

    As Statista’s Nialll McCarthy notes, the push for modernization occurred at the same time the United States was mired in two bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though no country comes close to matching U.S. military expenditure which came to $649 billion last year (China was second with $250 billion), Beijing had the highest increase of any country by far between 2009 and 2018, according to Sipri.

    Infographic: How Military Spending Has Changed Since 2009 | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    During that timeframe, China upped its expenditure by 83 percent and the results of that could be seen on the streets of Beijing during the parade. Even Saudi Arabia, which has been splurging on military equipment for years, “only” increased its military spending by 28 percent during the same period. Russia is also in the midst of a modernization drive and its spending increased 29 percent since 2009.

    Meanwhile, U.S. military spending has fallen 17 percent over the past decade, a downward trend President Trump is keen to halt amid the push for modernization and expansion in both Beijing and Moscow.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 23:05

  • 1,015,736,491,184 Reasons To Have A Plan B
    1,015,736,491,184 Reasons To Have A Plan B

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Precisely one year ago today, the US federal government opened Fiscal Year 2019 with a total debt level of $21.6 trillion:

    Specifically, the US federal debt on October 1st last year was $21,606,948,183,180.23

    Today is the start of the government’s 2020 Fiscal Year. And the total debt is now $22,622,684,674,364.43

    That means they accumulated more than $1 TRILLION in new debt over the course of the 2019 Fiscal Year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Think about that for a moment:

    FY2019 was, literally, the BEST year EVER measured by short-term US financial performance.

    The stock market reached an all-time high.

    Real estate prices reached an all-time high.

    Corporate profits are at record highs.

    Personal income is at a record high.

    Unemployment is hovering near an all-time low.

    And all of these factors drove US government tax revenue to an all-time high; Uncle Sam has never had more income in its entire history.

    Plus, there were no major foreign wars or natural disasters.

    No banking crises or economic panics.

    No massive bailouts.

    And if you recall, the US government was shut down for most of the month of January due to a budget conflict, so federal spending was at a minimum for a good chunk of the year.

    Yet despite this bonanza of good news, the national debt STILL increased by more than a trillion dollars!

    HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE??

    Here’s an even more startling way of looking at it:

    • In Fiscal Year 2012, the government spent $359 billion paying interest on its debt.

    • In Fiscal Year 2015 they spent $402 billion.

    • In FY2017, $458 billion.

    • In the Fiscal Year 2019 that just closed yesterday, they spent more than $540 billion just paying INTEREST on the debt.

    Do you see the pattern?

    This problem becomes substantially worse every year. And FY2019 was a GOOD year!

    What’s going to happen when the economic sun isn’t shining so brightly?

    It would be foolish to expect every year to look like Fiscal Year 2019. Honestly, the combination of so much good news and so little bad news in FY19 was pretty rare.

    There absolutely WILL be problems in the future. Recessions, panics, downturns, bear markets, natural disasters, trade wars, military conflicts, debt crises, pension crises, etc.

    Many of these risks are already on the horizon.

    Then you have to think about how quickly the Bolsheviks are storming to power.

    These people want to dump trillions of dollars on the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, free university education, and pretty much everything else that Karl Marx wrote about in the Communist Manifesto.

    How much additional debt are they going to pile up in the process?

    The US government’s mountain of debt already exceeds 100% of GDP, and that number gets worse each year.

    How much longer will everyone keep pretending that the world’s biggest debtor is simultaneously the world’s biggest superpower?

    How much longer will financial markets and foreign governments continue loaning money to the US government at trivial interest rates?

    5 years? 10 years? 13 months until the next election?

    No one knows for sure. But you don’t need a PhD in economics to realize that this might not have a happy ending… or that you might want to think about a Plan B.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 22:45

  • Iowa Town Refuses Federal Request To Remove 'Inclusive' Rainbow Crosswalks
    Iowa Town Refuses Federal Request To Remove ‘Inclusive’ Rainbow Crosswalks

    The city council in Ames, Iowa has chosen to disregard a sharply-worded request from federal officials to remove its rainbow, ‘inclusion-themed’ crosswalks at a downtown intersection, according to the Ames Tribune

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “My only question is, do we need to do anything?” said council member Chris Nelson in response to the letter from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration. “Can we just accept the letter and say thank you?” 

    City Attorney Mark Lambert said that since the request did not ask for a response, written or verbal from the city, council could ignore it.

    “As I said in my memo, (FHWA) couldn’t explain to me how they had jurisdiction over city streets, they were unaware of any penalties, and said they were still research that,” Lambert said. “Frankly, I think that according to the manual itself, there’s a good argument we’re not violating the manual, since there’s no prohibition on colors.” –Ames Tribune

    The crosswalks on Douglas Avenue feature various colors meant to be inclusive of minority groups; rainbows for LGBT, and brown and black for people of color. 

    According to Forbes, the crosswalk to the east of Fifth Street “features gender non-binary pride colors of purple, black, yellow and white, and the crosswalk to the west features transgender pride colors of blue, white and pink.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The September 5 letter received by the city from FHWA assistant division administrator Mark Johnson informed the council that their new crosswalks posed a danger to pedestrians, suggesting they “take the necessary steps to remove the non-compliant crosswalk art as soon as it is feasible.” 

    “The white crosswalk markings allowed are tested and proven to be recognized as a legally marked crossing location for pedestrians,” wrote Johnson. “Crosswalk art diminishes the contrast between the white lines and the pavement, potentially decreasing the effectiveness of the crosswalk markings and the safety of pedestrian traffic.”

    City Attorney Mark Lambert, however, told the Des Moines Register that Fifth Street and Douglas Avenue aren’t federal roads – so they can pound sand. 

    “In terms of jurisdiction, we don’t believe the highway administration has any,” said Lambert, adding “With the system of federalism in the United States, the federal government does not have jurisdiction over everything.” 

    “I note that the FHWA’s letter included a ‘request’ — not a demand — for the city to remove the colored crosswalk markings. This is not a lawful order or demand by a federal agency, it is merely a request.” 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 22:25

  • We're About To Find Life On Mars But The World Is "Not Prepared", NASA Scientist Warns
    We’re About To Find Life On Mars But The World Is “Not Prepared”, NASA Scientist Warns

    Authored by Elias Marat via TheMindUnleashed.com,

    As we humble earthlings begin to learn more about the universe and potentially stand on the cusp of great discoveries about the planet Mars, we may not be prepared for what’s in store of us, warns the chief scientist of U.S. space agency NASA.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dr. Jim Green believes that as two rovers from NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) prepare to embark for Mars next summer, humanity could be overwhelmed by the implications of studies to come.

    Speaking to the Telegraph, the director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division compared the potential discoveries to Rennaissance-era astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus’ theory that postulated that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than vice-versa.

    The Copernican model, which is credited with revolutionizing science during the 16th century, earned him the condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church due to the model’s impact on the Church’s doctrines relating to astronomy.

    “It will start a whole new line of thinking. I don’t think we’re prepared for the results.

    I’ve been worried about that because I think we’re close to finding it and making some announcements.”

    The ESA’s ExoMars Rover and NASA’s Mars 2020 are set to drill 6.5 feet into the Red Planet’s core to take samples in hopes of finding evidence of life on. The samples will be processed and examined in a mobile laboratory that will look for any traces of organic matter.

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

    Green said that if scientists find biosignatures of life in Mars’ crust, a new era of astrobiology could begin.

    “What happens next is a whole new set of scientific questions.

    Is that life like us? How are we related?

    Can life move from planet-to-planet or do we have a spark and just the right environment and that spark generates life – like us or not like us – based on the chemical environment that it is in?”

    NASA’s Mars 2020 rover is set to launch next July before making the 140-million mile trek to Mars and landing on its Jezero Crater in February 2021.

    With two high-definition cameras and a detachable helicopter drone, the rover is set to collect an unprecedented batch of visual data and images of the cavernous and cliffy terrain of Mars.

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

    However, the primary mission of the rover is to find signs of life. Habitable environments and biosignatures left in rock are being sought so that samples can be studied back on earth.

    The latest research has shown that many planets believed to have always been uninhabitable may have once enjoyed conditions suitable for sustaining life. Earlier this year, NASA’s InSight rover found evidence of a potentially vast global reservoir of water on Mars.

    Dr. Green notes that research also suggests the existence of civilizations on other planets. He commented:

     “There is no reason to think that there isn’t civilization elsewhere, because we are finding exoplanets [planets lying beyond the solar system] all over the place.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 22:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 1st October 2019

  • Quantifying The UK's Contribution To The EU
    Quantifying The UK’s Contribution To The EU

    The cost of EU membership has naturally been of particular focus in the UK over the last few years.

    While claims of large sums being freed up for the NHS were shown to be false, Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes that there is still a directly measurable net cost. As new figures from the Office for National Statistics show, the UK’s gross contribution in 2018 was £20 billion.

    Infographic: The UK's contribution to the EU | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    That is before a £4.5 billion rebate is calculated in though, and as this infographic shows, the same amount is channelled back into the country via EU funded public sector credits – examples of which are the £2.2 billion Agricultural Guarantee Fund and the £0.7 billion European Regional Development Fund.

    The net contribution then, is £11 billion.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 02:45

  • Sweden Makes It Legal For Jihadist Migrants To Leave With The Intent Of Committing Terror Acts, Then Return
    Sweden Makes It Legal For Jihadist Migrants To Leave With The Intent Of Committing Terror Acts, Then Return

    Via The Organic Prepper blog,

    We’ve all read about the escalating migrant violence in Sweden’s “no-go” zones and many have posited that the so-called “multicultural invasion” can all be chalked up to religious beliefs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the interview below, a “jihadi” confirms that this is the reason for much of the violent behavior. He himself wants “what is best for” Sweden, and he believes that what is best is “Allah’s rules,” even if they fly in the face of Swedish values.

    “I believe that Allah’s rules should prevail over all other laws.”

    But that’s not all. Watch the shocking video.

    A source in Sweden confirms that this video is accurate but believes that the number of radicalized individuals is likely much higher than 300.

    According to the video, Sweden recently changed its laws, making it legal for migrants to travel abroad with the intention of committing acts of terrorism. You read that correctly – legal. Then the migrants are allowed to return to Sweden.

    Many countries are saying no to more migrants

    Other countries in Europe are beginning to refuse entry to migrants from Islamic countries. In an article, Selco wrote of the difficulties in the Balkans where thousands of migrants are stranded.

    There are numerous reports that an influx of migrants is overwhelming the already-fragile system in the Balkans. You may think this is not pertinent if you don’t live in Europe. But just like the collapse of Venezuela, the Balkan War, and the collapse of Greece, there are patterns of behavior to which attention should be paid.

    Some have gone so far as to call it a humanitarian crisis, and others have said the number of migrants is increasing rapidly. Although the official number is around 4000 migrants, it’s estimated that the real number may be as many as 30-50,000. 

    I asked Selco to share with us what he has witnessed.  Here’s what Selco has to say.

    What do you think?

    Allowing radicalized individuals to return to Sweden after they commit acts of terror elsewhere is going to backfire. A person who becomes comfortable with violence generally has less and less difficulty committing more violence.

    When I asked Selco if they [the migrants] outnumbered Bosnians, he replied, “Not yet. But in some parts, there are more capable immigrants then capable locals.” This crisis has caused havoc across the region, yet many locals are unaware of the depth of the issue. (Boy, does that sound familiar. Cognitive dissonance, it seems, is not an American problem.) 

    It should go without saying that all people of Muslim faith are not radicalized jihadists who want to kill those who are not Muslim and that all migrants are not intending to violently force sharia law on those in their host countries. But in Sweden, there seem to be plenty of violent people who do not have good intentions. If nothing else, the “invasion” of Sweden should be a cautionary tale to the rest of the world.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 02:00

  • Somali Militants Raid American Military Base Near Mogadishu
    Somali Militants Raid American Military Base Near Mogadishu

    A US special forces military base that’s also used to launch drone strikes on Al Qaeda and ISIS factions active in North Africa was attacked by a band of Somali insurgents on Monday, who also carried out an attack on a European military convoy, the AFP and Reuters report.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The American base, reportedly located in the town of Baledogle, was hit with an explosive, followed by small arms fire. The base is located about 60 miles west of Mogadishu, the Somali capital. It was unclear whether anybody was seriously injured during the attack.

    The militant group Al Shabaab took credit for the string of attacks, and issued a statement about the raid on the American base.

    “In the early hours of Monday morning, an elite unit of soldiers from Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen Martyrdom Brigade launched a daring raid on the US military base…After breaching the perimeters of the heavily fortified base, the Mujahideen (holy warriors) stormed the military complex, engaging the crusaders in an intense firefight.”

    In a separate attack, a convoy of EU advisers training recruits to the Somali national army were struck by a car bomb in Mogadishu. Italian government officials insisted that nobody was seriously injured, though a Reuters journalist later saw a badly damaged military vehicle bearing an Italian flag.

    “There was a car bomb targeting the EU military advisers along the industrial road. A vehicle loaded with explosive was rammed on to one of the convoy vehicles and there are casualties,” said Omar Abikar, a Somali security officer.

    According to Reuters, the attacks demonstrated that al-Shabaab maintains a good intelligence network and can mount complex operations, said Hussein Sheikh-Ali, a former national security adviser and founder of the Mogadishu-based security think-tank the Hiraal Institute.

    “It implies they have a high intelligence and a degree of capability just to get close to that place,” Sheikh-Ali told Reuters.

    Notably, Monday’s attacks follow a dip in US airstrikes in Somalia, with the US Africa Command having carried out only four in the past two months (that’s compared with 28 during the first three months of 2019).

    Al Shabaab is a radical Islamic group fighting to overthrow the UN-backed Somali government and enforce its own strict version of Islamic law in a country that has been divided by civil war since the early 1990s.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/01/2019 – 01:00

  • Daniel McAdams: "The US Has Ceased Being A Republic And Has Become A National Security State"
    Daniel McAdams: “The US Has Ceased Being A Republic And Has Become A National Security State”

    Authored by Mohsen Abdelmoumen via American Herald Tribune,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your Twitter account has just been closed. Why?

    Daniel McAdams: In August I was watching a segment of the Sean Hannity program while at a friend’s house and noticed that despite an hour of Hannity ranting against the “deep state” in the US, he was wearing a lapel pin bearing the seal of the US Central Intelligence agency, which most would agree is either the center or at least an important hub of the US “deep state” itself. I tweeted about this strange anomaly and as a comment to my own Tweet on it I happened to say that Hannity is “retarded.” Twitter informed me that I had committed “hateful conduct” for “promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.” It is clear on its face that I did none of these. I used a non-politically correct term to ridicule Hannity for attacking the “deep state” while wearing the symbols of the deep state on his very lapel.

    It is clear that Twitter is deeply biased against any voices outside the mainstream, pro-empire perspective. As a leading Tweeter in opposition to interventionist US foreign policy, I had long been targeted by those who enable and enforce Twitter’s political biases. Look at who Twitter partners with and you will understand why I was banned for a transparently false reason: the US government-funded Atlantic Council and other similar organizations are working with Twitter to eliminate any voices challenging US global military empire.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In your opinion, what exactly is the role of the CIA in the regime changes of some countries around the world?

    From its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency carried the dual role of analyzing intelligence for its customers in the Executive Branch of the US government and conducting covert actions and operations in pursuit of (claimed) US foreign policy goals. The history of CIA action in post-war Europe is extensive and includes founding front organizations to prop up socialist and far-left publications and institutions as a challenge to Soviet communism as well as backing far-right groups and political parties and even violent terror organizations to directly confront communism and overturn elections where communists made gains.

    After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted US “regime change” apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded “non-governmental” organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This “regime change apparatus” uses CIA methods developed during the Cold War (by “experts” like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation, and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the “Arab Spring” and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today.

    The practical value to the United States of such operations is less than zero, the costs to the American taxpayer are enormous, and the immorality of manipulating the globe toward an outcome preferred by Washington’s elites is self-evident.

    When we see the generalized NSA surveillance, do you think we live in a democracy or a tenebrous fascist regime?

    Americans have been manipulated by the elites in government and its allies in state propaganda (otherwise known as the “mainstream media”) to accept, particularly post-9/11, the deeply anti-American proposition that we must yield our privacy and Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties to a government that promises it will not abuse its increased power over us but will only use it to keep us safe. These promises have been over and over again proven to be lies. Government is not targeting terrorism or terrorists: they are targeting average American citizens.

    Americans were told that only terrorists’ phone calls would be intercepted, but then Edward Snowden revealed that all of our phone calls are intercepted. Americans were mad for a few weeks but then Washington promised “reform” of the PATRIOT Act in the form of the FREEDOM Act and everybody calmed down. Even though the FREEDOM Act is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act because it legalized all of the illegal activities that were taking place under the PATRIOT Act. “Reform” in Washington means obfuscation and perception manipulation.

    Likewise, Americans seeking to travel within their own country have been forced to allow strangers to invade and touch the most private areas of their bodies – and their children’s bodies! American sheep just bow to the authorities and keep watching their freedoms stolen from them, murmuring to themselves as they are raped by the authorities, “well…I have nothing to hide…”

     You mentioned one time Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA manipulated journalists in the 1950s. In your opinion, does the CIA continue to use these same practices today?

    I have no doubt that the CIA continues to maintain a close relationship with both mainstream and independent journalists. This is critical to establishing and controlling the narrative in each foreign “crisis.” It is no accident that each mainstream media outlet – regardless whether left-wing or right-wing or any wing – has the exact same perspective on events like the Ukraine coup or the Venezuela attempted coup, or Hong Kong protests. Part of this is the US “deep state” or “national security state” and part of it is the increasing integration of US corporate entities into the US government. Major media outlets are owned by US corporations that also own weapons manufacturing companies and cannot be trusted to report on events objectively. Similarly, virtually every US mainstream media outlet employs “former” members of the US intelligence community to “explain” foreign events to their viewers.

    When is the last time a credible non-interventionist or pro-peace analyst has been featured in any mainstream media outlet? As in Soviet times, any view at odds with Washington’s “party line” is simply disappeared. When independent media outlets begin gaining traction and challenging the narrative, they are “de-platformed” on social media and even from their Internet service providers under the recommendations of US government-funded NGOs like the Atlantic Council or the German Marshal Fund.

     Is not what is currently happening in Hong Kong a CIA manipulation targeting China in the context of the Trump administration’s economic war?

    There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as “conspiracy theorists” those who point out obvious US government involvement.

    It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement in Hong Kong for years. They don’t even hide it: you can easily find on USAID and National Endowment for Democracy website the level of funding the US government provides these organizations and political parties. And when these party leaders come to Washington, they are received by the US Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and other high-ranking US government officials. Which foreign opposition movements that Washington does not support are given such treatment?

    Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream media?

    You mentioned a US-supported coup when you talked about Venezuela. In your opinion, does the US administration continue the same interventionist policy to destabilize Latin American countries?

    Any Latin American government not in Washington’s constellation has been and is targeted for destabilization and overthrow. We saw this with the 2009 coup in Honduras, whose architect was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We see it in Cuba. We see it in Venezuela. We saw it with Ecuador, where a government wary of US persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was “changed” in favor of a regime that handed Assange over to the authorities in exchange for a few billion dollars from the IMF. Do what Washington says and get paid; oppose Washington and get overthrown. That is the foreign policy of the US empire. And like the Soviet empire that preceded it, it is a policy doomed to failure.

    Why in your opinion does the United States always need an enemy? Is not there a danger of world war when we see the multitude of US imperialist interventions around the world?

    The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class America. It does this by promoting an “enemy scenario” whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year “war on terror” which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to “fight terrorism” resulted in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups that there was a reduction in their power.

    After the Russian and Iranian success in beating back the jihadist threat in Syria, the 2017 US national security strategy did an Orwellian about-face and abandoned the “war on terror” in favor of a declaration that our new enemies were again our old enemies: China and Russia. It is literally Orwell’s 1984: “we are at war with Eastasia. …We had always been at war with Eastasia.”

    What do you think about the North Korean and Iranian case, where the Trump administration lacks a clear vision and where some neoconservatives are pushing for a war?

    There are few consistencies in President Trump’s foreign policy. One emerging consistency, however, is that he seems genuinely reluctant to take the country into a bona fide war. He’s happy with sending a few dozen Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian countryside, but when faced with an actual robust response to any US strike, he to this point has chosen de-escalation. This may be a function of his keen eye for politics rather than any philosophical or moral concerns, but it to this point seems thematic. The problem is that by surrounding himself with neoconservatives – and make no mistake his replacement for Bolton is at least as much a neocon as the Mustached One himself – the president is isolating himself from any inputs advising military constraint when facing crises overseas. That is why many of us were so much hoping that Bolton would be replaced with a Realist like Col. Douglas Macgregor. There is a big danger that the president will be cornered by a lack of non-war options to the next crisis simply because he gives no quarter to non-war voices in his administration.

    When we consider the plight of activists and whistleblowers, such as Assange, Snowden, etc. can we still talk about freedom of speech and human rights? Shouldn’t we mobilize more to support these activists and others around the world?

    The plight of Snowden and Assange and all of the persecuted whistleblowers and truth-tellers is the plight of what is life of our liberty, freedom, and even Western civilization. When all dissent is quashed, imprisoned, tortured, we are left with only the Total State. The Total State, as we know from history, brooks no dissent because it can only maintain power by continuing the illusion that it alone is the source of truth. Thus any voice challenging the Total State, as the embodiment of truth, must on its face be a lie. Why would truth allow lies to undermine it? Why would any sane person oppose “the people” as represented in their Soviet government? Surely such a person would be insane and need of treatment rather than a citizen raising a legitimate question or differing opinion.

    This is what we are facing in the US today. A Total State, where opposing views are de-platformed and disappeared. Where truth-tellers are jailed and tortured – pour servir d’avertissement aux autres (to serve as a warning to others).

    What is your assessment of the Trump Presidency and what do you think of its foreign policy?

    The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. He did not chart a wise course in building a solid administration of professionals who agree with him – and there are plenty to choose from – and instead he actually hired an entire team of people who not only disagree with his stated positions, but they actually publicly ridicule them and work against them. It is unprecedented in my memory to see those who serve the president publicly undermining his stated positions, yet Bolton and Pompeo never hesitated or hesitate to do just that. This is an enormous missed opportunity for President Trump and for the United States.

    You have been an advisor to Congressman Ron Paul and you are doing an excellent job as Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Can you explain to our readers what the missions of this institute are?

    Our mission as a non-profit educational institution is to make the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the restoration of our civil liberties at home. We are the continuation of the Ron Paul liberty movement. To that end, we publish thousands of articles making the case for non-interventionism on our website, we broadcast a daily Ron Paul Liberty Report, and we hold conferences throughout the country bringing together a broad coalition of Americans – and non-Americans – to learn and promote peace and prosperity!

    *  *  *

    Daniel McAdams is executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-host of the “Ron Paul Liberty Report,” a daily live broadcast. He served for 12 years on Capitol Hill as foreign affairs and national security advisor to former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • Aramco Crude Production Restored To Pre-Attack Levels, Official Says
    Aramco Crude Production Restored To Pre-Attack Levels, Official Says

    Despite the worst attack on its infrastructure in the oil giant’s 80-year-plus history, Saudi state-owned oil giant Aramco has succeeded in making all of its shipments in the month of September, says Ibrahim Al-Buainain, the CEO of Aramco’s trading arm.

    Moreover, the oil giant has also managed to restore its oil-production capacity to pre-attack levels, meeting an accelerated two-week timeline announced by the firm earlier this month.

    Saudi oil output was cut in half by an attack on Aramco facilities, an attack that was allegedly orchestrated by Saudi Arabia’s arch-rival Iran (though Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels initially took credit for it).

    In the wake of the attack, oil prices soared, as the kingdom warned that the equivalent of 5.5% of global production had been temporarily taken offline.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Initially, Aramco warned that the damage could take months to repair. However, the Saudis adjusted that prediction just days after the attacks as repairs reportedly progressed much more quickly than Aramco had initially anticipated, according to a senior executive.

    And oil prices have erased all of the spike gains…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Still, the decline in Saudi output definitely had an impact on broader OPEC production levels, which tumbled to the lowest since 2004 in September.

    The news comes as global oil prices have erased nearly all of their post-attack gains.

    So, how did Aramco make all of its shipments?

    According to a Reuters report from last week, Aramco opted to buy oil in larger quantities than it typically would from some of its neighbors to meet the Saudi oil giant’s supply obligations to foreign refineries.

    To accomplish this, Aramco’s trading arm bought crude from the UAE and Kuwait to ship to refineries in several countries, including neighboring Bahrain, and as a as well as Malaysia and South Korea, Reuters’ sources said.

    On Sept. 14, a fusillade of drones and low-flying cruise missiles penetrated Saudi air defenses and destroyed parts of two facilities that mainly processed Saudi light crude at Aramco’s Abqaiq and Khurais facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia. 

    Never-before-seen footage of the attack emerged Sunday night after it aired on CBS’s ’60 Minutes’, which featured an interview with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

    The attacks initially knocked out 5.7 million b/d of production, more than half of the output of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter. Production has been restored to 9.9 million b/d, the company said on Monday, bringing it back to pre-attack levels.

    Per Reuters, even before the attacks, Aramco would buy and trade third-party crude on the market, sometimes swapping it for other energy products. But the reduced output forced the kingdom to rely more on non-Saudi crude to fulfill its contracts.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 23:25

  • Just How Swampy Are US-Saudi Arms Deals?
    Just How Swampy Are US-Saudi Arms Deals?

    Authored by Andrew Cockburn via The American Conservative blog,

    Let’s just say that Americans representing the kingdom are making a killing while pushing U.S. jobs overseas.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The old maxim that “the U.S. government exists to buy arms at home and sell arms abroad” was never truer than today. Our defense budget is soaring to previously undreamed-of heights and overseas weapons deals are setting new records.

    Indeed, the arms sales industry has become so multi-faceted that while some American corporations push weapons, other U.S. firms are making money by acting on behalf of the buyers. Thus a Lockheed Martin-Raytheon team recently dispatched to Riyadh to negotiate the finer points of the ongoing $15 billion deal for seven Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries jointly manufactured by the two companies, found themselves facing not Saudis across the table, but a team of executives from the Boston Consulting Group. This behemoth, which has $7.5 billion in global revenues, is just one of the firms servicing Mohammed “Bone Saw” Bin Salman’s vicious and spendthrift consolidation of power in the kingdom.

    Among other lucrative revenue streams, BCG enjoys a contract to overhaul the defense ministry’s arms buying practices, a challenging task given the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons MBS has on order.

    For arms dealers doing business in the kingdom, the most visible overhaul to date has been the consolidation of control over Saudi weapons purchases, and all branches of the armed forces, in the hands of MBS himself.

    Previously, control in this area had been distributed among different factions of the ruling family, thus enabling each to enjoy the financial rewards (read: kickbacks) traditionally attendant to such deals. But MBS has made it his business, in every sense of the word, to cut out potentially rival middlemen by centralizing all Saudi defense business under the umbrella of the General Authority of Military Industries, with management in the trustworthy (he hopes) hands of close relatives and henchmen such as Mutlaq bin Hamad Al Murashid, the Princeton-trained nuclear engineer charged with developing the Saudi nuclear program.

    The Boston Group has cultivated a market in advising foreign governments on arms buying, promoting the fostering of their own military-industrial complexes, or, as BCG executives demurely expressed the strategy in a 2018 paper:

    “Unlike the way business was done in the past, today’s buyers want the defense contractor to invest in their country’s infrastructure, help develop their local defense capabilities, and diversify their economies.”

    So-called “offset” agreements have long been a feature of major weapons export deals in which the exporter undertakes to award sub-contracts for the weapon system in the purchasing country, or else offer some other quid quo pro in the form of business or technology transfer. Their massive expansion in recent times, as highlighted in the BCG paper, brings an additional benefit for all parties involved. But it comes at a risk of sending U.S. defense jobs overseas, and opens up security vulnerabilities, since sensitive technology is now being shared with foreign arms manufacturers abroad.

    But the promise of a lucrative offset contract to a company in which an influential figure on the buy side has an interest could be a powerful inducement to swing the decision in a favorable direction, an elegant solution to pesky prohibitions against bribery, including the hated 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that was inspired in part by revelations of arms-deals bribes by Lockheed and others. 

    As the well-informed Paris-based security news service Intelligence Online delicately puts it:

    “One of the reasons for [the success of such arrangements] is that they are not totally covered by the transparency criteria governing commission payments [AKA bribes]which were brought into force by OECD convention in 1997.” (Not, of course, to suggest that BCG itself has base motivations in facilitating offset deals today.) 

    Of course, if the Riyadh based BCG office (“always buzzing with a motivating and inspiring vibe,” according to the corporate website) had the true interests of Saudi Arabia at heart, they would have thrown the THAAD sales force out on their ears. THAAD is a system distinguished not only by its enormous cost ($1 billion plus per six-launcher battery),  but also by its total uselessness for the Saudis.  Presumably, the Saudis have been sold on the THAAD as a defense against Iranian ballistic missiles like the old Soviet Scud and its various Iranian upgrades.

    As its name suggests, the THAAD aims to intercept  incoming short range or medium range ballistic missiles arcing down into the top of the atmosphere 25 to 90 miles up and no further away than 125 miles. The THAAD’s radar must therefore “acquire”–spot– the actual missile warhead, distinguishing it from nearby broken up pieces of its spent booster rocket or from  decoys deliberately launched with it. The radar must then track and predict the future trajectory of the warhead itself, not confusing it with any of the accompanying bits and pieces. Relying on the radar’s predictions, the THAAD missile interceptor,  once launched, must quickly accelerate to MACH 8 speed and guide with absolute precision to hit the target warhead  directly, like a bullet. Near misses won’t do.

    After a series of early, disastrous failures, the Pentagon is now touting a fifteen out of fifteen string of successful THAAD launchings. Needless to say, not one of these tests has been against a ballistic missile target accompanied by booster debris or decoys, much less against half a dozen of such missiles fired at once.

    This alone should be reason enough for the Saudis to toss the deal, but even if the system could perform as advertised, it would have been entirely irrelevant as a defense against the September 14 Houthi attacks on Abqaiq and Kurais.  The drones and cruise missiles employed clearly came in at low altitude, while THAAD is designed to operate against high altitude targets. The Patriot and Hawk batteries already in place are of course no better suited to confront low altitude threats, which are inevitably masked by ground clutter.

    Even if the attackers had been obliging enough to send in ballistic missiles with a high-altitude trajectory, the THAAD would have offered little succor, since its infra-red seeker, as noted, cannot distinguish between actual warheads and decoys. Nor would the Russian S-400 system cheekily offered by Putin in the aftermath of the attack have fared better, and for many of the same reasons.

    Such realities have found little place in the outpouring of commentary on the attacks, with little or no attention paid to easily available evidence. For example, published pictures of the damage at Abqaiq clearly show a number of liquified natural gas storage tanks pierced in the same place on their western sides.  As former Pentagon analyst Pierre Sprey pointed out to me, this clearly shows that the attacks came from the west, not the north, as claimed in numerous media reports.

    The consistent accuracy demonstrated by these impact holes indicates that the terminal guidance was not GPS, but rather human drone controllers, manually steering the slow flying drones, via the drones’ video cameras, into the target.  For control purposes they would have to have been in line of sight to the drones (the only alternative would be an easily detectable satellite link) so they could have been no further than 36 miles away at most, assuming the drones were flying at a likely 300 feet altitude.

    Instead of such cogent analysis, we have been presented with unquestioning reports of Saudi “evidence” that the attacks came directly from Iran in the form of pictures of an alleged wrecked Iranian drone discovered somewhere close to the targeted area.

    Motivated and inspired, presumably, by the enormous sums of money to be made, the Boston Consultants and others advising the Saudi regime must have little interest in drawing attention to such tiresome details. There are arms to be bought and sold, and that is the whole point, bringing that old maxim, “the U.S. government exists to buy arms at home and sell arms abroad,” into a sharper, and yet more twisted, focus.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 23:05

  • Here Are The Billions Of Loans Exposed To A Potential WeWork Bankruptcy
    Here Are The Billions Of Loans Exposed To A Potential WeWork Bankruptcy

    With the WeWork IPO now dead and buried, and as attention shifts to the company which for years was world consciousness elevating Adam Neumann’s personal piggybank (he cashed out to the tune of $740 million, while stranding his thousands of employees with worthless stock) many are noticing what we highlighted last week, namely that WeWork now has just a few months of cash left.

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

    As we noted recently, the most immediate task facing WeWork is that once the IPO was called off, it unraveled a $6 billion financing package. It is also the gargantuan challenge facing the company’s two new co-CEOs brought in to replace Neumann – Sebastian Gunningham and Artie Minson – who have to find a way forward for a company that was until just a few weeks ago one of the world’s most valuable private startups with a valuation of $47 billion… but has not only never made a penny in profit but saw its losses grow the more its revenue increased.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, as we also reported, in an attempt to shore up its rapidly shrinking cash balance, WeWork has been in talks with Goldman and JPMorgan about a new $3 billion loan, but that’s as good as dead: any new deal requires the company to successfully IPO, which we now know is not happening. 

    There is one final option: going to Masayoshi Son’s, SoftBank, the Japanese company that has already pumped in more than $10 billion, hat in hand and begging for a bailout. But is Son willing to jeopardize the future of his VisionFund, and perhaps his entire organization, to throw even more money after what is clearly a terrible investment?

    For now, the answer is unknown. What is known is that the company lost $690 million in the first six months and is expected to generate a loss from operations approaching $3 billion as it burns through tens of millions in cash daily. Which means that according to analyst estimates, with its existing $2.5 billion in cash as of June 30, the company could run out of money by mid-2020.

    And then there is the real liquidity crisis staring everyone in the face: as part of its tremendous growth, by the end of 2019 WeWork will have not only burned $6 billion since 2016, but will have accrued $47 billion of future rent payments due in the form of lease liabilities. On average it leases its buildings for 15 years. Yet as Bloomberg reported previously, its tenants are committed to paying only $4 billion, and on average have leases for 15 months.

    in short, a WeWork solvency crisis (read: bankruptcy) would send a shockwave across the US Commercial Real Estate market. Correction, it would send a shockwave across the global commercial real estate market. The reason is that with over $47 billion in lease liabilities, WeWork is already one of the world’s largest lessees, trailing only oil exploration giants Petrobras and Sinpec, an astonishing feat for the flexible office space provider “which was founded less than a decade ago, bleeds cash, and doesn’t plan to become profitable any time soon.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And then there is the not so subtle fact that WeWork is already the single biggest tenant in New York City, as well as Chicago, Denver and central London.

    Said otherwise, a WeWork insolvency would send the Commercial Real Estate market in New York, London, and most major metropolises into a tailspin.

    Which brings up the next logical question: who is exposed?

    Luckily, commercial real estate expert TREPP has already done work when it comes to WeWork’s US-facing exposure in the CRE realm and has found that co-working giant is flagged as a top five tenant behind $3.3 billion in CMBS debt across 36 properties. Courtesy of Trepp, here is a summary of WeWork’s exposure by state, which as expected, shows New York and California as the top CMBS markets with WeWork exposure.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Drilling down on some of the key properties, we find the following Top 10 locations that will find themselves scrambling to undo their billions in contractual exposures to a potentially insolvent WeWork:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here is a different way of representing the exposure, this time from the Deal side perspective:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Readers seeking the full list of WeWork exposure are urged to contact Trepp  directly.

    For those asking why is any of the above information relevant, the answer is simple: in a year when a record 11,000 stores are expected to shutter…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … as a result of the ongoing “retail apocalypse” which today claimed its latest victim, fast-fashion pioneer Forever 21, which is set to close as many of 350 of its 800 stores around the world…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … commercial real estate is looking at an unprecedented rental payment “hole” as countless tenants file for bankruptcy and put their lease payments on indefinite halt.

    Throw WeWork – and its $47 billion in lease obligations in the mix – and CRE is facing a CREsh of epic proportions, because in a bankruptcy, all those obligations would be frozen and squeezed among all the other pre-petition claims, which of course means that the commercial real estate market of cities where WeWork is especially active – like New York and London – would suddenly find itself paralyzed, as a deflationary tsunami is unleashed among one of the strongest performing markets since the financial crisis.

    Whether that will in fact happen remains to be seen: after all, with so much hanging on whether the cashflow burning WeWork lunacy can continue, one could argue that when it comes to the commercial real estate market, the company has become too big to fail.

    That’s precisely what Boston Fed president Eric Rosengren said on September 20, when he warned just how serious WeWork’s leveraged debacle has become. In a speech delivered to New York University, the Boston Fed head seems to have seen the light, fearing financial instability from WeWork and its ilk:

    Mr. Rosengren noted the risks posed by commercial real estate, which have long been a concern of his, as a possible vector to amplify trouble.

    Without naming any firms, Mr. Rosengren noted the particular concerns posed by co-working companies. He made this comment as the parent of office-sharing firm WeWork postponed its initial public offering amid investor doubts about its valuation and concerns about its corporate governance. Office-sharing firms are particularly exposed to risks should the economy run into trouble, and could wound landlords in the process, Mr. Rosengren said.

    “In a downturn the co-working company would be exposed to the loss of tenant income, which puts both them and the property owner at risk if they cannot make lease payments to the owner of the building,” he said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “I am concerned that commercial real estate losses will be larger in the next downturn because of this growing feature of the real estate market, which could ultimately make runs and vacancies more likely due to this new leasing model,” Mr. Rosengren said.

    “The fact that the shared office model relies on small-company tenants with short-term leases, combined with the potential lack of recourse for the property owner, is potentially problematic in a recession. This also raises the issue of whether bank loans to property owners in cities with major penetration by co-working models could experience a higher incidence of default and greater loss-given-defaults than we have seen historically.”

    Ironically, unless some last ditch source of emergency WeWork funding emerges – and there is about 6 months for that to happen – Rosengren’s warning about a crash in the commercial real estate market will come true. Why ironic? Because it will be none other than the Fed which will be “forced” to provide said emergency funding, making the global moral hazard hole even deeper in a world in which not even one too big to fail zombie company is allowed to fail ever again.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 22:55

  • Pig Ebola Has Cost China Over $140 Billion As Locals Get Angry At Record High Pork Prices
    Pig Ebola Has Cost China Over $140 Billion As Locals Get Angry At Record High Pork Prices

    There is a reason why an increasingly desperate Beijing is willing to suspend tariffs on US pork exports, and it has nothing to do with trade war de-escalation or concessions, and everything to do with preventing an angry and hungry mob from running rampant across China’s streets.

    As Caixin reports, the widespread outbreak of African swine fever that has prompted China to slaughter millions of pigs has caused 1 trillion yuan ($140 billion) of direct losses, an industry expert estimates; if correct, the direct damage from the “pig ebola” is far greater than the monetary damages incurred from two years of escalating trade tariffs with the US.

    The shocking number was unveiled at a pig industry forum last Tuesday by Li Defa, who heads the College of Animal Science and Technology at China Agricultural University, and who notes that the upstream and downstream of the pork industry chain, such as pig feed and catering industry, were not included in the calculation, suggesting the full indirect losses from the crippling pork virus could be orders of magnitude greater.

    For over a year, China’s pork industry has been crippled by an outbreak of the deadly pig virus since at least August 2018, when the first case was reported in Northeast China’s Liaoning province. It has since spread to all provincial level regions in the country, wiping out between one-third and half of all Chinese hog stocks and sending pork prices to record highs.

    That’s contributed to broader food inflation. In August, China’s consumer price index, which measures the prices of a select basket of consumer goods and services, rose 2.8% year-on-year, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The average pork price increased 46.7% year-on-year — the fastest pace in more than eight years — adding 1.08 percentage points to CPI growth.

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

    The price of live pigs has surpassed 40 yuan per kilogram in late -September, more than doubling from when the epidemic first became publicly known in August last year.

    Even the WaPo recently noted that “the most pressing political problem facing China’s leaders this week may not be the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. Nor the protracted trade war with the United States. No, it is probably a shortage of pork — during the Chinese zodiac year of the pig, no less — that has become so severe that the rulers of the Communist Party declared stabilizing pork supply and prices to be an ‘important political task’.”

    Pork, as is widely known, is the main meat consumed in China, accounting for more than 60% of the country’s meat demand. The country is expected to consume 55 million tons of pork in 2020 with an estimated population of 1.4 billion, said Li: the Chinese love to eat pork. Red fried pork. Sweet-and-sour pork ribs. Glazed pork belly. Twice-cooked pork. Pork dumplings. Trotters. Chinese eat an average of 120 pounds of pork a year. Half the world’s pork is consumed here.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But with a slew of holidays on deck, officials are increasingly worried that public discontent will overshadow the celebrations. They are particularly concerned that pork shortages will ruin the “happy and peaceful atmosphere” required during the upcoming commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the biggest event on the Communist Party’s calendar this year.

    “We should ensure pork supply by all means,” Vice Premier Hu Chunhua said at the end of last month, adding that China’s pork shortages would be “extremely severe” in the last quarter of this year and the first half of 2020.

    “We must strengthen the guidance and management of public opinion,” he continued, according to a state media account of his remarks.

    “If China loses more than half of its domestic pork production, it will not be easy to meet the demand gap by relying on foreign supplies,” Li said, failing to mention that if China is truly unable to restore its pork herds and prices continue to soar, the country’s massive lower and middle classes will soon become very angry.

    To try to stabilize prices and feed domestic supply, the central government pledged to raise purchases of pork from overseas markets, including the U.S., a move which was seen as an olive branch in the trade war, but which in reality was just Beijing desperate to give the angry population what it wants.

    China also released 10,000 tons of pork from state reserves last week to cope with a supply shortfall ahead of the weeklong National Day holiday, although not only did the move fail to put a dent on the soaring price of pork, it was instantly absorbed as it represented less than 2 hours of pork need across China.

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

    Should China fail to stabilize the country’s collapsing pork population, the following scene from the SCMP, which shows women in China fighting over the last piece of discounted pork at a market, will become increasingly more frequent, and violent.

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

    In the meantime, the authorities are trying to turn consumers away from China’s favorite meat: the Life Times, a newspaper affiliated with the Communist Party, even suggested in a front-page special that eating too much pork was not healthy. “Eat less pork: Both your wallet and your body will thank you,” the publication wrote on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter.

    China’s Internet users were not impressed. “This is a modern version of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” responded Jiang Debin, quoting the line often attributed to Marie Antoinette when French peasants ran out of bread shortly before the revolution. “They are using so-called expert advice to deceive people, but dare not say don’t eat meat unless you have money.”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 22:45

  • Huawei Wants The World's Next Trojan Horse To Be Chinese
    Huawei Wants The World’s Next Trojan Horse To Be Chinese

    Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

    Rob Strayer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications Policy, told reporters in Brussels on September 26 that the Trump administration is unlikely to grant another 90-day blanket waiver for transactions with China’s Huawei Technologies.

    A 90-day waiver from Commerce Department prohibitions, the second granted, will expire November 19.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A refusal to grant a third waiver to the Chinese company, the world’s largest telecom networking equipment manufacturer and second-largest smartphone maker, would be the right move for the United States. After all, why should President Trump allow our companies to help Beijing steal the world’s data and remotely control devices connected to the internet?

    In May, the Commerce Department, effective the 16th of that month, added Huawei to its “Entity List.” The designation meant no American company, without prior approval from Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, could sell or license to Huawei products and technology covered by the U.S. Export Administration Regulations.

    Beijing has continually demanded the withdrawal of the designation and has made such a climbdown one of its preconditions to a comprehensive trade deal with the U.S.

    Since then, the Chinese have, in addition to threats, also tried to get off the Entity List with sugar. This month, in a conversation with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei said he was “open to sharing our 5G technologies and techniques with U.S. companies, so that they can build up their own 5G industry.”

    Thursday, the 74-year-old repeated the proposal during a live-streamed conversation with Stanford University academics Jerry Kaplan and Peter Cochrane. “We would like to offer an exclusive license to one company from the West so that it’s able to achieve economies of scale to support a business,” Ren said. “With this one company, I think it should be a U.S. company.” Bloomberg reported the license would cover chip designs, hardware, and source code.

    The catch? As Ren told Friedman, “the U.S. side has to accept us at some level for that to happen.”

    Acceptance certainly means the dropping of Huawei from the Entity List and, in all probability, the repeal of prohibitions on the installment of Huawei equipment in U.S. networks.

    Ren’s generous-sounding offer should, of course, be rejected out of hand. There are many reasons why we should not import a Trojan Horse made in China. Moreover, America has no interest in helping Huawei become the global standard for equipment.

    In addition, the thought of licensing tech from Huawei is nothing short of hideous. The Chinese company, founded in 1987, was built on stolen Cisco Systems technology, and from all indications has never stopped stealing. Why should we pay China for technology it criminally took — and is still taking — from us?

    More fundamentally, why should we have any contact with Huawei? Trump’s instincts are to cut off all dealings. “We are not going to do business with Huawei,” the president said on August 9, “It’s much simpler not doing any business with Huawei.”

    So let’s not do business with Huawei.

    Despite the comments from Strayer on Thursday, there is concern the Trump administration is merely engaging in tough talk to get a better trade deal with Beijing. Chinese negotiators are scheduled to arrive in Washington, D.C. next month for the 13th round of discussions. Their goal, in addition to the removal of Trump’s tariffs, imposed to stop intellectual property theft, is to rescue Huawei.

    In the run-up to the discussions, the Chinese are buying boatloads of soybeans — ten boatloads to be exact — as a means of creating a favorable atmosphere. So, could there be a bargain in the offing?

    Many think so. “For the president, the tariffs and tough talk are part of a maximum pressure campaign on China to force Beijing into trading fairly with the United States,” said tech expert Brandon Weichert to Gatestone.

    “For China, trade with the United States is viewed as a bonanza to acquire — steal — American technology and bilk our people out of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Any compromise with Beijing would, in the long-run, be to America’s disadvantage.”

    It is hard to know what is on the president’s mind, but Weichert, the publisher of The Weichert Report, is certainly correct when he suggests America should not sign a deal with China, especially now.

    On Tuesday, China’s Communist Party will celebrate the 70th anniversary of its coming to power. This is not a happy time for the communists, however, as their economy, the primary basis of their legitimacy, is crumbling.

    China, in a sense, did not have an “economic miracle.” It achieved growth by maintenance of a predatory business model. That model, as Trump said during his U.N. General Assembly speech on Tuesday, has been based on, among other things, the taking of intellectual property. Huawei is proof that crime does in fact pay.

    Unfortunately, a China ruled by communists will not relent on theft and related criminal behavior. Trump tried to create good will by, among other things, granting exemptions from U.S. tech-transfer prohibitions to Huawei this year and to ZTE Corp., the other large Chinese telecom-equipment maker, a year ago.

    Unfortunately, these two companies, despite Trump’s reprieves, have continued to engage in unacceptable behavior. ZTE has almost certainly violated its settlement agreement with the U.S, by installing Dell equipment in Venezuela, and Huawei is currently under investigation for additional instances of intellectual property theft. It is, therefore, time to impose “death sentences” on the pair of Chinese giants, in other words, cut both of them off from U.S. technology.

    Friedman, in relaying Ren’s offer to grant a license to a U.S. company, wrote “we’re heading for a two-technology world, with a Chinese zone and an American zone, and a digital Berlin Wall running right down the middle.”

    The New York Times columnist is right about what could happen, but such a divide would be a good thing. We did not win the Cold War by enriching the Soviet Union. We should not try to enrich China now.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 22:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 30th September 2019

  • Saudis Open The Ultra-Conservative Kingdom To Tourists For First Time 
    Saudis Open The Ultra-Conservative Kingdom To Tourists For First Time 

    It’s 2019, and a mere couple months after lifting travel restrictions on their own women within the country, Saudi Arabia announced Friday it will offer tourist visas for the first time

    It’s part of broader efforts to diversity its economy away from oil, and interestingly comes at a time when tourism in the strict Wahhabi Islamic kingdom is no doubt the last thing on holidaymakers’ minds, given the Sept. 14 attack on Aramco facilities, and given there’s still a war raging across the southern border in Yemen. 

    Amid what’s been hailed as a gradual liberalization of Saudi Arabia’s repressive laws and social mores, Riyadh officials also announced an easing of its strict dress code for foreign women, which until now required the body-shrouding abaya robe, still demanded of its own female citizens however (with the more extreme Niqab covering the face). Tourists will still be required to be in “modest” attire, a definition not likely to include bikinis at the beach. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Saudi tourism file image

    According to a statement in the AFP:

    “We make history” today, tourism chief Ahmed al-Khateeb said in a statement.

    “For the first time, we are opening our country to tourists from all over the world.”

    Citizens from 49 countries are eligible for online e-visas or visas on arrival, including the United States, Australia and several European nations, the statement said.

    Currently westerners are primarily to be found in heavily protected Saudi Aramco planned communities, and have heavy restrictions placed on their movements outside compound walls. 

    Though part of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 reform program to take the Saudi economy in a post-oil direction, we doubt there will be an influx of tourism anytime soon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Though not required to wear a Burqa, foreign women will still be required to dress “modestly”. Image source: EPA

    Aside from the more obvious issues of the war in Yemen and ongoing proxy conflict and gulf standoff with Iran which would keep carefree travelers far away, it remains that the tourism ministry has insisted its blanket ban on alcohol will remain in effect

    The first instance of random Aussie or German backpackers being hauled off to jail after being caught with a little smuggled whiskey will sure to bring a chilling effect as well. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via Arab Weekly

    The kingdom hopes to showcase its medieval Islamic sites (with Mecca and Medina continuing to be off-limits to all non-Muslims of course) and historic Bedouin culture. 

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

    But we doubt that Chop Chop Square in Riyadh — where beheadings and even the occasional crucifixion continue at record pace — will be high on visitors’ list of must see attractions. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 02:45

  • UK's Metro Bank Teeters after Bond Sale Fails. Shares Collapsed 95%
    UK’s Metro Bank Teeters after Bond Sale Fails. Shares Collapsed 95%

    Authored by Nick Courbishley via WolfStreet.com,

    Hedge-fund manager Steven Cohen and Michael Bloomberg are among those ruing the day they bought the crushed shares of the UK bank touted as a “bargain”…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even by its own recent standards, Metro Bank has had a torrid week. On Monday, shares of the British retail bank tumbled 5%, on Tuesday, 25%, on Wednesday, 5%, and on Thursday, 4.5%, before staging a brief comeback in the final hours of trading on Friday, to end the week 35% lower. By Friday morning, it was the second most-shorted stock on the FTSE all shares index, behind the collapsed travel & vacation-giant Thomas Cook.

    The main trigger for this week’s rout was the bank’s failure on Monday to raise a much-needed £250 million by issuing non-preferred bonds that deeply skeptical investors spurned. Despite trying to lure buyers with an interest rate of 7.5%, double the rate of similar offerings, Metro only attracted £175 million worth of orders, prompting the embattled lender to pull the plug on the bond sale.

    “Failure to get enough support for a product that is yielding 7.5% is quite remarkable when you consider how investors are struggling to find generous levels of income in the current market,” said Russ Mould, the investment director of AJ Bell.

    “It suggests that investors don’t trust the bank or they believe the 7.5% yield is simply not high enough to compensate for the risks of owning such a product.”

    Metro Bank opened for business in 2010, becoming Britain’s first new high street bank in over 100 years. One of a handful of so-called “Challenger Banks” — new retail lenders created after the crisis to provide a little more banking competition in a country where the five biggest banks control a staggering 85% of the market — Metro Bank proved particularly adept at luring disillusioned clients from the big banks.

    A large part of its attraction was its focus on physical branches while the big boys were frantically closing theirs. It grew faster than any other high street bank while picking up accolades for its customer satisfaction along the way.

    But that was before a misreporting scandal in January this year decimated investor confidence in the bank. Investors — led perhaps by well-connected insiders — had already been smelling a rat since March 2018. From March 2018 until just before the initial disclosure on January 22, 2019, shares got whacked down in bits and pieces by 45%. Upon the disclosure, shares plunged. And they have gotten crushed every step along the way since then. As of today, they’re down 95% from March 2018, and the sell-off over the past few days reduced the shares from nearly nothing to almost nothing, from 288 pence to 192 pence, giving it market capitalization of just £332 million:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Metro blamed this week’s failed bond sale on tough market conditions. To a certain extent, it has a point: selling unsecured bank bonds just a month before another Brexit deadline is hardly ideal. Bank of Ireland was already forced to cancel a £300 million bond in early September due to the low level of demand; and luxury automaker Aston Martin — which S&P downgraded to deep-junk CCC+ over concerns about its ability to service its big pile of debts debts — had to offer interest rates as high as 12% to convince investors to buy $150 million of bonds due in 2022.

    Most of Metro’s problems have been self-inflicted. By assigning a lower risk weight to its mortgage lending portfolio, whether by accident or intentionally, Metro left investors thinking it was safer than it actually is. Once trust is broken, it’s hard to win it back. Flagged up by regulators in January, the “error” left a gaping £900 million hole on its balance sheet, prompting managers to announce plans for a £350 million rights issue. The cash call was successful at 500 pence a share.

    But the sell-off continued, leaving some very rich investors, including hedge fund manager Steven Cohen and Bloomberg-founder Michael Bloomberg, nursing heavy losses after they bagged shares at 500 pence during the cash call in May, which had been touted as a “bargain.” And now they’re at 192 pence.

    In May, Metro Bank suffered a mini-bank run at some of its London branches. Big business clients withdrew some £2 billion of deposits in the first half, though last week’s bond prospectus showed it recovered much of that over the summer. In July, the lender reported an 80% drop in pre-tax profits for the first half of 2019. Then, last week it disclosed that a Financial Conduct Authority investigation into the bank’s mis-categorization of risk-weighted assets had been widened to include “certain senior members of management”.

    Now, it has a new problem on its hands: How to raise fresh capital by the end of the year without having to pay interest rates it can’t afford, just as markets are, by its own admission, getting tougher. It needs the money for two main reasons: First, to comply with the first stage of the so-called MREL (minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities) directive; and second, to roll over the £3.8 billion it drew from the Bank of England’s Term Lending Scheme in 2016. The scheme was ostensibly intended to boost affordable loans to families and businesses.

    The interest rate on those extra-cheap loans is around 0.25%. Given that Metro this week failed to raise more than £175 million of four-year senior non-preferred bonds, despite offering 7.5% interest, it’s evidently going to have its work cut out rolling over the loans it took out from the Bank of England. At the very least, it needs more time to get its finances in order. To do that, it will probably need to sell some of its more valuable assets, including part of its mortgage book, which will hit its profitability.

    According to the Financial Times, speculation is already growing that Metro could end up being bought by one of its more established rivals. In the ultimate irony, the first British high street bank to be handed a license in over 100 years in the hope it would provide a little extra competition to the big five banks that dominate the sector, may end up being bought out by one of those big banks.

    *  *  *

    Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate “beer money.”  I appreciate it immensely.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/30/2019 – 02:00

  • CIA, Climate, And Conspiracy: More Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix
    CIA, Climate, And Conspiracy: More Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Take off the revolutionary’s mask, and it’s the CIA.

    Take off the terrorist’s mask, and it’s the CIA.

    Take off the news man’s mask, and it’s the CIA.

    Take off the filmmaker’s mask, and it’s the CIA.

    Take off the professor’s mask, and it’s the CIA.

    Take off the billionaire’s mask, and it’s the CIA.

    Take off the whistleblower’s mask, and it’s the motherfucking CIA.

    These monsters are raping our sense-making faculties.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Never call anyone from the CIA a “whistleblower” unless they are actually whistleblowing on the CIA, without the CIA’s permission, in a way that inconveniences the CIA.

    The deployment of a bomb or missile doesn’t begin when a pilot pushes a button, it begins when propaganda narratives used to promote those operations start circulating in public attention. If you help circulate war propaganda, you’re as complicit as the one who pushes the button.

    Many believe that the mass media just tell whole-cloth, outright lies all the time, but that’s not usually how it works. What they do is selectively omit inconvenient facts, disproportionately amplify convenient facts, and uncritically report on dubious government assertions. Basically they only tell the truth when it’s convenient for them, and when it’s inconvenient they are silent. Only telling the truth when it’s convenient for you is effectively the same as lying all the time, only you can get away with it a lot easier.

    How to solve the climate crisis:

    — End the economic system which requires infinite growth on a finite planet.

    — Let people get more relaxed and less busy.

    — End corporate influence in politics.

    — End militarism.

    — End patents.

    — Kill the capitalist propaganda engine known as the mainstream media.

    Any environmentalism which adamantly ignores the need for a complete overhaul of the economic system which created this mess is just feel-good PR for capitalism.

    Trying to solve the climate crisis with plutocrat-driven tech consumption is like trying to put out a house fire with a flamethrower.

    Perhaps the greatest advantage the ruling class has over us is that they’ve got a crystal clear idea of exactly what they want and exactly what they’re pushing for, and we, on average, do not. It’s easy for us to be manipulated in unwholesome directions when we don’t know where we’re going.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When it comes to our future, the ruling elites have compelling narratives worked up by teams of talented creatives to sell us the products they want us to buy. They know exactly where they want to herd us. We just have a notion of “No, not that!” and some very vague, amorphous ideas about what we do want. Without a clear, positive vision of what we want, we cannot succeed. With a clear, positive vision of what we want, we can’t be stopped.

    The fun thing about revolution in the US-centralized empire is that everything everyone has tried has failed, so your guess as to what we should be doing is literally as good as anyone else’s.

    Whenever anyone tells you that a vastly better, saner world is impossible, they’re fulla shit. This is the only world any of us have ever lived in; nobody’s going around observing a bunch of other worlds and seeing that they’re all insane like this one. They have no authority to make such a proclamation. As far as any of us know, anything is possible.

    One mark of an adept conspiracy analyst is comfort with the unknown in a world where information is greatly obscured by secrecy. By this I don’t mean they’re okay with government opacity, I just mean that they’re comfortable acknowledging what is unknown and unknowable instead of pretending to know. I point this out because it seems like a lot of people self-censor and remain silent on their ideas about what’s going on in the world due to some embarrassment that they don’t understand it all. It’s okay: no one does. Many pretend to, but no one actually does.

    The dynamics of this world are extremely complex, too complex for any individual to fully make sense of. One way to ease the burden on your sensemaking tools is to reduce your own inner complications by getting very clear on how your own perception and cognition are happening. Dedicated inner work will reveal that your conscious experience is actually happening in a much simpler way than the mind imagines: a field of consciousness appearing before an imperceptible witness. This eliminates needless cognitive twists and roadblocks in your sensemaking. Our mental narratives add mountains of needless layers of complexity.

    Once you see that none of those narratives apply to your true identity, you’re able to bypass all those distortions in the way you process information and simply use thought as a tool; otherwise you’re just ingesting highly manipulated narratives about an already complex world through your own distorted perceptual filters which are based on unconscious believed assumptions about what you are, what the world is, etc. Inner clarity eliminates those distortions. There are many approaches to the inner work one can do to find this inner clarity, but here’s one way.

    Anyone who claims to oppose Trump and support the free press, yet doesn’t aggressively fight the Trump administration’s agenda to imprison a journalist for exposing US war crimes, is a lying hypocrite.

    The US government and its lackey allies are torturing a journalist for telling the truth. This amounts to a full confession on their part that you are living in a totalitarian empire. They are telling you exactly what kind of world you live in, and exactly what role they play in it. A society is only as free as its most inconvenient political dissident. Free Assange to free yourself.

    It’s really weird how getting money out of politics isn’t a bigger agenda than it is. It should be bigger than healthcare or any other issue, and everyone across the political spectrum agrees it’s important except the rich and their puppets. That’s something tangible to push for.

    If a tree falls in the woods, and no one’s around to hear it, is it still Susan Sarandon’s fault?
    ~ Old liberal koan

    I will not be authoring any essays about impeachment because it’s an impotent political side show and much too boring to write about.

    All Democrats know these impeachment shenanigans will never result in his removal from office, regardless of what they pretend. Trump’s “opposition” only ever attacks him in ways they know won’t actually hurt him. It’s like pro wrestling.

    • May 2019: Progressives get to choose between Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson.

    • September 2019: Progressives get to choose between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

    • May 2020: Progressives get to choose between Elizabeth Warren and fuck you.

    The Democratic presidential primary will be rigged by the DNC and the mass media; in fact this is happening already. I talk about the candidates and the race a lot not because I believe the DNC has real primaries, but because the dance the narrative managers need to do to ensure an establishment nominee keeps exposing them.

    Ninety-nine percent of political arguments and activism are happening inside lines that have been set by the narrative-dominating, Overton window-shrinking plutocratic class and their underlings. If you want to fight a real fight, you need to color outside those lines.

    The US Department of State was originally intended to be a peace/diplomacy-focused counterpart to the Department of War (later falsely renamed the “Department of Defense”), but what actually ended up happening was the creation of two war departments.

    Putting someone on a pedestal is just guaranteeing that you’ll have to knock them off it one day. It’s actually a rather violent thing to do to somebody, if you think about it. Best to skip it entirely.

    Don’t take life advice from people who are miserable. Don’t take career advice from people whose careers aren’t where you want to be. Don’t take creative advice from people who don’t create things. Don’t take foreign policy advice from people who supported the Iraq invasion.

    *  *  *

    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, 09/30/2019 – 00:00

  • San Francisco Neighbors Install 'Anti-Homeless Boulders' Along Sidewalk
    San Francisco Neighbors Install ‘Anti-Homeless Boulders’ Along Sidewalk

    The San Francisco poop patrol may have one less street to clean.

    Neighbors in the Mission Dolores neighborhood raised approximately $2,000 to place two-dozen boulders along the sidewalk to deter homeless people from camping out and shooting up drugs along their block. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Photo: Julian Mark

    “They’ll shoot up and stay overnight,” resident David Smith-Tan told KTVU, adding “A bunch of my neighbors, we all chipped in a few hundred dollars and I guess this is what they came up with.”

    A man named Hugh — who like many on the street wanted to be identified only by his first name for fear of retaliation — said that in the six years he’s lived in the neighborhood, he has seen people dealing methamphetamine there. Other times, he said, he’s witnessed drug dealers carrying knives.

    Hugh said he could empathize with residents who see the rocks as a way to curb criminal activity. He said drug dealing has “definitely gotten worse” in the past couple of years. –SF Chronicle

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, attempts to have the boulders removed have been thwarted after Craigslist removed several ads by SF-based artist Danielle Baskin offering them for free. 

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

    Not everyone thinks the boulders are such a hot idea. 

    “I don’t think this is totally going to work — it’s going to backfire a little bit,” resident Audrey Soule told Mission Local, adding “It’s going to be this great camping hangout because there are awesome rocks to sit on.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “What I had noticed is the campers are still squeezing it in here … Then it forces people to walk all the way around the sidewalk.”

    Standing near the new boulders, Phillip Bulicek, who is homeless, agreed with Soules. These rocks are inconvenient — but not a real deterrent. “They take up space the tent can take,” he said, explaining that tents will be pitched anyway. “It actually taking up space a person might be able to use.” 

    “I would like to see [San Francisco Public Works] take these boulders away like they take people’s tents away,” he added. –Mission Local

    On Saturday, public works employees hoisted several boulders back onto the sidewalk after people had pushed them into the street. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    City workers return boulders to the sidewalk after they were rolled into the street. Neighbors installed the rocks to deter homeless encampments.Photo: Nick Otto / Special to The Chronicle


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 09/29/2019 – 23:30

  • The Ukraine Boomerang
    The Ukraine Boomerang

    Authored by Brian Cates via The Epoch Times,

    Because their strategy to remove Trump from office by getting a Special Counsel appointed to find evidence to use for impeachment so utterly failed, Democrats frantically searched for the past several months trying to find something that could replace it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It now seems Democrats think they have at last found a real scandal they can use to move forward with impeachment hearings in the House.

    The new fake Trump scandal rolled out last weekend by the Democrats involves a phone call held on July 25 between President Trump and the newly installed President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.

    An anonymous government official, described inaccurately as a ‘whistleblower,’ made an official complaint to the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General’s Office about some of the things Trump supposedly said during this call.

    According to the complaint that was filed, Trump tried to strong-arm Zelensky into agreeing to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Biden is currently the frontrunner and favorite to win the Democratic nomination to run against Trump next year.

    To pressure Zelensky into agreeing to investigate the Bidens, the anonymous leaker claimed Trump threatened to withhold military aid that had already been approved to Ukraine.

    So if true, this would indeed be a huge scandal, if a sitting President tried to coerce a foreign government into investigating or manufacturing a criminal probe of his political opposition.   

    It is being reported that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) had the information from this so-called “whistleblower” complaint back in August and he held it back while dropping vague, ominous hints.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Failure To Launch

    Of course, as with a multitude of other fake attacks on Trump and his administration, this manufactured scandal started falling apart almost immediately.

    Trump moved to quickly declassify both the transcript of the phone call and the “whistleblower” complaint, catching his enemies flat-footed with their pants down.

    It is already becoming apparent, now that both documents are public and everyone can read them, that the fake whistleblower complaint is replete with errors, mischaracterizations, and outright falsehoods.

    The same players in the Russiagate hoax were trying to launch a Ukrainian hoax using the exact same strategy: vague leaks based on anonymous sources so story after story could be rolled out in the fake news media alleging Trump crimes.

    Only this strategy was instantly blown up this time, and in quite a savage fashion by this president.

    Trump now has his people in place and all the evidence has been collected. He didn’t need to wait to completely blow up this new Ukrainian narrative.

    This tells me Trump had his own counter-narrative all ready and waiting to launch whenever the Democrats and their DNC Media Complex allies tried this futile Ukrainian gambit.

    And unlike the fake Trump-Ukrainian Corruption narrative, the Biden-Ukrainian Corruption narrative isn’t based on anonymous leaks from shadowy government officials speaking off the record while filing complaints full of 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay. It’s based on solid evidence found in documents as well as video and audio recordings.

    These People Are Stupid

    The launch of Spygate was successful back in 2016 because the plotters were in key positions within the federal government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies, lying in wait as the Trump administration came into office. They held back the Steele Dossier and used their media allies to leak selective allegations.

    This time? The new Trump-Ukrainian strategy counted on the Trump administration “hiding” the phone call transcript and the filed complaint,  giving the plotters and the media room and license to lie about what the documents said.

    Somehow these morons were led to believe the documents wouldn’t be instantly declassified and placed in the public square.

    You are getting a preview right now of how the rollout of the Horowitz report and the results of U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber’s investigations are going to go.

    One side will be desperately leaking bombshell stories based on anonymous sources making all kinds of allegations while the other side will be holding press conferences in which DOJ officials will speak publicly on the record and proffering newly declassified documents for the public to read.

    Guess who’s going to win that fight?

    Trump had to wait and hold fire for more than two years because he needed to give Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, William Barr, Michael Horowitz, John Huber, and John Durham time to do their important work and collect and catalog all of the evidence.

    But we’re past that stage now.

    You’re about to see a presidential campaign unfold over the next year like nothing you have ever seen before.

    The DNC Media will try to spin or bury Spygate news as it breaks over the next year that is damaging to itself and the Democrats, but here’s how Trump is going to thwart this: the over 100 rallies he’s going to hold between now and Nov. 3, 2020.

    Trump knows exactly what buttons to push with these media people. He’s been carefully and diligently studying them for over fifty years, the entire time they thought he was just being a swaggering macho blowhard.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    They are all going to wish they’d never tried this.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 09/29/2019 – 23:00

    Tags

  • Which Countries Support Marijuana Legalization?
    Which Countries Support Marijuana Legalization?

    Earlier this week, Canberra – or the Australian Capital Territory, which functions as a state – legalized the recreational use of marijuana for inhabitants 18 years and older. The new law is supposed to come into effect at the end of January. Adult Canberrans will be able to possess 50 grams of cannabis and will be allowed to grow two marijuana plants for personal consumption.

    Much like in the U.S., Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, the possession of cannabis and cannabis plants will remain a federal offense, but that is not expected to make a difference “in practice”, according to ACT attorney-general Gordon Ramsay. ACT shadow attorney-general Jeremy Hanson from the Liberals said the bill would lead to “perverse outcomes”.

    Looking at an international survey comparing attitudes towards marijuana legalization in different countries, Australia ranks quite high.

    Infographic: Which Countries Support Marijuana Legalization? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    In the U.S. and Canada, where marijuana was legal at least in part of the countries when the survey was carried out in late 2018, 80 percent of the population were in favor of some type of legalization (medical or recreational). In Australia, this number was at approximately 70 percent even though a larger proportion of respondents favored medical marijuana legislation over legalization for recreational use.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 09/29/2019 – 22:30

  • Limbaugh: We're In The Middle Of "A Cold Civil War"
    Limbaugh: We’re In The Middle Of “A Cold Civil War”

    Via SaraACarter.com,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Democrats have declared war against President Trump and those who support him. Instead of bullets, they use lies.

    The media is not media. It’s just Democrats who work in the media, and the whole group of ’em is aligned. And what we are in the middle of now, folks, is a Cold Civil War,” Rush Limbaugh said said on his radio show.

    Limbaugh put forth that the “Cold Civil War” encompasses overturning “the election results of 2016” and “protecting and defending” the Washington establishment.”

    Their careers, their fortunes, their corruption. There are terribly big stakes involved here for these people. And Trump is on the cusp of overturning it and exposing it,” Limbaugh said.

    Limbaugh called the latest developments involving Ukraine “nothing more than the Steele dossier 2.0,” alluding that it is an extension of the Russia investigation.

    “It’s the same people, it’s the same scam, it’s the same objective,” Limbaugh said.

    The whistleblower complaint is the latest stage of this war. Limbaugh correctly notes that the report is manufactured political opposition research, just as Christopher Steele’s dossier was. And the entire Democratic Party, including the media, is acting as if it’s real.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 09/29/2019 – 22:00

  • Visualizing The Megaregions Driving The Global Economy
    Visualizing The Megaregions Driving The Global Economy

    If you’ve ever flown cross-country in a window seat, chances are, the bright lights at night have caught your eye. From above, the world tells its own story – as concentrated pockets of bright light keep the world’s economy thriving.

    Today’s visualization relies on data compiled by CityLab researchers to identify the world’s largest megaregions. The team defines megaregions as:

    • Areas of continuous light, based on the latest night satellite imagery

    • Capturing metro areas or networks of metro areas, with a combined population of 5 million or higher

    • Generating economic output (GDP) of over $300 billion, on a PPP basis

    The satellite imagery comes from the NOAA, while the base data for economic output is calculated from Oxford Economics via Brookings’ Global Metro Monitor 2018.

    As Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh details below, each megaregion may not be connected by specific trade relationships. Rather, satellite data highlights the proximity between these rough but useful regional estimates contributing to the global economy – and supercities are at the heart of it.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (click image for huge legible version)

    From Megalopolis to Megaregion

    Throughout history, academics have described vast, interlinked urban regions as a ‘megalopolis’, or ‘megapolis’. Economic geographer Jean Gottman popularized the Greek term, referring to the booming and unprecedented urbanization in Bos-Wash—the northeast stretch from Boston and New York down to Washington, D.C.:

    This region has indeed a “personality” of its own […] Every city in this region spreads out far and wide around its original nucleus.

    Gottmann, Megalopolis (1961)

    By looking at adjacent metropolitan areas rather than country-level data, it can help provide an entirely new perspective on the global distribution of economic activity.

    Where in the world are the most powerful urban economic clusters today?

    The Largest Megaregions Today

    The world’s economy is a sum of its parts. Each megaregion contributes significantly to the global growth engine, but arguably, certain areas pull more weight than others.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Altogether, these powerhouses bring in over $28 trillion in economic output.

    Unsurprisingly, Bos-Wash reigns supreme even today, with $3.6 trillion in economic output, over 13% of the total. The corridor hosts some of the highest-paying sectors: information technology, finance, and professional services.

    The largest city in Brazil, São Paulo, is the only city in the Southern Hemisphere to make the list. The city was once heavily reliant on manufacturing and trade, but the $780 billion city economy is now embracing its role as a nascent financial hub.

    On the other side of the world, the cluster of Asian megaregions combines for $8.7 trillion in total economic output. Of these, Greater Tokyo in Japan is the largest, while Shandong might be a name that fewer people are familiar with. Sandwiched between Beijing and Shanghai, the coastal province houses multiple high-tech industrial and export processing zones.

    The data is even more interesting when broken down into economic output per capita—Abu-Dubai churns out an impressive $86,200 per person. Meanwhile, Delhi-Lahore is lowest on the per-capita list, at $14,946 per person across nearly 28 million people.

    Where To Next?

    This trend shows no sign of slowing down, as megacities are on the rise in the coming decade. Eventually, more Indian and African megaregions will make its way onto this list, led by cities like Lagos and Chennai.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 09/29/2019 – 21:30

  • Marc Cohodes On Joe Nocera And MiMedx: "An Unholy Alliance"
    Marc Cohodes On Joe Nocera And MiMedx: “An Unholy Alliance”

    Submitted by Marc Cohodes

    I’ve been a short seller for over 30 years.  Mostly, I identify companies that are engaged in fraud, illegal conduct, or questionable accounting, I investigate, and I go public with what I’ve learned.  I put my money where my mouth is:  I sell the shares short knowing that I will lose money if I’m wrong, but also knowing I’ll make money if I’m right.  I’ve got a very good track record at uncovering frauds.  You don’t have to take my word for  it – you can read about me in Bloomberg and elsewhere.

    MiMedx is a company that sells wound care treatments made from placentas to patients, many of whom are at veterans hospitals.  In 2017, I learned MiMedx was forcing products on its distributors in phony sales (“channel stuffing”), manipulating revenue, selling products that were unsafe or ineffective, coaching doctors on how to charge Medicare for its unnecessary treatments, improperly paying doctors to promote its products, discriminating against employees, and bullying, intimidating, and retaliating against employees who came forward to demand that illegal behavior stop.  After I challenged the CEO Pete Petit, management, and the board with the information I had gathered, they responded with more false statements and personal attacks on me. 

    When you expose people who are doing bad things, they often lash out.  MiMedx, Petit, company management, and their backers were no exception, and they weren’t the first, either.  I expect that and it’s part of the job.  But I admit I was surprised to see Joe Nocera and Bloomberg pick up the MiMedx flag on behalf of people trying to make money off of unsuspecting investors, and by doing so, they have neutralized the previous Bloomberg news articles documenting the illegal and unscrupulous conduct at MiMedx. 

    On August 19 and August 22, Nocera wrote a couple of articles about me and MiMedx.  The first article claimed that I was basically wrong about MiMedx, the company wasn’t so bad, and I went too far.  The second claimed that the company has now cleaned up its act, but that I am still conducting a “smear campaign” to destroy the company unfairly. 

    Nocera’s two articles were sloppy, shallow, and consistently wrong.  I sent detailed letters pointing out the factual errors, but Bloomberg refused to correct the articles and even refused to publish this Op-Ed piece. 

    I’m not going to try to correct every mistake Nocera made.  There are length limits for Op-Ed pieces, and we are talking about a reporter so careless that he once wrote an entire Bloomberg article headlined “Correction:  A Column Based on the Wrong Memo,” and who was reprimanded by The New York Times’s Public Editor for a serious ethical lapse in failing to disclose a conflict of interest.  But I’ll point out some of the big mistakes.

    For starters, I was right about MiMedx all along.  MiMedx has admitted that six years of financial statements could not be relied on, three VA employees were indicted for taking bribes from MiMedx, the company’s CEO Petit, CFO Senken, COO Taylor, and Controller Cranston all were fired (and the Board is suing them to return their bonuses), MiMedx’s auditors at E&Y abruptly resigned, the stock was de-listed, the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg reported that MiMedx had lied to the FDA about correcting thirteen health and safety violations; and the VA announced it would stop buying certain MiMedx products because they do not appear to be effective. 

    On top of all that, in May 2019 the company filed a summary of an independent investigation, which confirmed senior management knowingly deviated from its distributor contracts in ways that caused the company to inflate revenue; the company knowingly manipulated revenue to meet guidance; Petit, Senken, Taylor, and Cranston all made material false statements to the SEC and auditors about the company’s revenue recognition practices; and the company engaged in a pervasive course of retaliation against employees who raised concerns about those unlawful practices.

    That’s a lot of evidence you don’t see in Nocera’s articles, yet he opines that I overstated things and it wasn’t so bad at MiMedx.  According to him, the company’s investigation “strongly implied” some channel stuffing, but there was “no proof that MiMedx officials had bribed doctors, as Cohodes had alleged. Nor was there any evidence of Medicare fraud.”  Likewise, Nocera relies on someone named Eiad Asbahi, who told Nocera “the company’s critics had ‘failed to produce any smoking guns to support their claims of massive fraud.’”  (More on the undisclosed relationship between Asbahi and Nocera below.)

    Nocera would know better if he read the public summary of the company’s own investigation.  That report – in addition to all the really bad stuff I described above – says MiMedx’s lawyers are still investigating allegations that the company violated the Anti-Kickback (a form of bribery) statute, the lawyers have already identified “certain customer accounts that present potential compliance risks and warrant additional review,” the lawyers are still evaluating the company’s “legal risk,” and the company “expects there to be additional departures in connection with the Investigation.” 

    Nocera would also know better if he read, well, Bloomberg, which reported last year that, “MiMedx Group Inc. paid bribes to three Veterans Affairs Department health-care workers to promote the biotech firm’s products” according to the federal indictment.  Nocera also could have read that indictment, which charged the VA employees under the federal bribery statute.  Or Nocera could have read the company’s prospectus from May, which discloses that there are still ongoing federal investigations by the SEC, the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, the VA Office of the Inspector General, the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Georgia, as well as two separate pending False Claims Act lawsuits, brought by former employees.  And then there’s the Bloomberg and WSJ reports that the company lied to the FDA about the safety and efficacy of its products, and the VA’s decision to stop buying them.  So yeah, it was really bad at MiMedx, and it’s still really bad. 

    So, did I go too far, like Nocera says?  No.  I accused people at MiMedx of doing very bad things, and while the original bad actors are gone, there are still bad actors at the company – and there are still whistleblowers working at the company who say so.  Originally, Petit and his cohorts tried to intimidate the brave employees who spoke out, as well as the professional skeptics like me.  For example, Petit sued analysts who reported the facts that the company itself has now admitted.  Petit boasts about his political connections, and especially to his local Senator Jonny Isakson, and then convinced Isakson to convince the FBI to send agents to my home to try to intimidate me. Actual Bloomberg reporters wrote about Petit’s intimidation attempt and how extraordinary it was.  A real journalist would take a dim view of that sort of thing, but Nocera leaves out the details and tells the story like Petit was a victim of a mugging, scared for his own safety  (Nocera also never mentions Petit’s secret video surveillance system designed to retaliate against whistleblowers.) 

    Did I scare off MiMedx’s auditors at Ernst & Young, like Nocera says?  Seriously?  It’s silly to suggest that an auditor as large and experienced as E&Y would be scared off by a letter I wrote, or that it wouldn’t do its own investigation.  But more importantly, the company and E&Y explained why E&Y resigned in an 8-K.  E&Y had a disagreement with MiMedx’s (by then fired) senior management.  E&Y could not rely on statements by those discredited executives or even statements by their successors, because the new executive team “would have needed to rely on representations from certain legacy management personnel still in positions that could affect what is reflected in the Company’s books and records.”  E&Y was out because it realized it couldn’t trust MiMedx, not because I told them – correctly – that MiMedx couldn’t be trusted.

    So, is everything fine at MiMedx now?  According to Nocera and Asbahi, it is.  And who is Asbahi, anyway?  Asbahi controls a groups of companies (Prescience Point) that together now own about 7% of MiMedx. Bloomberg readers would want to know there is a relationship between Nocera and Prescience Point.  Zach Kouwe is Prescience Point’s public relations agent in matters related to MiMedx.  Kouwe previously worked as Nocera’s researcher on a book and co-wrote articles with Nocera at The New York Times (prior to Kouwe’s abrupt resignation in a plagiarism scandal)Journalists are expected to disclose these kinds of relationships, as Nocera knows, since he was criticized for violating them when he was at the Times.  Nocera didn’t mention his relationship with Prescience Point’s PR agent, probably because he figured it would interfere with his anti-Marc Cohodes thesis. 

    So, Asbahi has his own bias, and Nocera has a connection to Asbahi’s firm, but is Asbahi wrong?  Yes.  Nocera talks about a “research report” Asbahi published in January 2019 that supposedly found that “MiMedx products were ‘legitimate and sustainable’; that it had positive cash flow; and that, while ‘channel stuffing’ to improperly boost revenue at the end of the quarter had taken place, the company’s critics had ‘failed to produce any smoking guns to support their claims of massive fraud.’”  Before he wrote his articles, I told Nocera there were many reasons why the Asbahi report was wrong, and I could explain it to him.  He wasn’t interested.  Here’s what I would have told him. 

    There are at least four big problems with Nocera’s reliance on the Asbahi report. 

    One, when Asbahi published it in January, there were no MiMedx financial statements that anyone could rely on.  Even in May 2019, E&Y resigned saying it could not rely on the successor CEO and CFO because they were still dependent on unreliable statements by “legacy management personnel.” 

    Two, at the same time that Asbahi said the company’s products were “legitimate and sustainable” (and it is never a good sign that people feel the need to say that), the company’s regulatory consultant, Lachman Consultants, found that MiMedx had failed to correct thirteen health and safety violations for which the FDA had cited it. Lachman recommended that MiMedx admit its failure to address violations identified by the FDA, but MiMedx refused to do so, and continued to market and sell noncompliant products.  The company has now admitted that it falsely told the FDA that it had resolved those defects. 

    Three, it was premature at best to say there was “no smoking gun” four months before MiMedx’s audit committee released its damning report; but to repeat that  statement, three months after the report, is false and misleading to investors.  When the company admits that its C-Suite lied to the SEC, it will have to restate six years of financials, its auditor has abruptly resigned, it had a secret surveillance program to punish whistleblowers, it has identified accounts that pose risk for violations of the Anti-Kickback law, and it expects additional terminations as a result of its ongoing internal investigations; and the company’s own consultants find (and the company admits) the company lied to the FDA about correcting safety violations; and there are multiple federal agencies with active ongoing investigations; and there are multiple False Claims Act lawsuits pending; and the VA has stopped buying MiMedx products because there is insufficient evidence they are effective – I’d say the gun is smoking. 

    Four, Nocera ignored the suspicious timing of Asbahi’s January 2019 report.  Prescience Point purchased millions of shares of MiMedx between August and December 2018, drove the price up with a large block purchase late in the day on December 31, 2018, and then, when the stock had been delisted, published a glowing report saying the stock could exceed $18 per share.  Then Prescience Point sold about 2.25 million MiMedx shares in January 2019.  When somebody publishes a report that says everything is rosy despite the company’s own disavowal of its prior financial statements, that contradicts what the company’s own consultants were saying about the products’ safety and efficacy, and that contradicts the findings by the company’s own lawyers of widespread unlawful conduct – right before dumping millions of shares – that’s reason alone to be skeptical. 

    And that brings me to my last point.  I’ve been critical of Asbahi and his report, and I have accused Prescience Point of engaging in a “pump and dump” scheme.  On behalf of his old colleague’s client, Nocera says that’s “ludicrous.” 

    So, is it ludicrous?  Nope.  Nocera ignores the main reasons I actually gave him for concluding this was a pump and dump (like the implausibility of the report, and the timing of Prescience Point’s trades). Instead, he tried to prove that I was way off when I said I understood Prescience Point bought stock at $6-10 per share prior to January 2019. I was right; Nocera was wrong (again).  Nocera claims that Prescience Point’s current cost basis for its MiMedx common stock holdings is about $2.60 based on a 13D from May 6, 2019.  That may be true, but it’s irrelevant because my point was that in 2018, Prescience Point purchased millions of dollars’ worth of shares on days that the stock traded at prices above $6.  (You can see that in the Schedule 14A Prescience Point filed May 29, 2019.)  By pumping up the stock in late December 2018 and in January 2019, Prescience Point reduced its losses somewhat when it sold about 2.25 million shares at about $2.50.  Then it bought back in at the lower prices reflected in the 13D that Nocera reviewed with his blinders on.  As a result, Prescience Point’s current cost basis is lower than what it was in January 2019, but the MiMedx share price has to rise significantly above that cost basis for Prescience Point to realize any gain from its total MiMedx common stock purchases.  That’s why it looks to me that Asbahi was engaged in a pump and dump scheme in January, and that’s why I suspect Nocera’s sloppy, poorly researched articles only help Asbahi’s manipulation.

    All of this winds up with an accusation by Asbahi, adopted by Nocera, that I am engaged in a “smear campaign” to destroy MiMedx.  That’s false.  I’m engaged in a campaign to get at the truth about MiMedx, and I’m winning.  This company’s troubles are far from over, and with defenders like Nocera and Asbahi, they can only get worse fast. 

    Marc Cohodes
    Penngrove, CA
    September 26, 2019


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 09/29/2019 – 21:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 29th September 2019

  • The Battle Over Hong Kong: New Silk Road Or New World Order?
    The Battle Over Hong Kong: New Silk Road Or New World Order?

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategicd Culture Foundation,

    To the chagrin of those authors of color revolutions who have invested so much time and energy in their attempts to undermine national sovereignty as seen in Hong Kong today, not only have their plans to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and President Maduro failed, but even their simpler objectives to foment separatist movements among ethnic minorities in China (such as the Uyghurs and Tibetan Buddhists) collapsed miserably. The reason for this failure is simple.

    China has allied with a growing array of nations to create a comprehensive international program operating on every imaginable level of human activity which is essentially… creative.

    Take the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as an example. This program has evolved in its six years of existence from an idea which most establishment hacks wrote off as wildly utopian, to becoming the primary force for world development today. Rather than being a crystalized, defined idea, the BRI is flexible and open to change which frustrates insecure technocrats due to the fact that it is not susceptible to formulas while its effects increase the hope and optimism of all effected by demonstrating not only that peoples’ lives can improve, but that the government which effects such improvement may not be worth hating and fearing as these minorities are told they should.

    This creative power should not be a mystery as the principle of “win-win” cooperation is much more in harmony with natural law than the twisted Hobbesian world view of zero sum geopolitics that has brought the world to the brink of nuclear war and economic collapse.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Case of Hong Kong and the BRI

    In the case of Hong Kong, a former British colony still infested with deep-seated Anglo-American intelligence and banking ties, the commitment to join the BRI began to arise as early as 2016 with the first BRI Summit that since became an annual event.

    By 2017, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that she would do everything in her power to ensure the region’s full participation in the BRI – with a focus on the growing “Macau-Guangdong-HK Greater Bay Area” economic zone which incorporates two independent administrative regions into a unified China policy. Macau was a Portuguese colony until it was returned to China in 1999. In the course of dozens of BRI conferences since 2016, Carrie Lam has made the point that the region’s financial services, legal and logistic capacities can provide invaluable support to the BRI while its ports make it a key node in the Maritime component of the New Silk Road. Arguably the most important element in this mix is Hong Kong’s unique cultural character making it a key spiritual connection between east and west which geopolitical ideologues such as Samuel P. Huntington and Sir Bernard Lewis demanded could not exist.

    As Mrs. Lam announced this policy, key Pacific nations long thought to be under the yolk of western geopoliticians such as Malaysia, South Korea, the Philippines, and even Japan increasingly made their intentions to join BRI known, putting the U.S-led containment of China at risk.

    The 2019 BRI Summit in Hong Kong

    The 4th annual Hong Kong Belt and Road Summit took place from September 10-11 featuring 5800 guests from business, academia, finance and non-governmental organizations committed to accelerating Hong Kong’s involvement with the BRI. Mrs. Lam, as well as leaders of China’s government addressed the opening assembly making the point that Hong Kong’s future lies in participation in this win-win alliance.

    Xie Feng, commissioner of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Hong Kong went the furthest in his remarks calling out the foreign influences manipulating Hong Kong saying “Foreign forces have intervened, distorting the truth, and trying to protect those in the wrong and let them get away with it. With this continuous intervention of black hands, violence cannot stop and the rule of law cannot be upheld.”

    While China’s interests were well represented, the British Empire was not to be ignored. Unlike the Americans who entirely boycotted the event, the British demonstrated their superior understanding of manipulation once more by not only attending but taking over a major panel at the event.

    The Empire Poisons the Well

    Among the many presentations, a highly attended panel discussion stood out like a sore thumb on the theme of Geopolitical Risks of the Belt and Road Initiative featuring four Oxford-trained speakers led by Sir Richard Shirreff, former NATO Supreme Commander for Europe and moderated by Andrew Weir, Chairman of the Listing Committee of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, the Global BRI Forum and honored “Member of the British Empire”. Other Oxford-trained panelists include “Risk-assessment professional Peter Burnett (CEO of Standard Charter Bank, former head of UBS and current chair of the BRI Committee of the HK Association of Banks), and Michael Barrow, CEO of MB Secure Financial.

    This panel was particularly interesting as it provided transparent insight into the current sophistry being used by a weak, desperate and dangerous British Empire which seeks to undermine Xi’s Grand Design by redefining its “operating system” by destroying those aspects which generate creative change.

    After acknowledging the irrefutable positive effects of the BRI as all good Delphic arguments must, the panelists quickly went to work to get the audience to understand the “risk” this project has created for the world system with Sir Richard going so far as to compare China as the “New Roman Empire summoning African leaders to the capital”. The knight was joined by Barrow who had the nerve to argue that China’s ignorance of the “science of risk analysis” has caused an explosion of resentment from people whose lives are changed against their will leading “to an increase of Islamic extremism” in places like Mozambique!!!

    The BRI Delenda Est

    These “risk analysis experts” complain that when a mega-project, such as a dam, or railway, or new industrial hub is built the consequences are not entirely predictable. This complaint merely covers the fact that imperialists are also control-freaks who want to maintain their God-like feeling of control by denying all change to nations seeking a better way of life. Whenever scientific and technological progress are introduced justly into a society, that change transforms all of the socio-economic, political relationships both within that society as well as that society’s relationship to the external world- and that is simply what they hate.

    Hence, the unfortunate conclusion that all geopoliticians must come to: Creativity= evil.

    What exactly did these “risk assessment professionals” propose to subvert the BRI?

    1. That China is wrong to pursue “Top Down planning” but must transform its operating procedures into the same “market-driven”, bottom up process which also underlies globalization (and keeps bottom up thinkers from seeing the real invisible power structure manipulating the show behind a wall of complexity from the top).

    2. That ALL risk must be assessed on ALL levels BEFORE projects are built by teams of professionals deployed as “boots on the ground” to “get under the skin of nations”. A new bureaucracy of risk managers would be a perfect mode of throwing sand into the gears of the BRI and rendering its momentum impotent.

    3. Once this new operating system is created, Sir Richard and his friends argued that China must only build projects in nations which have first solved the meaningless term “corruption” (citing the USA, Britain and Canada as examples of corruption-free societies), and only projects which make minimal environmental impact should be considered by this new reformed BRI. All Oxford panelists shared their belief that de-centralization and monetarist standards must replace the current “sovereignty-driven” model.

    Of course, what these arguments propose is merely that China’s BRI become the instrument for a British-run new world order which the failing Anglo-American system was originally meant to be. This process is akin to a virus trying to infect a new host.

    Risk Management: “World Problematique Revived”

    This new sophistical argument is nothing but a modified “science of World Problematique created by a team of French and British imperialists in the 1950s and 1960s and which underlies the creation of systems analysis as well as modern ecology.

    This “science” was premised upon the cynical belief that future states of humanity can be forecast by denying those positive potentials which our creative discoveries can create to resolve human problems. In denying this driving principle of human life, its adherents asserted that the future could be known by first analyzing the infinite array of “problems” which humanity creates by attempting to make life better for ourselves. By identifying those “problems” which lead to dis-equilibrium (aka: creative change), those problems can more easily be ironed out in a perfectly pre-determined world of blah. This anti-creative ideology is the basis for the End of History thesis published in the midst of the Soviet Collapse in 1991.

    It is an irony not to be missed, that not only does World Problematique underlie “right wing” neo conservatism, but is also at the root of the rise of the “new left” ecological movement as its leading adherents included Sir Alexander King who used it to create the Club of Rome in 1969 and a new green technocracy governed by the quasi-science of systems analysis which is more focused upon depopulation than actually cleaning the environment.

    So if you are happy living in a world that denies creativity, then a new bureaucracy of risk management is the way to go. If, on the other hand, you are a member of the human species and have faith that we were created for something better, then you might want to applaud China’s Belt and Road Initiative, celebrate Hong Kong’s participation in it, and hope your nation joins if it hasn’t done so yet.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 23:30

  • The Countries With The Best (And Worst) Work-Life Balance
    The Countries With The Best (And Worst) Work-Life Balance

    Colombians are among those struggling most with their work-life balance, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    Mexicans’ lives aren’t really in balance either, and as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, the United States and the United Kingdom also perform pretty poorly, coming in 11th and 12th out of all 35 OECD member countries (plus Russia, Brazil and South Africa) covered in the Better Life Index for 2019.

    Infographic: Countries With the Worst Work-Life Balance | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The most important aspect for a healthy work-life balance is the amount of time people spend (not) at work. The index also takes into account leisure and personal time, the employment rate of mothers and other factors. The authors of the Better Life Index note that “evidence suggests that long work hours may impair personal health, jeopardise safety and increase stress.”

    At the other end of the scale, people in the Netherlands enjoy the best work-life balance.

    Infographic: The Countries With the Best Work-Life Balance | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    In the Netherlands, only 0.4 percent of employees work very long hours (50 or more hours a week), the third-lowest rate in the OECD, where the average is 11 percent.

    In comparison, 11.1 percent of American employees work very long hours, so the United States doesn’t make it in to the top ten ranking. It ranks 27th out of 38 considered countries. Also, the U.S. is the only OECD country without a national paid parental leave policy – although three states do provide leave payments.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 23:00

    Tags

  • Trump, FDR, And War
    Trump, FDR, And War

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    President Trump’s campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran reminds me of President Franklin Roosevelt’s similar campaign against Japan prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After England declared war on Germany, owing to the latter’s invasion of Poland, the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to entry into the war. That was because they recognized that U.S. interventionism into World War I, which cost the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of American soldiers and severely infringed on the liberty of the American people, had accomplished nothing.

    Americans had no interest in doing it again. Their mindsets were similar to those of our American ancestors, whose founding foreign policy was to avoid involvement in Europe’s forever wars.

    In his 1940 campaign for president, Roosevelt told the American people that he was with them in their opposition to foreign wars. He said to them, “I’ve said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

    The problem is that FDR was lying.

    In fact, his secret aim was to circumvent the will of the American people and somehow maneuver the United States into the war.

    During that time, U.S. presidents were still complying with the provision in the Constitution that prohibits the president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. FDR knew, however, that securing such a declaration was impossible, given the overwhelming sentiment against getting involved in another European war.

    So, FDR, who is widely recognized as one of the craftiest politicians in U.S. history, began figuring out a way by which he could embroil the nation in the war despite the fierce opposition of the American people. He decided that if he could provoke Germany into attacking U.S. ships, Congress would give him his desired declaration of war under the principle of self-defense.

    So FDR embarked on a campaign of helping Great Britain in its war against Germany, such as by providing it with food, oil, and weaponry under the program called “Lend Lease” and also by using U.S. Naval vessels in assist British forces in the Atlantic. Much to Roosevelt’s chagrin, Germany, however, refused to take his bait and refrained from attacking U.S. Navy vessels.

    A back door to war

    That caused the wily FDR to look toward the Pacific, with the aim of provoking Japan into “firing the first shot.” His hope was that a war with Japan would provide a “back door” to getting involved in the European war.

    So FDR embarked on a campaign aimed at preventing Japan from securing oil for its war machine in China, a plan that might well be serving as a model for Trump’s actions against Iran. FDR’s plan consisted of three main things: Place a tight oil embargo on Japan; seize Japanese assets in the United States; and place humiliating terms on the Japanese in “peace negotiations.”

    As FDR tightened the embargo noose around Japan’s neck, Japan was left with three choices: capitulate to whatever FDR dictated, withdraw its military forces from China, or strike the United States militarily in the hope of breaking FDR’s oil embargo.

    Japan chose the third option. That’s what its attack on Pearl Harbor was all about. It wasn’t the first stage in a Japanese attempt to take over America, as U.S. officials maintained. Instead, it was a way, it was hoped, to impede the U.S. Navy from interfering with Japan’s military takeover of oil fields in the Dutch East Indies.

    Of course, FDR played the innocent. We’ve been attacked, he exclaimed. It’s a big surprise for us, he insinuated. We are shocked! Shocked! We had no idea that this was coming! We are totally innocent! We were just minding our own business! This is a day that will clearly live in infamy!

    But it’s all a lie. In fact, FDR’s plan had worked brilliantly. He had gotten what he wanted — U.S. involvement in the European war — and with overwhelming support of the American people, most of whom who did not comprehend what Roosevelt had done to embroil the United States in the war.

    Trump’s scheme

    Trump’s brutal economic embargo on Iran brings to mind what FDR did to Japan. The difference, however, is that Trump’s objective seems different from that of Roosevelt. Seemingly, he isn’t targeting the Iranian people for death with his embargo in the hope of being provided an excuse for attacking Iran. Instead, he seems to be using his embargo simply as a means to force Iranian rulers to comply with his dictates, specifically to force them to agree to his terms for a new nuclear accord.

    When Trump withdrew the United States from the accord that it had entered into with Iran under the Obama administration, it was with the aim of arriving at a new accord. Trump figured that by squeezing the economic life out of the Iranian citizenry with his embargo, he could induce Iran’s rulers to return to the bargaining table and enter into a new agreement, one that would be satisfactory to Trump, which he could then trumpet in his campaign for reelection.

    What Trump didn’t figure on, however, was the unwillingness of the Iranian regime to go along with his scheme. Their position was quite logical: We have already entered into an agreement with the United States and we have upheld our end of that bargain. Therefore it is up to you to live up to your end rather than asking us to renegotiate what we have already agreed to.

    It is also increasingly clear that Iran does not intend to capitulate, no matter how many Iranian citizens Trump and his forces kill with their sanctions. And it certainly shouldn’t surprise anyone if Iran was responsible for the destruction of those Saudi oil facilities. Given that Trump is preventing Iran from selling its oil, why would it surprise anyone that Iran decides to prevent Trump’s close ally, the tyrannical and murderous Saudi regime, from selling its oil?

    Ironically, Trump’s plan to squeeze the Iranian people to death with his embargo in the hope of securing a new nuclear accord with Iran might well end up with the same result — war — as FDR’s scheme to squeeze the Japanese with his oil embargo.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 22:30

  • Debt Bombs: Here Are The States With The Most Debt
    Debt Bombs: Here Are The States With The Most Debt

    According to a new report from Truth in Accounting, the most-indebted states include New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Delaware, Kentucky, California, and New York. 

    Truth in Accounting published the Financial State of the States report, a regional analysis of the most recent state government financial data, on Tuesday, that is one of the most comprehensive studies of the economic conditions of all 50 states. The report includes the most up-to-date state finance and pension data, trends across the states, and key findings.

    The report said all 50 states have had to become more transparent in their financial reporting over the last several years, thanks to the implementation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

    Researchers this year uncovered something truly shocking: “40 states do not have enough money to pay all of their bills and in total the states have racked up $1.5 trillion in unfunded state debt.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Truth in Accounting ranks the states below according to their Taxpayer Burden or Surplus, which at the end of the day, it’s what the taxpayer is on the hook for.

    Here are the rankings (from less indebted to most indebted): 

    1. Alaska, $74,200 per taxpayer
    2. North Dakota, $30,700
    3. Wyoming, $20,800
    4. Utah, $5,300
    5. Idaho, $2,900
    6. Tennessee, $2,800
    7. South Dakota, $2,800
    8. Nebraska, $2,000
    9. Oregon, $1,600
    10. Iowa, $700
    11. Minnesota, -$200
    12. Virginia, -$1,200
    13. Oklahoma, -$1,200
    14. North Carolina, -$1,300
    15. Indiana, -$1,700
    16. Florida, -$1,800
    17. Montana, -$2,100
    18. Arkansas, -$2,300
    19. Arizona, -$2,500
    20. Nevada, -$3,100
    21. Wisconsin, -$3,200
    22. Georgia, -$3,500
    23. Missouri, -$4,300
    24. New Hampshire, -$5,000
    25. Ohio, -$6,600
    26. Kansas, -$7,000
    27. Colorado, -$7,200
    28. Washington, -$7,400
    29. Maine, -$7,400
    30. West Virginia, -$8,300
    31. Mississippi, -$10,000
    32. Alabama, -$12,000
    33. Texas, -$12,100
    34. New Mexico, -$13,300
    35. Rhode Island, -$13,900
    36. South Carolina, -$14,500
    37. Maryland, -$15,500
    38. Michigan, -$17,000
    39. Pennsylvania, -$17,100
    40. Louisiana, -$17,700
    41. Vermont, -$19,000
    42. New York, -$20,500
    43. California, -$21,800
    44. Kentucky, -$25,700
    45. Delaware, -$27,100
    46. Hawaii, -$31,200
    47. Massachusetts, -$31,200
    48. Connecticut, -$51,800
    49. Illinois, -$52,600
    50. New Jersey, -$65,100

    And what was social media’s response to the new report?

    One user said: “Look at who has controlled the State Legislatures in all the high debt States – in nearly every case it has been the Democrats, and for many years. Governors come and go – it is the Legislature that really decides if a State will be wild spending or not.” 

    Another said: “I live in Illinois. Lifelong Illinoisan. Yes I know it sucks. My 5 year plan is to leave the state before it collapses financially any home value plummets. Property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes are insane over here. DO NOT MOVE HERE.” 

    The biggest take away from the report, as explained by one social media user above, is that when the next recession strikes, the most indebted states will collapse.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 22:00

  • Want To Save The Environment? De-Fund The Pentagon
    Want To Save The Environment? De-Fund The Pentagon

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Millions of people are uniting in demonstrations worldwide against our civilization’s ecocidal march toward extinction, which makes me so happy to see. It’s really encouraging to see so many young people burning with love for their planet and a hunger to reverse the damage that has been done to our ecosystem by the refusal of previous generations to turn away from our path of devastation. This must continue if we are to survive as a species.

    The challenge now is the same perennial challenge which comes up every single time there is a massive and enthusiastic push from the public in a direction that is healthy: such movements always, without exception, become targeted for manipulation by establishment interests. I write all the time about how this has happened with the intrinsically healthy impulse of feminism; I just finished watching an MSNBC pundit proclaim that anyone who still supports Bernie Sanders over Elizabeth Warren is a sexist. This corralling of healthy energy into the advancement of corrupt establishment interests happens with feminism, it happens with the healthy fight against racism and antisemitism, and of course it happens with environmentalism.

    Of course it does. People get very emotional when you say this, even if you fully support environmentalism and don’t have any objections to the overall scientific consensus about what’s happening to our environment, but environmentalism is not destined to be the one and only popular movement which establishment interests don’t move mountains to co-opt.

    We know that our oligarchic empire will do literally anything, up to and including murdering a million Iraqis, to secure control over energy resources. We know this with absolute certainty. Therefore we can also know with certainty that they are working to ensure that when new energy systems are put in place, they are put in place in a way which allows the oligarchs to retain their power, and ideally to expand it, without losing their thrones to rival plutocrats, to governments, or (worst case scenario) to the rank-and-file public gaining control over their own energy. This agenda is on the table. It is happening.

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

    The ruling elites have many advantages over us, but one of the greatest is the fact that they know exactly what they want and exactly where they’re trying to push things, whereas we the general public, on average, do not. If we only had one positive anti-establishment direction to push in there’d be no stopping us, and as soon as we find one the oligarchs will be done. But in general and on average what we have is a few clear ideas about what we don’t want and a great many vague, frequently contradictory ideas about what we do want. This lack of clarity in direction always leaves us highly susceptible to the influence of any well-funded narrative manager who steps forward to say “Oh yeah I know exactly where we’re going! It’s this way, follow me!”

    Luckily for us, there’s a very clear demand we can add into the mix in this new push for environmentalist reforms which runs directly counter to the interests of the empire that is trying to manipulate our healthy impulses: de-fund the Pentagon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is no single, unified entity that is a larger polluter than America’s dishonestly labeled “Department of Defense”. Its yearly carbon output alone dwarfs that of entire first-world nations like Sweden and Portugal; if the US military were its own country it would rank 47th among emitters of greenhouse gasses, meaning it’s a worse polluter than over 140 entire nations. That’s completely separate from the pollution already produced by the US itself. None of the sociopathic corporations whose environmental impact is being rightly criticized today come anywhere remotely close to that of the Pentagon. They are going under the radar.

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

    And that’s just greenhouse gas emissions, which the Pentagon’s poisonous effects on our environment are in no way limited to. As journalist Whitney Webb highlighted in an excellent article for Mintpress News about the wildly neglected subject of the US military’s ecological toxicity:

    “Producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined, the US Department of Defense has left its toxic legacy throughout the world in the form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, pesticides, defoliants like Agent Orange and lead, among others.”

    Webb documents how the US “has conducted more nuclear weapons tests than all other nations combined”, how US military interventionism in Iraq “has resulted in the desertification of 90 percent of Iraqi territory, crippling the country’s agricultural industry and forcing it to import more than 80 percent of its food,” and how “US military bases, both domestic and foreign, consistently rank among some of the most polluted places in the world.”

    “While the US military’s past environmental record suggests that its current policies are not sustainable, this has by no means dissuaded the US military from openly planning future contamination of the environment through misguided waste disposal efforts,” Webb writes.

    “Last November, the US Navy announced its plan to release 20,000 tons of environmental ‘stressors,’ including heavy metals and explosives, into the coastal waters of the US Pacific Northwest over the course of this year.”

    This is all a massive environmental burden to take on for a branch of the government which provides no other service to anyone beyond bullying the rest of the world into obedience, wouldn’t you agree? So get rid of it.

    Surely with all this talk about the huge, sweeping changes that are required to avert climate catastrophe we’re not going to overlook the world’s single worst polluter just because a few think tankers and their plutocratic sponsors believe it’s important for the US-centralized power alliance to retain total global hegemony? If we’re making huge, sweeping changes, the completely needless globe-spanning US war machine would be the obvious place to start.

    That’s something we can inject into the mainstream dialogue as this environmental movement grows, and the cool thing about it is that the establishment manipulators can’t reject it or they’ll expose themselves. It’s something we can demand that they can’t legitimately say no to. We can surf this clear, concrete, exciting and utterly indisputable idea on the surging momentum of these climate demonstrations, and the same healthy impulse to save our planet that these budding activists are now embodying will lift it right up and carry it to the top of mainstream awareness. No sane person will reject this, so if anyone pushes back against it to say “No, not that,” they’ll immediately spotlight the insane agendas they serve.

    The US does not need any more military power than what other normal nations have: enough to defend its own easily defended shores from unprovoked attack. Anything beyond that, and certainly the hundreds of environmentally toxic military bases circling our planet, exists solely for the benefit of murderous dominating imperialists and sociopathic war profiteers. Demanding a reversal of US military expansionism as a part of the environmental movement is sane on its face and will benefit everyone, and it will also help highlight all unwholesome elements of empire loyalism.

    *  *  *

    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

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 21:30

  • Stunning Clip Shows Billions In Gold, Cash Hidden In Chinese City Mayor's Secret Basement
    Stunning Clip Shows Billions In Gold, Cash Hidden In Chinese City Mayor’s Secret Basement

    Chinese police searched the house of Zhang Qi, 57, the former mayor of Danzhou, and found a large amount of cash, as well as 13.5 tons of gold in ingots in a secret basement of his home, according to local media.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In addition to the mayoral post, Qi held others including Secretary of the Communist Party.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to unofficial reports, in addition to the $625 million worth of gold, cash worth 268 billion yuan ($37 billion) was discovered [ZH: seems highs to us].

    The video prompted some witty social media responses…

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

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

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

    Luxurious real estate with a total area of ​​several thousand square meters, which the former city manager had been reportedly hiding, was the icing on the cake in this massive haul for the Chinese Anti-Corruption Committee.

    Qi was investigated by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), the party’s internal disciplinary body, and the National Supervisory Commission, the highest anti-corruption agency of China, in September 2019.

    According to China’s anti-corruption laws, Qi will be executed.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 21:00

    Tags

  • US Treasury Denies It Plans To Block Chinese Listings On US Exchanges
    US Treasury Denies It Plans To Block Chinese Listings On US Exchanges

    One day after it rocked markets with a report that the US Treasury was preparing to impose quasi capital controls on China, by limiting US investors portfolio flows into China and limiting the listing of Chinese corporations on US exchanges, news which sent the S&P sharply lower and hammered US-listed Chinese companies such as Alibaba and Baidu, Bloomberg is now refuting its own scoop with a report that a U.S. Treasury official said there are no current plans to stop Chinese companies from listing on U.S. exchanges.

    “The administration is not contemplating blocking Chinese companies from listing shares on U.S. stock exchanges at this time,” Treasury spokeswoman Monica Crowley told Bloomberg in an emailed statement on Saturday, responding to Bloomberg’s report on various measures under consideration by the U.S., “including delisting Chinese companies from U.S. exchanges.”

    That said, Crowley’s statement didn’t address or rule out any all of the proposed “capital-controlling” measures, including limiting US investors’ exposure to the Chinese market through government pension funds, and ways to put caps on the Chinese companies included in stock indexes managed by U.S. firms.

    In retrospect, the response by Columbia Threadneedle’s Ed Al-Hussainy to the original Friday report appears to have come closest to the mark, when he said that “this one is a non-starter. Even this administration will have a hard time making the case for capital controls at this scale. Just another market burp.”

    Riding high on the wave of its own now refuted scoop, Bloomberg earlier quoted Citigroup which termed the alleged Treasury proposal “the most extreme potential American move against China in the escalating rivalry between the world’s largest two economies: restricting access to U.S. finance.” Even so, Bloomberg had to concede that the practical implications of such a step would be limited at best as U.S. investment in China’s domestic markets are limited with  residents holding only $203 billion of long-term mainland Chinese financial assets as of June, little more than double that held in South Africa; by comparison the market capitalization of Chinese companies on three key U.S. exchanges as of February was approximately $1.2 trillion.

    Commenting on the report – at least before its official denial – Assymetric Advisors strategist Amir Anvarzadeh said that “it obviously adds yet another layer of uncertainty and does not bode well for a positive outcome for coming trade negotiations,” adding that “it will force Chinese firms to relist in Hong Kong and China.”

    Some, such as Arkera global macro strategist Viraj Patel, noted that “potentially delisting Chinese companies from US stock exchanges is a roundabout way of capital controls that could impact US inward portfolio flows and the US dollar. All other $USD weakening tools haven’t worked. Trump now looking to bring out the heavy artillery…”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Only it now turns out that wasn’t exactly the case.

    To be sure, despite the official denial, Bloomberg is sticking with its story and notes late on Saturday that administration officials “for weeks had been examining their options, and Treasury has been participating in inter-agency meetings chaired by Larry Kudlow.”

    Still, the push largely comes from Trump’s more hawkish aides, like White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, and outside advisers like Steve Bannon. The NEC and Treasury are wary of the market reaction and are working to ensure that any plan would be executed in a way that doesn’t spook investors, the people added.

    As so often happens, Bloomberg’s initial report of the proposed Chinese listing block appears to have been another miscommunication-cum-trial balloon launched by the more hawkish elements around Trump, pressing for escalation in the trade war; however following the market drop, the more moderate elements were forced to walk it back.

    Indeed, as Bloomberg reports – one day after its original report – people close to the administration on Friday expressed annoyance at the discussions being publicized, contending that the White House hasn’t decided on a course of action. They said the discussions were examining a wide range of options and were therefore not yet ready for public consumption.

    Some advocates of a crackdown on financial flows within the administration- who argue that any U.S. investment in Chinese companies, whether they’re listed in the U.S. or China, exposes investors to potential fraud as a result of poor Chinese corporate governance standards – said they saw the fact the discussions were being leaked as an effort by doves inside the White House to kill the effort by stirring up opposition. Well, either an effort by the doves, or by Bloomberg itself, which in recent days has unleashed a a full court press against Trump in his impeachment proceedings.

    Meanwhile, according to the follow up report, while President Trump has given the green light for the review, exact mechanisms or a timeline had not been worked out.

    In short – chaos, which is quickly refuted once its initial adverse market impact is observed… and for the second week in a row. As a reminder, last Friday, stocks tumbled following news that a Chinese delegation had canceled a trip to Montana and Nebraska, which initially had a cooling effect on trade deal “optimism”, only for the report to be rejected and helping stocks spike on Monday.

    And so, for the second week in a row, the official denial of the Friday tape bomb will now again result in a sharp spike in futures when they resume trading late on Sunday.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 20:28

  • Consumer Stress: Defaults Rise To Highest Level In 2019
    Consumer Stress: Defaults Rise To Highest Level In 2019

    One of the loudest narratives heading into the fall by the mainstream financial press is that a healthy consumer is propping up the US economy. Consumer spending at retailers, bars, and restaurants have slowed but nothing to warn about yet. Powered by record-high credit card spending, Americans are nearing the point of maximum leverage, which could be an ominous sign that good times are nearing an end.

    The Trump administration, continuing to promote “the greatest economy ever” narrative to tens of millions of Americans ahead of a downturn is probably one of the most irresponsible things that a government can do. Artifical optimism has allowed consumers to rack up more debt than 2008, and it’s a ticking time bomb that could shock millions since they haven’t planned for a recession.

    Consumer stress is starting to appear via new default data from S&P Dow Jones Indices and Experian. Their Consumer Credit Default Indices measure the changes in consumer credit defaults and show that the composite rate rose 7bps to 0.92% in August, the highest of the year. The auto loan default rate moved higher by 9bps to 0.98%, and the first mortgage default rate increased 7bps to 0.69%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The report said Chicago and Dallas were some of the major metropolitan areas that showed MoM increases in default rates from July to August. Each was up 10bps to 1.05% and 0.93% respectively. The default rate for New York rose 5bps to 0.94%, while the rate for Los Angeles rose 3bps to 0.77 %. Miami was the only major city where default rates edged lower in late summer.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    S&P/Experian Consumer Credit Default Indices are summarized in the table below. Auto loans and first mortgages were the drivers’ late summer in pushing up the overall composite on an MoM and YoY basis.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Experian tracks the default rates of the consumer in four key loan categories: auto, bankcard, first mortgage lien, and second mortgage lien. Experian’s database includes leading banks and mortgage companies and covers $11 trillion in outstanding loans sourced from 11,500 lenders.

    And on a post World War II basis, the US economy has experienced 12 recessions, one every 6.1 years on average. After a decade from the financial crisis, the economy entered its fourth mini-cycle downturn in late 2018, seen in declining growth rates in inflation, manufacturing, and employment.

    For a mid-cycle cut, the Federal Reserve needed to embark on a cut cycle last September. The failure to cut, and waiting at least 10 months (cut cycle started in July) — is called a policy error, will likely result in a recession within the next several years.

    Consumer confidence remains near two-decade highs, the unemployment level is at a 50-year low, and it’s time the consumer prepares for the next downturn.

    S&P/Experian consumer default data rising to the highest point of the year shows us the narrative of a robust consumer could be shortlived — as the weakness in inflation, manufacturing, and employment will start to weigh more on the economy, contributing to a further rise in consumer stress.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 20:00

  • Does Libra Threaten Monetary Sovereignty?
    Does Libra Threaten Monetary Sovereignty?

    Authored by JP Koning via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    Last week, France’s Minister of the Economy Bruno Le Maire declared that “we cannot authorize the development of Libra on European soil.” Several months earlier, Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, asked for a “moratorium on any movement forward on Libra.”

    If you didn’t know what Libra was, you might be forgiven for guessing that it is some sort of dangerous super-missile or highly volatile chemical agent. What is this dangerous device? It is a payments network. And, with it, Le Maire has said, “our monetary sovereignty is at stake.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Let’s investigate how Libra might (or might not) threaten France’s “monetary sovereignty.” Libra isn’t just a local Parisian bank that wants to serve French citizens. The group that is building the network — the Libra Association — is headed by global giant Facebook. Libra is striving to connect the entire world via a unique global payments layer. But not a single member of the Libra Association is a regulated bank. Glance through a list of members and you’ll spot the likes of MasterCard, Stripe, eBay, and Uber. Remembering Uber’s “break first” approach to expansion, Le Maire no doubt worries that a horde of Silicon valley interlopers is preparing to trample over French money and payments laws.

    However, Libra wouldn’t be the first non-bank global payments network. PayPal, a financial-technology company based in Silicon Valley, has been providing a global payments layer for almost two decades now, one to which many French citizens are connected. With a PayPal wallet, you can pay (or be paid by) almost anyone in the world who also has a PayPal wallet. All that PayPal does is switch two numbers in its database. A Libra wallet will allow people to do the same thing.

    There is no inherent reason that a global payments system run by technology companies must elide national regulations. If PayPal manages to serve a global community while complying with the rules of all the countries in which it operates, can’t Libra do the same?

    One of the complications is that unlike PayPal, Libra will be implemented using blockchain technology. With PayPal, all transactions are presented directly to PayPal servers to verify. But with Libra’s blockchain, users will announce transactions to a dispersed network of validators for processing. These validators will be Libra Association members. There are certain advantages to this sort of setup, including resiliency. The network exists everywhere, so a natural disaster won’t impair it.

    However, critics worry that this technology isn’t mature enough to serve as the basis of a financial network. It could have bugs, or be hacked. That’s probably true. But excluding Libra, and not PayPal, on this basis doesn’t seem fair. New technologies have to start somewhere.

    Libra’s blockchain nature may have other, more threatening implications for France’s monetary sovereignty. According to Libra’s white paper, payments that go across the Libra blockchain will remain pseudonymous, as in the case of bitcoin. With bitcoin, there is no connection between the tokens being transferred and the identity of the transferee. Users aren’t quite anonymous, since every transaction can be seen. But they needn’t submit their real identities to use the bitcoin network.

    In addition to adopting bitcoin-style pseudonymity, the Libra network intends to be “open access.” Anyone with an internet connection can own the tokens.

    But pseudonymity and open access go against standard international anti–money laundering agreements, to which France is a signatory. All payments providers are obligated to get personal information from users and pass this information along with the payment itself. In bitcoin’s case, these rules are difficult to enforce. No one really owns the bitcoin network, and the job of validating bitcoin transactions (known as mining) can be done anonymously. Presumably Le Maire is afraid that Libra’s intention to adopt bitcoin’s anarchic approach to making payments will encroach on French monetary sovereignty.

    To satisfy Le Maire, Libra will have to show that it is not trying to be bitcoin. This means that the Libra blockchain will have to stop supporting pseudonymity and re-link users’ personal information to the Libras they transfer. This also means that Libra won’t be able to provide open access.

    It will be easy for folks like Le Maire to get their way. Whereas bitcoin validators can stay anonymous and avoid prosecution, the members of the Libra Network are all well-known firms that can be punished for evading money laundering rules.

    But the alterations that regulators require Libra to make will likely do harm to the network’s founding principles. In a well-written op-ed, Timothy Lee suggests these changes would

    raise the barrier to entry for new Libra-based financial services. That would be significant because lowering barriers to entry — both for wallets and for users in under-banked parts of the world — is one of the Libra project’s stated goals.

    Another one of Libra’s odd quirks is that it won’t use national currency units like the euro. Instead, it will use its own artificial unit of account, the Libra, which is defined as a cocktail of other national currencies (50% USD, EUR 18%, JPY 14%, GBP 11%, SGD??!! 7%…. ZERO Yuan). It could be that Le Maire is worried that if both euros and Libras begin to circulate on French soil, Libras will flush euros out.

    But simultaneous usage of several currencies hardly seems to be a threat to French monetary sovereignty. Along with other European centers, Paris has long played host to the massive Eurodollar market. These are basically U.S. dollar deposits held at European banks. Yet the presence of a huge pile of dollars hasn’t threatened the euro.

    Or let’s return to the case of PayPal. Two French citizens, each with a PayPal account, can already transfer U.S. dollars, or British pounds, or Swiss francs, to one another between each other, on French soil. Libras won’t be that much different. 

    Furthermore, Europe already has a history of allowing corporations to create alternate units of account. During the 1970s, banks devised private artificial currency units to help their customers cope with monetary turbulence. French bank Credit Lyonnais, for instance, created something called the International Financial Unit, a basket of 10 European and non-European currencies. Libra is nothing but a warmed-up version of Credit Lyonnais’ IFU. 

    That being said, Le Maire’s worries about monetary sovereignty aren’t entirely without foundation. If French citizens begin to set prices in Libras rather than euros, the European Central Bank (ECB) will effectively cease to set French monetary policy. After all, monetary policy is about determining the rate at which the average level of consumer prices is changing. If French prices are expressed in Libras, then it is the Libra consortium that will be in control of France’s consumer price level, not the ECB.

    But setting prices in Libras doesn’t seem likely. The euro is a stable currency. Habit keeps the usage of euro pricing locked into place, much like how French is cemented as France’s language. Even if Libra tokens were to co-circulate with euro banknotes and deposits as a form of making payments, we can expect prices to still be set in euros, with Libras passing at their going market rate. And so the ECB would continue to rule the monetary nest.

    In sum, Le Maire probably has a legitimate worry about monetary sovereignty. But as conversations between Libra and governments around the world progress, Libra will likely fall in line with respect to anti–money laundering rules. Once that has been achieved, the project should be good to go. Usage of a new monetary unit isn’t much of an issue.

    It’s important to separate the genuine worries about Libra from the hyperbole. Facebook is a controversial company these days. But French monetary sovereignty is unlikely to fall at the hands of Libra. Let’s not forget that the existing payments networks — the MasterCard and Visa networks as well as the international correspondent banking system — don’t always provide consumers with low prices. Any new competition will help consumers get cheaper and better payments options.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 09/28/2019 – 19:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 28th September 2019

  • Heroes, Villains, And Establishment Hypocrisy
    Heroes, Villains, And Establishment Hypocrisy

    Authored by Craig Murray,

    Trump and Johnson’s populism have shaken the old Establishment, and raised some very interesting questions about who is and who is not nowadays inside the Establishment and a beneficiary of the protection of the liberal elite.

    This week, two startling examples in the news coverage cast a very lurid light on this question, and I ask you to consider the curious cases of Hunter Biden and Brendan Cox, two of the most undeserving and unpleasant people that can be imagined.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The BBC news bulletins led on the move to impeach Donald Trump for, as they put it, his efforts to get the President of Ukraine to undermine a political opponent. To be plain, I think Trump was quite wrong to get personally involved in this, but please park the entire subject of Donald Trump to one side for the next ten minutes.

    What I find deeply reprehensible in all the BBC coverage is their failure to report the facts of the case, and their utter lack of curiosity about why Joe Biden’s son Hunter was paid $60,000 a month by Burisma, Ukraine’s largest natural gas producer, as an entirely absent non-executive director, when he had no relevant experience in Ukraine or gas, and very little business experience, having just been dishonorably discharged from the Navy Reserve for use of crack cocaine? Is that question not just little bit interesting? That may be the thin end of it – in 2014-15 Hunter Biden received US $850,000 from the intermediary company channeling the payments. In reporting on Trump being potentially impeached for asking about it, might you not expect some analysis – or at least mention – of what he was asking about?

    As far as I am aware, the BBC have not reported at all the other thing Trump was asking Zelensky about – Crowdstrike. Regular readers will recall that Crowdstrike are the Clinton linked “cyber-security” company which provided the “forensic data” to the FBI on the alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers – data which has been analysed by my friend Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, who characterises it as showing speeds of transfer impossible by internet and indicating a download to an attached drive. The FBI were never allowed access to the actual DNC server – and never tried, taking the DNC’s consultants word for the contents, which itself is sufficient proof of the bias of the “investigation”.

    Crowdstrike also made the claim that the same Russia hackers – “Fancy Bear” – who hacked the DNC, hacked Ukrainian artillery software causing devastating losses of Ukrainian artillery. This made large headlines at the time. What did not make any MSM headlines was the subsequent discovery that all of this never happened and the artillery losses were entirely fictitious. As Crowdstrike had claimed that it was the use of the same coding in the DNC hack as in the preceding (non-existent) Ukraine artillery hack, that proved Russia hacked the DNC, this is pretty significant. Trump was questioning Zelensky about rumours the “hacked” DNC server was hidden in the Ukraine by Crowdstrike. The media has no interest in reporting any of that at all.

    It is plain in that case that Trump is the media’s villain and the Bidens, father and son, are therefore heroes being protected by the Establishment media.

    Now let us look at the case of Brendan Cox.

    Boris Johnson’s behaviour in the Commons this week was reprehensible. Watching the unrepentant and aggressive braying of the Tory MPs, I was genuinely concerned about the consequences for democracy should these empowered right wingers ever get a majority. Johnson has removed the social restraint which used to cloak their atavistic instincts.

    This Tory display also very much reinforced what I have been saying for years, that we will not gain Scottish Independence through a repeat of 2014. We were allowed a referendum with only moderate cheating by the British state purely because they believed there was no chance we could win. They have been disabused. There will never be a Section 30 order an an agreed referendum again. We will have to seize Independence by means which the British state will deem unlawful. Anybody not prepared to do that is not serious about Independence.

    I digress. Johnson’s behaviour is appalling and he is at an interesting stage where the Establishment and its media is unsure whether to embrace or repudiate him, the calculation depending on whether they think he will win, and on the impact of Brexit on their personal financial interests. But as with Trump, I ask you to set aside your judgement on Johnson and not think of him for a moment.

    Yesterday BBC news programmes brought us repeated appearances of Brendan Cox to comment on Boris Johnson and other MP’s parliamentary behaviour. This Brendan Cox:

    One such allegation was that Cox pinned a co-worker to a wall by her throat while telling her ‘I want to fuck you’. Cox left the organisation before being subjected to scrutiny on this and other allegations. However, another woman, a senior US official who met him at a Harvard University event, made similar allegations against him, ‘of grabbing her by the hips, pulling her hair, and forcing his thumb into her mouth’ ‘in a sexual way’.

    In contrast to Assange’s treatment, and despite a social-media furore, for nearly three years there was largely a media blackout on the story. At last, in February 2018, a right-wing tabloid broke the embargo and reported the allegations, and other news organisations had to follow suit. Finally, ‘Cox apologised for the “hurt and offence” caused by his past behaviour’ and announced he was withdrawing from public life.

    I strongly recommend you to read that last linked article.

    Cox is very much on the wavelength of the Establishment media, a full member of the New Labour neo-liberal elite who shuttled between jobs in the Labour Party and in high paying neo-liberal propaganda organisation Save the Children. Cox was personally pocketing £106,000 a year plus expenses from donations to the “charity”. A serial unfaithful sexual aggressor, his wife’s murder sees him recast by the media as the grieving survivor of a perfect marriage. Precisely his strongest political supporters – Jess Phillips, Stella Creasy etc – are Julian Assange’s bitterest opponents due to far flimsier, hotly denied and less attested sexual allegations than those against Cox. But neo-liberals get a free pass from the modern feminist movement (cf Bill Clinton).

    Boris Johnson’s behaviour was a disgrace. But that is no reason for the BBC rehabilitation of the “retired from public life” sexual predator.

    The fascinating thing is the binary, good versus evil, narrative which is being pursued in the liberal media. Trump and Johnson are bad. Therefore Hunter Biden and Brendan Cox must be good. The truth, of course, is much more complex than that. I am afraid to say that if you want an excessive simplification, a more accurate one would be that the entire political elite on all sides are self-serving and venal.

    There is a more interesting story inside that, where significant portions of the public have lost respect for the Establishment, due in large part to the vast and increasing wealth gap in society, but this disillusion has been battened on by populist charlatans, and particularly directed against immigrants. This feels like an extremely unstable phase in society and politics. But instability brings the possibility of radical change, which is indeed much needed. We must all work for good from it.

    *  *  *

    Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig’s blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to keep Craig’s blog going are gratefully received.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 23:45

  • For Renters, These Are The Most Expensive Neighborhoods In The US
    For Renters, These Are The Most Expensive Neighborhoods In The US

    Peak renting season is upon us, and RentCafe is back with its annual ranking of the most expensive ZIP codes for renters in the US.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Unsurprisingly, different ZIP codes in New York City and across California snagged the most spots in the top 50, thanks to a profusion of high-paying jobs in industries like tech and finance.

    NYC has 28 ZIP codes in the top 50; of those, 26 are in Manhattan and there’s one each in Brooklyn and Queens. 18 ZIP codes in Cali and 4 in Boston round out the top 50.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    ZIP code 10282 in Manhattan’s Battery Park City has retained the No. 1 spot as the most expensive ZIP code in the country since last year, with apartment rents climbing above $6,000. ZIP Code 10013, which covers the neighborhoods of Tribeca and SoHo – some of the trendiest spots in the city. In third place for Manhattan renters is ZIP code 10023, which covers some of the Upper West Side, where Central Park views have driven rents north of $5,000 a month.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The most expensive ZIP codes for renters in Cali range across Los Angeles, San Francisco, Corte Madera, Redwood City, Culver City, Menlo Park, San Mateo, Mountain View, Marina Del Rey, Santa Monica, Cupertino and Sunnyvale, Cali.

    Outside of NYC, the most expensive ZIP Code is LA’s Westwood 90024, ranked 4th with an average rent of $4,944. In 5th place nationwide is Los Angeles ZIP Code 90048, covering parts of West Hollywood and Beverly Grove.

    Boston is the only city outside of Cali and New York to make the top 50 list, with four ZIP codes. The priciest rents are in 02210 in Boston’s Seaport District/West Broadway area, with an average apartment rent above $4,000.

    Outside of the top 50, RentCafe also created a chart showing the most expensive ZIP codes for renters in each region.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To look through a searchable database of ZIP codes to see if yours made it on the most-expensive list, click here.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 23:25

  • China Unveils "Super Surveillance Camera" That Can Link To Its Social Credit System
    China Unveils “Super Surveillance Camera” That Can Link To Its Social Credit System

    Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

    Device can identify individual faces out of crowds of tens of thousands; Will take mass surveillance to a new level

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A new camera with a resolution five times more detailed than the human eye, able to monitor thousands of people in real time and identify individual faces has been unveiled by Chinese scientists, prompting renewed fears about mass surveillance.

    ABC News in Australia reports that the new 500 megapixel cloud camera AI system, dubbed a ‘super camera’, was revealed at China’s International Industry Fair last week.

    The camera system, equipped with state of the art facial recognition utilities, was designed by Fudan University and Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    The designers claim that the system can detect and identify thousands of human faces or other objects in real time and instantly locate specific targets in environments such as crowded stadiums.

    Of course, it would work equally as well at protests.

    The designers suggested that police could set up the camera system in the center of Shanghai and monitor the movement of crowds, while cross-checking the images with medical and criminal records.

    Li Daguang, a professor at the National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army in Beijing told the Global Times that the system could “very easily be applied to national defense, military and public security.”

    Technology like this in the hands of Communist Chinese authorities, who already operate a citizen social credit system, does not bode well for privacy rights and freedom.

    “The Party-state has massive databases of people’s images and the capability to connect them to their identity, so it isn’t inconceivable that technology like this is possible if not now then in the future,” Samantha Hoffman, an analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute noted.

    The social credit system, which rewards ‘good behavior’ with incentives and punishes disobedience by restricting and banning people from buying travel tickets, is currently enforced using a vast network of over 200 million surveillance cameras, as well as other tracking tools.

    However, the 500 million pixel ‘super camera’ would take surveillance capabilities to a different level.

    Scientists noted that the current crop of cameras are able to monitor thousands of people at once, but each face is in the wide shot can only be represented by a few pixels, meaning “you couldn’t clearly see your targeted person at all”.

    The data from the video will be “fed into a pool of data that, combined with AI processing, can generate tools for social control, including tools linked to the Social Credit System” said the ASPI’s Hoffman.

    Of course, this kind of thing is all fine because it’s all the way away in China, right?

    Wrong.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 23:05

  • Marriage Rates Are Falling Due To Shortage Of "Economically Attractive" Men, Study Finds
    Marriage Rates Are Falling Due To Shortage Of “Economically Attractive” Men, Study Finds

    In the US, conventional feminists talk about the ‘wage gap’ like it’s some kind of international conspiracy to short-change women. On ‘Equal Pay Day’ and other new feminist holidays, numbers like ’78 cents on the dollar’ are bandied about, supposedly representing the gulf between what women and men earn for the same job.

    Of course, many women who are ‘outraged’ by the wage gap probably don’t understand how that number was produced. They would probably be offended if somebody mentioned that different studies have arrived at wildly different conclusions about the gap in pay between women and men. Amusingly, at the highest echelons of corporate America, females are routinely paid more than their male counterparts.

    But in a new study published by the Journal of Marriage and Family, a team of Cornell sociologists looked at the factors behind America’s falling marriage and family-formation rates. They found that American women are struggling to find ‘suitable’ partners due to a lack of ‘financially eligible’ bachelors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In other words: America’s men are too unemployed, broke and sad to marry.

    The study’s lead author, Daniel Lichter, who has been studying marriage in the US for 30 years, gave an interview to the New York Post, where he declared that there’s a “shortage” of “economically attractive” men. He blamed the “lack of good jobs” and the gig economy for this situation.

    But the roots of this problem are even deeper. Today, college graduation rates are higher for women than for men, while men have been disproportionately impacted by the opioid epidemic, representing more than 70% of all addicts. They also experience higher rates of suicide.

    Not only do women hold more advanced degrees than men; they are also beginning to replace men as the prime breadwinners for families. This gap has led to more “highly educated” women “marrying down.”

    One single New York City woman shared some of her “theories” about what’s going on with men with the NYP:

    Single New Yorker Gina Thibodeaux has some theories of her own about the fella famine.

    “I find generally that dudes these days just do less across the board,” says the nurse practitioner. “Their parents have coddled them and taken care of them, and they just don’t go out there and make more money.”

    The 38-year-old Upper East Sider stresses that she’s not looking for “anything outrageous” – “safety and security, as far as finances go” – but she’s still coming up empty on dates.

    She says it’s because the men she goes out with don’t feel the innate “push” to succeed that she does.

    “I think for years they’ve always just taken their role in society for granted, and I think that they’re just getting lazy culturally,” she says.

    Another woman from South Carolina said most men she meets are underemployed and “wildly in debt.” Often, they’re intimidated by her ‘stability’ even though she doesn’t consider herself “all that successful.”

    What’s to be done about this situation? It’s difficult to say. Men really just need to get it together.

    But next time feminist start citing manufactured statistics about a ‘wage gap’, men can counter with the ‘mating gap.’


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 22:45

  • PCR: Adam Schiff Epitomizes The Total Collapse Of Democratic Party Integrity
    PCR: Adam Schiff Epitomizes The Total Collapse Of Democratic Party Integrity

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    US Rep. Adam Schiff, Democrat from California and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had no qualms about lying through his teeth in his opening statement prior to the testimony of Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire. Everyone present had read the transcript of the telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, and everyone knew that what Schiff, who said he was reading from the transcript of the telephone call, was saying was not in the transcript. How can it be that the chairman of a House committee in a room full of newspersons and TV cameras has no qualms about intentionally misrepresenting the written record in order to make it conform to the lies the Democrats and their stable of corrupt presstitutes have spread about a telephone call revealed by an alleged whistleblower, a likely Democrat operative, who claimed to have heard it second hand.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When I was a member of the Congressional staff, any Representative who so dishonored a committee of the House and the House itself as Schiff has done would have been reprimanded, brought before the Ethics Committee, and forced to resign. But the Democrats have ground integrity under their heel in their fanatical determination to prevent Trump’s reelection.

    In his opening statement Adam Schiff further showed his total lack of integrity in his assault on the integrity and character of Joseph Maguire and made wild and irresponsible charges probably never witnessed previously in the halls of Congress.

    The transcript of the telephone call shows that what the alleged whistleblower said is false. Yet in the face of the evidence Adam Schiff speaks as if the evidence does not exist and that the alleged whistleblower’s second hand statement is true. Once again we hear the Democratic Party say, “Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.” They don’t need evidence because the presstitutes support their lies and control the explanations given to Americans.

    The Democrats are betting their future on their lies being shielded by their media whores and that the insouciant American people will hear nothing but false allegations against Trump repeated endlessly, as was the case with Russiagate. If the people realize that the “impeachment investigation” is another hoax like Russiagate, Schiff will have destroyed the Democrats’ chances in the next election.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The extraordinary rudeness and incivility of Democrat members of the committee toward Maguire, cutting him off before he could answer their accusatory questions, thus leaving the accusation unanswered, together with Schiff’s lies demonstrate that political and social collapse in the United States is far advanced. American democracy was never very democratic, but when an entire political party disrespects truth and is determined to gain power at all cost, we know that the end is near.

    The Republican ranking member of the committee, Devin Nunes, explained what the successor to the failed Russiagate witchhunt is all about.

    For those with the stomach for it, the hearing can be watched here:


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 22:25

    Tags

  • Australia Introduces AI Cameras To Bust Distracted Drivers
    Australia Introduces AI Cameras To Bust Distracted Drivers

    An Australian state has introduced special high-tech cameras to catch people using their smartphones while driving, according to the Straits Times

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New South Wales (NWS) Roads Minister Andrew Constance announced on Monday that they would introduce 45 Mobile Phone Detection Cameras by December. Each unit contains two cameras; one which photographs what drivers are doing inside their car, while another captures the vehicle’s registration plate. 

    The units use artificial intelligence (AI) to exclude drivers who are not touching their phones. Photos that show suspected illegal behaviour are referred for verification by human eyes before an infringement notice is sent to the vehicle’s registered owner along with a A$344 (S$320) fine. Some cameras will be permanently fixed along roadsides and others will be moved around the state. –Straits Times

    “There is no doubt drink-driving, as far as I’m concerned, is on a par with mobile phone use, and that’s why we want everyone to be aware that you’re going to get busted doing this anytime, anywhere,” Constance told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. 

    A six-month trial of two AI cameras checked 8.5 million vehicles – detecting 100,000 drivers holding their phones. Under NSW law, drivers are allowed to use hands-free cradles and Bluetooth, however touching a phone while driving except to give it to a passenger is illegal. The law applies to those sitting at red lights and stuck in traffic jams. According to Constance – NSW authorities will relax the law to allow caught drivers to pay their fines at restaurant drive-throughs

    NSW wants to expand the program to 135 million checks per year by 2023, according to the report. 

    National Roads and Motorists’ Association spokesman Peter Khoury, a leading advocate for road users, accused the government of using stealth to crack down on illegal phone use. While the association supported tougher action against drivers distracted by phones, it wanted signs warning motorists that phone detection cameras were operating in an area, as happens with speed cameras in the state.

    Government modelling found that the phone detection cameras could prevent 100 fatal and serious injuries over five years. –Straits Times

    So far this year, over 16,500 drivers have been fined for illegally using their phones.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 22:05

  • Physicists Are Creating Lasers Powerful Enough To Rip Holes In The Fabric Of Reality
    Physicists Are Creating Lasers Powerful Enough To Rip Holes In The Fabric Of Reality

    Authored by Jake Anderson via TheMindUnleashed.com,

    People generally balk at the idea of scientists experimenting with and manipulating certain pillars of physical reality, whether that be gene splicing, artificial intelligence, or nuclear fusion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But in the last couple of decades, a new twist on this modern Island of Dr. Moreau-style narrative has surfaced in the form of scientists experimenting on high-velocity elementary particles (such as the CERN Hadron Collider) and other quantum enigmas.

    Laser physicists recently chortled “hold my beer” in announcing that they are developing a laser so powerful it can shred all matter, including the very electrons and nuclei that constitute the fabric of reality itself. 

    Earlier this month, the physics journal Physical Review Letters published a paper discussing how new technology could allow a high-velocity laser to pierce “through [the] fabric of the Universe.” The trick, according to a researcher at the Université Paris-Saclay, is to anchor and focus the laser using a mirror made of plasma.

    In an analysis written for Ars Technica, physicist and writer Chris Lee broke down the logistical hurdles the new technique could overcome. By consolidating a 5-10 petawatt laser for around 5-5000 joules of energy for somewhere between a picosecond or femtosecond, scientists can muster an intensity of 1022W/cm2, which is when a plasma state kicks in and creates a conductive gas of excited particles whose electrons reflect light.

    Other laser experiments have concentrated as much as 200 petawatts of power on a target for less than a trillionth of a second.

    Using a plasma mirror, scientists can reach 1029W/cm2 and accelerate electrons to the point where they will be “generating real charges from the apparent nothingness of empty space.”

    “The way the mirror oscillates also means that the light frequencies are all multiples of each other,” writes Chris Lee. “The mirror reflects all these colors together, and they add up to a pulse that is even shorter in time. In fact, the pulse goes from being 20fs in duration to 0.1fs (a femtosecond is 10-15s). This by itself increases the intensity by a factor of 100. The shorter wavelength also means that the light focuses to a smaller spot.

    “The end result is a factor of 1,000 higher intensity for the same input laser and a simple mirror swap.” 

    Then what happens?

    “They can all stare in wonder at the hole they made,” Lee concludes.

    What is the purpose of using lasers to rip a hole in space/time?

    Previous laser experiments have sought to discover virtual particles, extra dimensions, and even dark matter. Last year, Chinese scientists used a 100-petawatt laser—“10,000 times more energy than there is in all the world’s electrical grids combined—to try and produce electrons out of the quantum ether by separating them from their antimatter twins.

    For now it appears we’re going to have to trust that scientists know what they’re doing with the fabric of reality.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 21:45

  • "Smart Manufacturing:" AI And 3D Printing Allows Chinese Car Startup To Bypass Trump's Tariffs
    “Smart Manufacturing:” AI And 3D Printing Allows Chinese Car Startup To Bypass Trump’s Tariffs

    Pix Moving, a Chinese automobile startup using artificial intelligence (A.I.) to design vehicles and convert the blueprints into instructions for 3D printers, isn’t afraid of President Trump’s trade war and has utilized technology to bypass tariffs, reported Nikkei Asian Review.

    Angelo Yu, the founder of Pix Moving, has outsmarted the most powerful country in the world: the U.S., as A.I. designs vehicles, uploads the blueprints onto the cloud and sends the instructions to 3D printers that can be based anywhere in the world.

    “We don’t export cars to the U.S.,” Yu said. “We export the technique that is needed to produce the cars.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pix has gained attention from two major automakers, Volvo and Honda motors. Yu told Nikkei that if Henry Ford was still living, he would be using A.I. and 3D printers to produce automobiles.

    “If Henry Ford were still alive,” Yu said, “I believe he would have also built cars using A.I.”

    Yu’s startup could be the solution for Chinese manufacturers to bypass President Trump’s tariffs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To reduce the number of parts needed to make an automobile, Yu and his team turned to an A.I. technique known as generative design, which is a program that entirely uses A.I. to design the vehicle with some human inputs such as car size and maximum weight. Many other inputs could go into the design, but from there, Yu said the computer does all the work.

    Siddharth Suhas Pawar, a mechanical engineer at Pix, told Nikkei he was often “surprised” by the A.I.’s suggestions.

    “I would have never thought about making a car that way,” Pawar said. Vehicle designs by A.I and humans showed A.I
    were far more detailed with revolutionary designs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Once A.I. designs the vehicle, Yu’s team signs off on the final design. Uploads it to a cloud where it can be sent as instructions to 3D printers.

    For instance, the chassis, A.I. reduced the number of parts from thousands to hundreds. A.I. can work out the clock, designing new components and reducing parts, making the design of a vehicle in only 12 months, versus 36 months for a traditional automaker.

    Since Pix is data-driven, the company can quickly replicate factories that would only be exclusive to China, anywhere in the world, at a moments notice. If President Trump was targeting Chinese automobile companies with tariffs, Yu could quickly shift production lines anywhere, anytime, with literally at the flip of a switch. If he had to move production to Japan, he could do it. He could even move production to South Korea, the U.S., Vietnam, and or even South America.

    “Pix has a unique and interesting approach to problem-solving,” said Matt Lemay, a specialist at Autodesk who invited the Chinese startup to join the program. “Pix’s vision of the future, on not just autonomous vehicles but also new methods of design automation and smart manufacturing, makes them a compelling partner.”

    Unlike large automakers, whose production lines are for mass production, Yu said his 3D printers could handle small batches. In April, he received his first order from a Texas company who wanted a self-driving truck.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yu said the design of the truck should be completed in the near term. He said his company had secured a factory in an abandoned warehouse in San Francisco, where A.I. computers in China are wrapping up on the final design of the vehicle. Once the design is completed, engineers will sign off on it, and upload it to the cloud, where 3D printers in San Francisco will receive the instruction to start printing the truck.

    “The U.S.-China trade war will motivate more and more Chinese manufacturers to embrace smart manufacturing,” Yu predicted. “In the future, international trading will no longer run on cargo but on the cloud.”

    And just like that, President Trump’s trade war is absolutely worthless — as per one Chinese company, utilizing A.I. and 3D printing to skirt around economic duties. The world will move forward, technology and the human will to adapt will outsmart dinosaur governments. It’s only a matter of time before big automakers get ahold of this technology and process.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 21:25

  • Greta Thunberg To Poor Countries: Drop Dead
    Greta Thunberg To Poor Countries: Drop Dead

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    On Monday, celebrity climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a speech to the UN Climate Action summit in New York. Thunberg demanded drastic cuts in carbon emissions of more than 50 percent over the next ten years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is unclear to whom exactly she was directing her comments, although she also filed a legal complaint with the UN on Monday, demanding five countries (Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey) more swiftly adopt larger cuts in carbon emissions. The complaint is legally based on a 1989 agreement, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which Thunberg claims the human rights of children are being violated by too-high carbon emissions.

    Thunberg seems unaware, however, that in poor and developing countries, carbon emissions are more a lifeline to children than they are a threat.

    Rich Countries and Poor

    It’s one thing to criticize France and Germany for their carbon emissions. Those are relatively wealthy countries where few families are reduced to third-world-style grinding poverty when their governments make energy production — and thus most consumer goods and services — more expensive through carbon-reduction mandates and regulations. But even in the rich world, a drastic cut like that demanded by Thunberg would relegate many households now living on the margins to a life of greatly increased hardship.

    That’s a price Thunberg is clearly willing to have first-world poor people pay.

    But her inclusion of countries like Brazil and Turkey on this list is bizarre and borders on the sadistic — assuming she actually knows about the situation in those places.

    While some areas of Brazil and Turkey contain some areas that approach first-world conditions, both countries are still characterized by large populations living in the sorts of poverty that European schoolgirls could scarcely comprehend.

    Winning the War on Poverty with Fossil Fuels

    But thanks to industrialization and economic globalization —  countries can, and do, climb  out of poverty.

    In recent decades, countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Thailand and Mexico — once poverty-stricken third-world countries — are now middle-income countries. Moreover, in these countries most of the population will in coming decades will likely achieve what we considered to be first-world standards of living in the twentieth century.

    At least, that’s what will happen if people like Greta Thunberg don’t get their way.

    The challenge here arises from the fact that for a middle-income or poor country, cheap energy consumption — made possibly overwhelmingly by fossil fuels — is often a proxy for economic growth.

    After all, if a country wants to get richer, it has to create things of value for other countries. At the lower- and middle- income level, that usually means making things such as vehicles, computers, or other types of machinery. This has certainly been the case in Mexico, Malaysia, and Turkey.

    But for countries like these, to only economical way to produce these things is by using fossil fuels.

    Thus it is not a coincidence that carbon emissions growth and economic growth track together. We see this relationship in Malaysia, for example:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And in Turkey:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And also in Brazil:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source

    We no longer see this close a relationship between the two factors in wealthy countries. This is due to the fact many first-world (and post-Soviet) countries make broader use of nuclear power, and because high income countries have more heavily abandoned coal in favor of less-carbon intensive fuels like natural gas.

    It is thanks to this fossil-fuel powered industrialization over the past thirty years that extreme poverty and other symptoms of economic under-development have been so reduced.

    For example, according to the World Bank, worldwide extreme poverty was reduced from 35 percent to 11 percent, from 1990 to 2013. We also find that access to clean water has increased, literacy has increased , and life expectancy has increased — especially in lower-income areas that have been most rapidly industrializing in recent decades.

    Just as carbon emissions track with economic growth in middle income countries, child mortality tends to fall as carbon emissions increase.

    We see this throughout the developing world, including in India,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And in China:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source

    Industrialization isn’t the only factor behind reducing child mortality, of course. But it is certainly a major factor. Industrialization sustains modern health care amenities such as climate controlled hospitals, and it increases access to clean water and sanitation systems.

    Greta Thunberg, ignores all of this, mocking the idea of economic growth as a “fairytale.” But for people in the developing world, money and economic growth — two things Greta Thunberg thinks are contemptible — translates into a longer and better life. In other words, economic development means happiness, since, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, “Most mothers feel happier if their children survive, and most people feel happier without tuberculosis than with it.”

    Thunberg’s blithe disregard for the benefits of economic growth is not uncommon for people from wealthy countries who are already living in an industrialized world built by the fossil fuels of yesteryear. For them, they associate additional economic growth with access to high fashion and luxury cars. But for the billions of human beings living outside these places, fossil-fuel-driven industrialization can be the difference between life and death.

    And yet, Greta Thunberg has seen fit to attack countries like Brazil and Turkey for not more enthusiastically cutting off their primary means to quickly deliver a more sanitary, more well-fed, and less deadly way of life for ordinary people.

    The Chinese know the benefits of economic growth especially well. A country that was literally starving to death during the 1970s, China rapidly industrialized after abandoning Mao’s communism for a system of limited and regulated market capitalism. But even this small market-based lifeline — sustained by fossil fuels — quickly and substantially pulled a billion people out of a tenuous existence previously threatened regularly by famine and economic deprivation.

    Today, China is the world’s largest carbon emitter — by far — with total carbon emissions double that of the United States. And while the US and the EU has been cutting emissions, China won’t even pledge to cap its emissions any time before 2030. (And a pledge doesn’t mean it will actually happen.) India meanwhile, more than doubled its carbon emissions between 2000 and 2014, and its prime minister refuses to pledge to cut its coal-fired power generation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source

    And who can blame these countries? First-world school children may think it’s fine to lecture Chinese factory workers about the need to cut back their standard of living, but such comments are likely to fall on deaf ears if climate policy means destroying the so-called “fairytale” of economic growth.

    As one Chinese resident put it on China’s social media platform Weibo: “If the economy doesn’t grow, what do us people living in developing countries eat?”

    Measuring Net Costs of Global Warming

    Advocates for drastic cuts in emissions might retort: “even if our policies do make people poorer, they’d be a lot worse off with global warming!”

    Would they though?

    At the UN, Thunberg thundered, “People are suffering. People are dying [because of climate change.]” But that isolated assertion doesn’t tell us what we need to know when it comes to climate-change policy.

    The question that does matter is his: if the world implements drastic Thunbergian climate change policies will the policies themselves do more harm than good?

    The answer may very well not be in the climate activists’ favor. After all, the costs of climate change must be measured compared to the costs of climate change policy. If economic growth is stifled by climate policy — and a hundred million people lose out on clean water and safe housing as a result — that’s a pretty big cost.

    After all, the benefits of cheap energy — most of provided by fossil fuels — are already apparent. Life expectancy continues to go up — and is expected to keep making the biggest gains in the developing world. Child mortality continues to go down. For the first time in history, the average Chinese peasant isn’t forced to scratch out a subsistence-level existence on a rice paddy. Thanks to cheap electricity, women in middle income countries don’t have to spend their days cleaning clothes by hand without washing machines. Children don’t have to drink cholera-tainted water.

    It’s easy to sit before a group of wealthy politicians and say “how dare you” for not implementing one’s desired climate policy. It might be slightly harder to tell a Bangladeshi tee-shirt factory worker that she’s had it too good, and we need to put the brakes on economic growth. For her own good, of course.

    And this has been the problem with climate-change policy all along. Although the burden of proof is on them for wanting to coerce billions into their global economic-management scheme, the climate-change activists have never convincingly made the case that the downside of climate change is worse than the downside of crippling industrializing economies.

    This is why the activists so commonly rely on over-the-top claims of total global destruction. One need not waste any time on weighing the options if the only choices presented are “do what we want” or “face total global extinction.”

    But even climate change activists can’t agree the armaggedon approach is accurate.  Last year, for example, Scientific American published “Should We Chill Out About Global Warming?” by John Horgan which explores the idea “that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems.” 

    Specifically, Horgan looks at two recent writers on the topic, Steven Pinker and Will Boisvert. Neither Pinker nor Boisvert could be said to have libertarian credentials, and neither take the position that there is no climate change. Both assume that climate change will lead to difficulties. 

    Both, however, also conclude that the challenges posed by climate change do not require the presence of a global climate dictatorship. Moreover, human societies are already motivated to do the sorts of things that will be essential in overcoming climate-change challenges that may arise. 

    That is, pursuing higher standards of living through technological innovation is the key to dealing with climate change.

    But that innovation isn’t fostered when children shake their fingers at Brazilian laborers and tell them to forget about a family car or household appliances or travel at vacation time. 

    That isn’t likely to be a winning strategy outside the world of self-hating first-world suburbanites. It appears many Indians and Brazilians and Chinese are willing to risk the global warming for a chance at experiencing even a small piece of what wealthy first-world climate activists have been enjoying all their lives.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 21:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 27th September 2019

  • Where Europe Runs On Coal
    Where Europe Runs On Coal

    The end of the age of fossil fuels is not yet in sight in Europe. As Statista’s Martin Armstrong illustrates in the following infographic, there are still a number of countries that generate a very large proportion of their electricity from coal.

    Infographic: Where Europe Runs On Coal | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    At the same time, not all countries have announced a date for phasing out its use. This applies in particular to those countries that have a high proportion of coal-fired electricity. Despite recent efforts to transition to renewable energy, Germany still lies in the upper quarter of the country comparison, behind countries such as Poland, Czechia, Greece and Bulgaria. The government is aiming to phase out coal by 2038.

    Scientists are demanding a move away from electricity generation from coal. The prevention of climate change can only be achieved by a complete abandonment of fossil fuels. In addition, electricity from renewable energies can be produced more cheaply than electricity from fossil fuels – taking into account the resulting costs of health and climate damage. In Poland, for example, many people suffer health problems from the consequences of high levels of air pollution. Nevertheless, there is no prospect of a swift turn away from coal. One reason for this is that jobs in the five-digit region depend on coal production.

    Global coal production has risen again recently, with around 8 billion tonnes of coal mined in 2018. Countries such as China, Russia and the USA contributed to the increase.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 02:45

  • UK: Brexiteers Vs Remainers, Gambling At The Last Chance Saloon
    UK: Brexiteers Vs Remainers, Gambling At The Last Chance Saloon

    Authored by Andrew Ash via The Gatestone Institute,

    The latest twist in the UK’s ongoing battle to leave the European Union has — unsurprisingly — reached yet another impasse. The supreme court has ruled that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspending of Parliament was unlawful because it “had the effect of frustrating parliament.” He was also accused of giving unlawful advice to the Queen in asking her for permission.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As is routine for a newly appointed PM, Johnson suspended Parliament in order to announce his domestic agenda with a Queen’s Speech. Furious Remainers claim that he shut it down to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny of his plans to leave Europe — with or without a deal. The suspension, which infuriated his foes, was the latest move in an ongoing battle to deliver Brexit — in spite of the opposition’s determined refusal to accept the will of the people.

    Johnson’s detractors, inevitably, have leapt upon the decision, passed by a panel of eleven judges, to void his decision to prorogue — or suspend — Parliament. The Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, have called for Johnson’s resignation, and demanded a new election. Mr Johnson — who is currently in New York on his first UN summit — has steadfastly refused to stand down.

    The ruling comes as a blow to the PM, who has set a deadline of October 31 to leave the European Union. The opposition camp, having already succeeded in obstructing Britain’s exit from the EU for three years, have now won themselves extra time in which to block the path of democracy.

    As a result of the judges’ decision, MPs have now been called to return to the House of Commons “as a matter of urgency” by one of Johnson’s most staunch opponents, Speaker of the House John Bercow, who “welcomes” the Supreme Court’s judgement.

    Bercow, a former Conservative, along with his anti-Trump rhetoric, has thrown his all into preventing Brexit from happening ever since the referendum result in 2016, even going so far as to display a “Bollocks To Brexit” sticker on his car.

    Shadow PM Jeremy Corbyn, clearly revelling in the latest turn of events, which come at the start of the Labour Party’s annual conference in Brighton, said after the ruling, “I invite Boris Johnson to consider his position and become the shortest serving PM there has ever been.”

    European Union members, somewhat inevitably, have also expressed their unbridled joy at the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Johnson’s suspension of Parliament, and once again thwart the democratic rights of the people of Britain.

    Member of European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt, oblivious to the irony of his statement, commented:

    “At least one big relief in the Brexit saga: the rule of law in the UK is alive & kicking. Parliaments should never be silenced in a real democracy.

    “I never want to hear Boris Johnson or any other Brexiteer say again that the European Union is undemocratic.”

    Mr Johnson, however, insists that the suspension was not obstructive, but necessary, and insisted that MPs were only losing “four or five days of parliamentary scrutiny, when parliament has had three years to discuss the issue.”

    Despite the hyperbole from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John Bercow, however, the prime minister cannot be forced out of office by this week’s ruling, although it does leave him open to a potential vote of no confidence when Parliament reconvenes — which would make the likelihood of a general election far more likely — quite possibly within weeks. This tactic would be quite a gamble for the Remainers: if the Conservatives win, even if it means forming an alliance with Nigel Farage’s Brexit party, it would cause the very same “no deal Brexit” to which his detractors claim to be so opposed.

    The opposition seem nevertheless willing to take the gamble: they are running out of alternative methods to hold up proceedings for much longer. Anything and everything is apparently in the cards for the obstructionists, whose true agenda appears to be not to work out a Brexit deal at all — but to ignore the referendum result, and for the UK to remain in the untransparent, unaccountable and un-unelectable EU.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 09/27/2019 – 02:00

    Tags

  • Escobar: How Yemen's Houthis Are Bringing Down A Goliath
    Escobar: How Yemen’s Houthis Are Bringing Down A Goliath

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    “It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further details.”

    The statement above was not written by Franz Kafka. In fact, it was written by a Kafka derivative: Brussels-based European bureaucracy. The Merkel-Macron-Johnson trio, representing Germany, France and the UK, seems to know what no “ongoing investigation” has unearthed: that Tehran was definitively responsible for the twin aerial strikes on Saudi oil installations.

    “There is no other plausible explanation” translates as the occultation of Yemen. Yemen only features as the pounding ground of a vicious Saudi war, de facto supported by Washington and London and conducted with US and UK weapons, which has generated a horrendous humanitarian crisis.

    So Iran is the culprit, no evidence provided, end of story, even if the “investigation continues.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    An image taken from a video made available on July 7, 2019 by the press office of the Yemeni Shiite Houthi group shows ballistic missiles, labeled ‘Made in Yemen,’ at a recent exhibition of missiles and drones at an undisclosed location in Yemen. Footage showed models of at least 15 unmanned drones and missiles of different sizes and ranges. Photo: AFP/ Al-Houthi Group Media Office

    Hassan Ali Al-Emad, Yemeni scholar and the son of a prominent tribal leader with ascendance over ten clans, begs to differ.

    “From a military perspective, nobody ever took our forces in Yemen seriously. Perhaps they started understanding it when our missiles hit Aramco.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A satellite image from the US government shows damage to oil and gas infrastructure from weekend drone attacks at Abqaig on September 15.

    Al-Emad said:

    “Yemeni people have been encircled by an embargo. Why are Yemeni airports still closed? Children are dying without treatment. In this current war, the first door [to be closed against enemies] was Damascus. The second door is Yemen.”

    Al-Emad considers that Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Sayed Nasrallah and the Houthis are involved in the same struggle.

    Al-Emad was born in Sana’a in a Zaydi family influenced by Wahhabi practices. Yet when he was 20, in 1997, he converted to Ahlulbayat after comparative studies between Sunni, Zaydi and the Imamiyyah – the branch of Shi’ite Islam that believes in 12 imams. He abandoned Zaydi in what could be considered a Voltairean act: because the sect cannot withstand critical analysis.

    I talked and broke bread – and hummus – with Al-Emad, in Beirut, during the New Horizon conference among scholars from Lebanon, Iran, Italy, Canada, Russia and Germany. Although he says he cannot get into detail about military secrets, he confirmed:

    “Past Yemeni governments had missiles, but after 9/11 Yemen was banned from buying weapons from Russia. But we still had 400 missiles in warehouses in South Yemen. We used 200 Scuds – the rest is still there [laughs].”

    Al-Emad breaks down Houthi weaponry into three categories: the old missile stock; cannibalized missiles using different spare parts (“transformation made in Yemen”); and those with new technology that use reverse engineering. He stressed: “We accept help from everybody,” which suggests that not only Tehran and Hezbollah are pitching in.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Smoke billows from the Aramco oil facility in Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province after the Sept 14 attacks. Photo: AFP

    Al-Emad’s key demand is actually humanitarian: “We request that Sana’a airport be reopened for help to the Yemeni people.” And he has a message for global public opinion that the EU-3 are obviously not aware of: “Saudi is collapsing and America is embracing it in its fall.”

    The real danger

    On the energy front, Persian Gulf energy traders that I have relied upon as trustworthy sources for two decades confirm that, contrary to Saudi Oil Minister Abdulazziz bin Salman’s spin, the damage from the Houthi attack on Abqaiq could last not only “months” but even years.

    As a Dubai-based trader put it:

    When an Iraqi pipeline was damaged in the mid-2000s the pumps were destroyed. It takes two years to replace a pump as the backlogs are long. The Saudis, to secure their pipelines, acquired spare pumps for this reason. But they did not dream that Abqaiq could be damaged. If you build a refinery it can take three to five years if not more. It could be done in a month if all the components and parts were available at once, as then it would be merely a task of assembling the components and parts.”

    On top of this, the Saudis are now only offering heavier crudes to their customers in Asia.

    “Then,” adds a trader, “We heard that the Saudis were buying 20,000,000 barrels of heavier crudes from Iraq. Now, the Saudis were supposed to have as much as 160 million barrels a day of stored crude.  So what does this mean?  Either there was no stored crude or that crude had to go through Abqaiq in order to be sold.”

    Al-Emad explicitly told me that Houthi attacks are not over, and further drone swarms are inevitable.

    Now compare it with analysis by one trader:

    If in the next wave of drone attacks 18 million barrels a day of Saudi crude are knocked out, it would represent a catastrophe of epic proportions. The US does not want the Houthi to believe that they have such power through such fourth generational warfare as drones that cannot be defended against. But they do. Here is where a tiny country can bring down not only a Goliath such as the US, but also the whole world.”

    Asked about the consequences of a possible US attack against Iran – picking up on Robert Gates’ famous 2010 remark that “Saudis want to fight Iran to the last American” – the consensus among traders is that it would be another disaster.

    “It would not be possible to bring Iranian crude on line for the world to replace the rest of what was destroyed,” said one.

    He noted that Senator Lindsey Graham had said he “wanted to destroy the Iranian refineries but not the oil wells”. This is a very important point.  The horror of horrors would be an oil war where everyone is destroying each others’ wells until there was nothing left.”

    While the “horror of horrors” hangs by a thread, the blind leading the blind stick to the script: Blame Iran and ignore Yemen.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 23:50

    Tags

  • Visualizing America's Widening Political Divide
    Visualizing America’s Widening Political Divide

    Politics can be a hot button topic in America. With rising tensions on both sides of the political spectrum, some claim that bipartisanship is dead, and as Visual Capitalist’s Imam Ghosh details in her recent research, that may well be true.

    Today’s charts come from a report by the independent think tank Pew Research on the partisan divide between the two major U.S. political parties, Democrats and Republicans.

    The data is based on surveys of over 5,000 adults to gauge public sentiment, tracking the dramatic shifts in political polarization in the U.S. from 1994 to 2017. The results are a fascinating deep dive into America’s shifting political sentiment.

    Over Two Decades of Differences

    The animation above demonstrates how the political divide by party has grown significantly and consistently over 23 years. In 1994, the general public was more mixed in their allegiances, but a significant divergence started to occur from 2011 onward.

    By 2017, the divide had significantly shifted towards the two extremes of the consistently liberal/conservative scale. Median Democrat and Republican sentiment also moved further apart, especially for politically engaged Americans.

    How have Americans’ feelings across major issues evolved over time?

    NOTE: For brevity, any mention of Democrats and Republicans in the post below will also refer to survey respondents who “lean Democratic/ lean Republican”.

    Americans on the Economy

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Original charts from Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 2017).

    Several survey questions were designed to assess Americans’ perceptions of the economy. Surprisingly, between 60–70% of Democrats and Republicans agree that U.S. involvement in the global economy is positive, because it provides the country with access to new markets.

    However, they diverge when asked about the fairness of the economic system itself. 50% of Republicans think it is fair to most Americans, but 82% of Democrats think it unfairly favors powerful interests.

    Finally, 73% of Democrats think corporations make ‘too much’ profit, while only 43% of Republicans think so. Since 1994, Democrats have become more convinced of this point, gaining 10 percentage points (p.p.), while Republican impressions have fluctuated marginally.

    Americans on the Environment

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Original charts from Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 2017).

    When it comes to climate change, both Democrats and Republicans see that there is growing evidence for global warming, but they are not sold on the reasons why. 78% of Democrats see human activity as the cause, while only 24% of Republicans agree.

    Americans also disagree on whether stricter sustainability laws are worth the cost—77% of Democrats think so, but only 36% of Republicans are on the same page. The position of Democrats on this issue has increased by 11 p.p. since 1994, but dropped by double (22 p.p.) for Republicans during this time.

    Americans on the Government

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Original charts from Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 2017).

    Americans are highly concerned about the U.S. presence on the global stage. Over half (56%) of Democrats think the U.S. should be active in world affairs, while 54% of Republicans think such attention should be focused inward instead of overseas.

    This filters into what they consider the best strategy for peace—83% of Democrats believe in democracy to achieve this, while only 33% of Republicans agree, preferring military strength instead. Democrats have cemented their position on diplomacy by 17 p.p. since 1994, growing the political divide.

    Americans on Their Society

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Original charts from Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 2017).

    On several social issues, both parties have become more liberal in their opinions over the decades, especially on immigration and homosexuality. Democrats have seen the biggest advancement on their views of immigration, from 32% in favor in 1994, to 84% in 2017.

    However, there’s still a wide partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans on their ideas of government aid (51 p.p. gap), racial equality (45 p.p. gap), immigration (42 p.p. gap), and homosexuality (29 p.p. gap).

    Americans on Each Other

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Original charts from Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 2017).

    It’s evident that not only does the American public hold less of a mix of liberal and conservative values, but the center of this political divide has also moved dramatically on both ends of the spectrum. In simple terms, it means that Americans are less willing to consider the other side of debates, preferring to stay entrenched in the group think of their political affiliation.

    Not only this, but partisan animosity is on the rise—81% of Republicans and Democrats find those belonging to the other party equally unfavorable. In fact, both parties have seen a 28 p.p. increase in ‘very unfavorable’ views of people in the other party, compared to 1994.

    Can the Rift be Repaired?

    While the above data on group polarization ends in 2017, it’s clear that the repercussions continue to have ripple effects into today and the future. These differences mean there is no consensus on the nation’s key priorities.

    In 2019, Republicans believe that terrorism, the economy, social security, immigration, and the military should be top of mind, while Democrats refer to healthcare, education, environment, Medicare, and the poor and needy as their leads.

    With Trump’s presidential term up for contest in 2020, the lack of common ground on pressing issues will continue to cause a stir among both Democratic and Republican bases. Is there anything Americans will be willing to cross the aisle for?


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 23:30

  • From Russiagate To Ukrainegate
    From Russiagate To Ukrainegate

    Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”.

    President Donald Trump is being accused of abusing his White House office to put pressure on Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to dig into alleged corrupt dealings by Joe Biden, the top Democratic candidate for the forthcoming presidential elections in 2020.

    To make matters worse for Trump, he is also accused of threatening to withhold $250 million of military aid as a way to pressure the Kiev authorities to investigate Biden’s past relations with Ukraine, when he was serving as Vice President in the Obama administration. That could amount to extortion by Trump, if proven.

    Democratic political opponents and the anti-Trump liberal media are renewing demands for his impeachment. They are adamant that he has now crossed a clear red line of criminality by seeking a foreign power to interfere in US elections by damaging a presidential rival.

    For his part, Trump denies his conversations with the Ukrainian president were improper. He said he phoned Zelensky back in July to mainly congratulate him on his recent election. Trump does however admit that he mentioned Biden’s name to Zelensky in the context of Ukraine’s notorious culture of business corruption. The American leader maintains that Joe Biden should be investigated for possible conflict of interest and abusing the office of vice president back in 2016 in order to enhance the business affairs of his son, Hunter.

    Trump’s phone call to Ukraine hit the news last week when a US intelligence officer turned whistleblower to allege that the president was overheard in a conversation inappropriately making “a promise to a foreign leader”. The identity of the foreign leader was not disclosed. But immediately, the anti-Trump US media began speculating that it was Russian President Vladimir Putin. The keenness to point fingers at Putin showed that the Russiagate fever is still virulent in the US political establishment, even though the long-running narrative alleging Russian interference or collusion collapsed earlier this year when the two-year Robert Mueller “Russia investigation” floundered into oblivion for lack of evidence.

    Turns out now that Trump’s telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine’s Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with “Ukrainegate” – as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate.

    Trouble is that this alternative conspiracy could backfire badly for Trump’s enemies.

    Because, despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In March 2014, Biden’s son Hunter was slung out of the Navy Reserve for his cocaine habit. Then a month later, the younger Biden ends up on the executive board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. This was all only weeks after the Obama administration and European allies had backed an illegal coup in Kiev against the elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

    Vice President Joe Biden was the White House’s point man to Ukraine, supporting the new regime in Kiev by organizing financial and military aid. Biden even boasted how he personally warned Yanukovych that the game was up and that he better step down during the tumultuous CIA-backed street violence in Kiev during February 2014. “He was a dollar short and a day late,” quipped Biden about the ill-fated president.

    The appointment of Biden’s washed-up son to a plum job in Ukraine should have merited intense US media scrutiny and investigation. But it didn’t. One can only imagine their reaction if, say, it had been Trump and one of his sons involved.

    Moreover, in 2016, when Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was conducting a probe into allegations of corruption and sleaze at the gas company Burisma, among other businesses, it was Vice President Joe Biden who intervened in May 2016 to call for the state lawyer to be sacked. Biden threatened to withhold a $1 billion financial loan from Washington if the prosecutor was not axed. He duly was in short order and the probe into Burisma was dropped.

    Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency, could see his chances unraveling if “Ukrainegate” is pushed further. The dilemma for his supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family’s business interests.

    Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is this week calling for an investigation into Biden’s conduct in Ukraine.

    “Joe Biden said everybody’s looked at this and found nothing. Who is everybody? Nobody has looked at the Ukraine and the Bidens,” Mr. Graham told Fox News.

    “There is enough smoke here,” Graham added. “Was there a relationship between the vice president’s family and the Ukraine business world that was inappropriate? I don’t know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it.”

    Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is facing jail time for fraud and tax offenses unearthed by the Mueller probe. Mueller did not find any link between Manafort and a “Kremlin influence campaign”, as was speculated. However, because Manafort did work previously as a political manager for the ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovcyh, he was seen as a liability for Trump. Was Russiagate always Ukrainegate all along?

    Apart from Biden’s potential personal conflict of interests in Ukraine, the country may turn out to be the key to where the whole Russiagate fiasco was first dreamt up by Democrats, Kiev regime operatives and US intelligence enemies of Trump.

    Ukrainegate has a lot more political skeletons to tumble from the wardrobe. Those skeletons may bury Democrats and their liberal media-intelligence backers, rather than Trump.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 23:10

    Tags

  • Exodus: Here Are The Top 20 Cities Everyone Is Leaving
    Exodus: Here Are The Top 20 Cities Everyone Is Leaving

    According to a new report from Business Insider, Watertown-Fort Drum, New York; Pine Bluff, Arkansas; and Hinesville, Georgia, were the top three out of a list of 20 cities that had some of the highest negative net migration trends between 2010 and 2018.

    Business Insider used data from the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates program to formulate the list of US metropolitan areas with the most negative net migrations between 2010 and 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The report noted that many of these areas observed tremendous outflows of their population, with very low inflows, but also all areas were already suffering from depressed population totals.

    And here’s the list of the top 20 US cities everyone is leaving:

    20. Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas, had a net population loss from migration of 20,487 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.0% of the metro’s 2010 population of 406,220.

    19. Charleston, West Virginia, had a net population loss from migration of 12,194 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.4% of the metro’s 2010 population of 277,078.

    18. Saginaw, Michigan, had a net population loss from migration of 10,863 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.4% of the metro’s 2010 population of 200,169.

    17. Flint, Michigan, had a net population loss from migration of 23,255 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.5% of the metro’s 2010 population of 425,790.

    16. Johnstown, Pennsylvania, had a net population loss from migration of 7,980 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.6% of the metro’s 2010 population of 143,679.

    15. El Centro, California, had a net population loss from migration of 9,701 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.6% of the metro’s 2010 population of 174,528.

    14. Elmira, New York, had a net population loss from migration of 4,950 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.6% of the metro’s 2010 population of 88,830.

    13. Sierra Vista-Douglas, Arizona, had a net population loss from migration of 7,484 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.7% of the metro’s 2010 population of 131,346.

    12. Rockford, Illinois, had a net population loss from migration of 20,375 between 2010 and 2018 — 5.8% of the metro’s 2010 population of 349,431.

    11. Albany, Georgia, had a net population loss from migration of 9,674 between 2010 and 2018 — 6.1% of the metro’s 2010 population of 157,308.

    10. Vineland-Bridgeton, New Jersey, had a net population loss from migration of 10,118 between 2010 and 2018 — 6.4% of the metro’s 2010 population of 156,898.

    9. Decatur, Illinois, had a net population loss from migration of 7,220 between 2010 and 2018 — 6.5% of the metro’s 2010 population of 110,768.

    8. Danville, Illinois, had a net population loss from migration of 5,455 between 2010 and 2018 — 6.7% of the metro’s 2010 population of 81,625.

    7. Lawton, Oklahoma, had a net population loss from migration of 11,422 between 2010 and 2018 — 8.8% of the metro’s 2010 population of 130,291.

    6. Fairbanks, Alaska, had a net population loss from migration of 8,736 between 2010 and 2018 — 9.0% of the metro’s 2010 population of 97,581.

    5. Farmington, New Mexico, had a net population loss from migration of 11,873 between 2010 and 2018 — 9.1% of the metro’s 2010 population of 130,044.

    4. Hanford-Corcoran, California, had a net population loss from migration of 14,567 between 2010 and 2018 — 9.5% of the metro’s 2010 population of 152,982.

    3. Hinesville, Georgia, had a net population loss from migration of 8,248 between 2010 and 2018 — 10.6% of the metro’s 2010 population of 77,917.

    2. Pine Bluff, Arkansas, had a net population loss from migration of 11,360 between 2010 and 2018 — 11.3% of the metro’s 2010 population of 100,258.

    1. Watertown-Fort Drum, New York, had a net population loss from migration of 14,329 between 2010 and 2018 — 12.3% of the metro’s 2010 population of 116,229.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 22:50

  • Democrats Reveal The Real Purpose Of The Impeachment Investigation
    Democrats Reveal The Real Purpose Of The Impeachment Investigation

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The Democrats know that there is no impeachable offense. What they intend to do is to use the investigation to look into every aspect of Trump’s life and try to make dirt out of things unrelated to his talk with the Ukrainian president. This “impeachment investigation” is a political act to help their candidate win the next presidential election.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Democrats themselves describe it in this way. For example, here is how Rob Kall, the director of one of the progressive Democrat websites, described the purpose of the investigation:

    “The idea should be to keep the impeachment going as long as possible, with new testimonies and new releases of disclosures of alleged corruption and treason on a regular basis.

    “Looking at impeachment as a process for removing the president is the wrong way of thinking about it. Looking at it as a key that gives access to investigative tools is the smarter, more strategic, way of looking at it.

    “Ideally, it will get so bad for Trump that the Republicans will end up putting up someone else to run in the general election.

    “But keeping him under investigation, at least through the November election, will increasingly erode the support of both Trump and the Republican party brand, making a Democratic takeover of the Senate and the White House, and an increased control of the House even more likely.”

    In other words, it is a political power play.

    The outcome depends on whether Americans see the impeachment investigation as another orchestrated hoax like Russiagate or whether they fall for the hoax as they initially did with the Russiagate investigation.

    The United States does not have a media. It has a propaganda ministry that helps the ruling elites control the explanations that Americans are given. Polls show that Americans have lost confidence in the media. If so, the impeachment investigation will backfire on the Democrats.

    The ultimate purpose of the constant attacks on Trump is to teach the American voters that electing a president who is disapproved by the Establishment is futile. The Establishment simply will not permit any change and will frustrate and destroy any president not selected by them as a candidate.

    This is the real way so-called “American democracy” works. The establishment guides the selection of the Democrat and Republican candidates. Whichever wins, the Establishment wins. This didn’t happen in Trump’s case, and so he has to be prevented from altering the Establishment’s agendas.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 22:30

    Tags

  • Hong Kong Hotels Slash Prices As Protests Deter Tourists: Cheapest Room Now Just $9
    Hong Kong Hotels Slash Prices As Protests Deter Tourists: Cheapest Room Now Just $9

    Hong Kong was until very recently the world’s most expensive housing market, featuring sky-high rents and cramped apartments as small as 100 square feet. But thanks to the pro-democracy protests that have disrupted the city-state’s economy and ushered in a new wave of political uncertainty and chaos, many of Hong Kong’s most critical industries have seen serious disruptions, especially tourism.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Earlier this month, Hong Kong’s financial secretary revealed that tourism had plunged more than 40%  during the month of August, compared with August 2018, the biggest drop since the SARS epidemic of 2003.

    As visitors dry up, hotels are being forced to slash rates to try and attract clientele. And some of these cuts have gotten pretty steep.

    For example, a “new low” for a hotel booking has been spotted by the South China Morning Post: HK71 – or about $9. 

    At that price, living in that hotel would be less expensive than one of the city’s subdivided apartments.

    At a new low of HK$71 (US$9.06) a night, some hotels are now cheaper than subdivided flats in the city. Winland 800 Hotel in protest-hit Tsing Yi, is offering that rate on weekdays through the Wing On Travel website. It represents a decline of 65.7 per cent from its lowest rate of HK$207 a night in March 2018.

    In response, hoteliers and other business owners in the hospitality and tourism industry are asking the Hong Kong government for help in the form of rent and bank-loan interest waivers, arguing that their industries have been the hardest hit by the demonstrations. The city’s Housing Authority has already cut rent for the city’s retail tenants in public housing, while HSBC offered rebates on loans from small and medium-sized companies in the city that have been struggling because of the protests.

    Jhunjhnuwala said the tourism industry had been hit hardest, and that the government should waive rents and rates for at least a year, set up a short-term fund to help the hotel industry, give visitors incentives, such as special rates, to stop over in Hong Kong for a day or two, and instruct banks to waive interest on loans borrowed by hotels.

    “It’s devastating to see the effect the recent situation in our city has had on local businesses, particularly on those of us in the hospitality industry,” he said, adding that the occupancy rate of “most hotels in Hong Kong was down 30 per cent to 40 per cent” on year, with some even down to 20 per cent.

    Jhunjhnuwala, whose company employs more than 190 people in Hong Kong, said frontline staff might unfortunately face reduced hours, reduced wages or, in some cases, even redundancies.

    Hoteliers have made another unusual request: Asking the government to allow the hotels to sell or lease hotel room as if they were condos. Their argument is simple: The city is struggling with a housing shortage and an overhang of unoccupied hotel rooms.

    “If the government recognizes there is a need for housing for the young, it ought to…relax the rules, [permitting] hotel rooms with kitchens, to be rented over 28 days, with hotel rooms saleable to individual buyers, like anywhere else in the world,” he said.

    Cheng also said converting industrial buildings into hotels that can be leased or sold for residential use “can potentially supply more than 500,000 units speedily” and ease the housing crisis in Hong Kong, the world’s most expensive property market.

    “Each traditional industrial location, such as Kwun Tong, Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung, Tsing Yi island, Aberdeen, Yuen Long and Tuen Muen, must have more than 200 rundown industrial or warehouse buildings, making it a total of more than 1,000 buildings,” Cheng said.

    “Each industrial or warehouse building is normally large and can be rebuilt, or renovated, to more than 500 rooms. Therefore, there is potential for more than 500,000 hotel rooms for accommodation if there is demand.”

    If you’ve always wanted to visit Hong Kong, and wouldn’t mind a bit of ‘excitement’ in the form of street warfare between protesters and police, there has never been a better time than now to plan a trip to Hong Kong. If you move quickly, you just might be able to get there in time to watch the People’s Liberation Army forcefully suppress the protests before the Communist Party’s 70th birthday on Oct. 1.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 22:10

  • "Arctic Express" Coming To The Northwest This Weekend
    “Arctic Express” Coming To The Northwest This Weekend

    Via Cliff Mass Weather and Climate blog,

    If you live in western Washington, you might want to check that your heating system still works.

    If you live in eastern Washington on the slopes of the Cascades, you might want to make sure you have a snow shovel.

    If you live in western Montana, you might want to get your chains ready and stock up on food.

    An unusually early and intense Arctic express will hit the region this weekend.  And our days of Blob warmth will be over for a while.

    Let me start by showing you a stunning image from the NOAA/NWS Climate Prediction Center (CPC)–their 6-10 day forecast for temperature.  Specifically, it gives the probabilities of below normal (blue) and above normal (red) temperatures.

    Wow— my colleagues in NOAA are quite sure that below-normal temperature will reign along the entire West Coast as well as the northern Plains States.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The action starts late Friday.

    A huge upper level ridge develops in the Pacific, resulting in northerly flow over the western U.S., with a strong trough of low pressure/heights moving into the Pacific Northwest (see upper level– 500 hPa map for 5 PM Friday below).  This pattern will not only bring Arctic air south over the Northwest but will isolate the Northwest from the warming impacts of the Blob (the region of warm water over the northeast Pacific).   As a result, western Washington will experience much colder minimum temperatures than observed during the past few months.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now the details.  Here is a forecast map for 8 AM Saturday, showing sea level pressure (solid lines), lower atmosphere temperatures (color shading) and surface winds.  There is an intense pressure change (gradient) near the international border, with cold temperatures behind—this is commonly called the Arctic Front.   Low pressure, associated with the upper level trough, is centered over SE Washington.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    By 5 AM Sunday morning, the cold air and large pressure gradient has pushed south. Eastern Washington, particularly to the east of the Cascade crest, get a piece of it.  Montana gets half the pie…with a huge pressure gradient–which means very strong winds will accompany the cold air.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Western Washington will escape the precipitation because the low is too far inland and we will be in the easterly (dry) descending flow.   But Bellingham and NW Washington will get very windy, as shown by the forecast for 10 AM Saturday.  Wind gusts could get to 35 knots (about 40 mph) from Blaine-Bellingham to over the San Juans.  Even in Seattle, winds could breezy and from the north.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Snow?  You bet.   The temperatures aloft will be cold for this time of the year.  Here is the forecast for 850 hPa (about 5000 ft), with the colors showing temperature and the sold lines showing heights (like pressure).  Frigid (below -6C) air over northern eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana, associated with strong easterly flow.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This means snow. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Snow accumulation through 5 AM Sunday (below) show several inches of snow on the eastern slopes of the Cascades, and immense amounts (feet) upstream of the Rockies. Spokane will probably see snow flakes.  I suspect there will be some daily temperature and daily snowfall records broken in some locations during the next few days.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 21:50

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 26th September 2019

  • Danske Bank Executive At Center Of Massive Money-Laundering Scandal Found Dead
    Danske Bank Executive At Center Of Massive Money-Laundering Scandal Found Dead

    A former Danske Bank executive at the center of a €200 billion ($220 billion) money-laundering scandal in Estonia was found dead in his backyard in an apparent suicide, according to Eesti Rahvusringhääling (ERR).

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

    ERR reported on Wednesday that after several days of local police searching for Aivar Rehe, who was in charge of Danske Bank in Estonia from 2006 to 2015, was found dead in the forest near his home at approximately 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, near the capital of Tallinn.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Estonian Police started searching for Rehe on Monday after he disappeared, reports indicated he was mentally unstable and at risk for suicide.  

    On Tuesday, local police told ERR that he was “a threat to his own life and well-being.” 

    By Wednesday, ERR confirmed that all signs pointed to suicide, well, that is at least what the local media is reporting. 

    Danske Bank’s Estonian branch is at the heart of one of the largest money-laundering scandals, with €200 billion ($220 billion) of suspicious funds flowing from Russia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan, for at least a decade. The amount of money that was transferred was equivalent to 10 times Estonia’s GDP, mostly originating from Russia. 

    The scandal has led to a criminal probe into Danske Bank’s Estonian branch, along with top bank executives in Europe and the US. Prosecutors told ERR that Rehe wasn’t a suspect. 

    Ten former employees, most low/mid-tier ones, are suspects in the investigation. Prosecutors have already charged the bank’s former chief executive and chief financial officer, Thomas Borgen and Henrik Ramlau-Hansen.

    Danske Bank holds about 50% of Danish people’s savings, has seen at least 67% of its market capitalization wiped out in the last 19 months since the scandal emerged in 2017/2018. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Earlier this year, Rehe said in an interview that all the necessary compliance tools were in place to deter money-laundering in the bank. He told the public to await the outcome of the investigation into the bank before drawing any conclusions. He also said anti-money-laundering laws back then were “were significantly different” from ones in 2019. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 02:45

  • The Brexit Battle Shows Democracy Is Only Allowed When The Regime Likes The Outcome
    The Brexit Battle Shows Democracy Is Only Allowed When The Regime Likes The Outcome

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled “illegal” a parliamentary tactic used by PM Boris Johnson to ensure Brexit would be carried out on October 31, more than six months after Brexit was supposed to take effect.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While the court wasn’t ruling on Brexit, per se, the context of the situation makes it clear the ruling is really just the latest move from the UK’s political class designed to postpone Brexit yet again.

    Given the history of EU-related referenda in Europe, we can already guess how the situation will play out. British voters will either be asked to vote again on Brexit – so that this time, they can get it “right” – or the Brexit agreement will be constructed in such a way that Brexit will be a British exit in name only.

    At the same time, bizarrely, Johnson’s moves in parliament have been credited as being “undemocratic” or even a “coup.” This charge comes even though Johnson had attempted to call an early election, but was denied.

    In the meantime, any sort of democracy that might actually strengthen the pro-Brexit position will not be allowed, as noted by Raphael Vassallo :

    To recap, then: Britain first turned to the electorate to decide on its future in the European Union by means of a nationwide referendum…and ignored the result. Then its Parliament made it technically impossible to actually deliver on that mandate, by reducing the present government to the status of a lame duck. And to cap it all, it has now even shut the door to an election: which is about the only thing left that can possibly resolve the entire Brexit impasse to begin with.

    But at least, the Commons’ reluctance to hold an election can easily be explained in purely party-political terms. Clearly, the Remainers have understood that Boris Johnson would most likely enlarge his parliamentary majority in an election. … Britain’s Parliament seems hellbent on preventing the British people from even expressing their will at all.

    By now, this is a tried and true tactic in European politics. Only votes that help the pro-EU position are allowed. Everything else is declared “undemocratic” or is simply ignored.

    In 2001, Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty in a referendum (or, to be more accurate, rejected proposed amendments to the Irish Constitution, that would have made ratification of the Nice Treaty possible).

    Ireland’s political class quickly went to work declaring that the Irish voters had made a mistake and didn’t really understand the importance of ratifying the treaty. Vassallo notes

    … the response was to doggedly “pursue” the same rejected reforms anyway, with even greater determination than before.

    So much so, that just a year later, the Irish were presented with a second national referendum… to approve a second raft of changes to Ireland’s Constitution, so as to once again permit the ratification of pretty much the same old Nice Treaty they had earlier rejected.

    The second time, the majority voted “correctly” and demands for additional referenda, of course, ended.

    Another tactic was used on the continent when the French and the Dutch were allowed to vote on the ratification of a new EU constitution. The voters rejected it.

    But it naturally didn’t end there. French and Dutch politicians simply ignored the results of the referenda and devised an alternative strategy. They slightly revised the text of the constitution, called it the “Lisbon Treaty” and then ratified that without asking the voters.

    Brendan O’Neill summed it up in The Guardian:

    When French and Dutch voters rejected the European constitution in 2005 (and according to Valery Giscard d’Estaing , the current Lisbon treaty is the “same as the constitution”), they were sneeringly insulted by their betters in Brussels. Neil Kinnock said it was a “triumph of ignorance”. Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP, labelled the “rejectionists” as an “odd bunch of racists, xenophobes, nationalists, communists, the disappointed centre left and the generally pissed off”. He asked whether it is wise to “submit the EU Constitution to a lottery of uncoordinated national plebiscites”.

    But by 2008, the Irish still hadn’t learned their lesson, and the majority voted incorrectly in a 2008 referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

    Sure enough, Irish politicians demanded a second vote, and the second time, the voters got it “right.”

    But not before they were roundly denounced by their betters in Parliament and in Brussels who knew better. O’Neill writes:

    As soon as the Irish people’s ballots were counted in June [2008], their rejection of Lisbon was treated as the “wrong” answer, as if they had been taking part in a multiple-choice maths exam and had failed to work out that 2+2=4. Now, they will be given a chance to sit the exam again, “until [they] come up with the right answer,” says George Galloway , attacking EU elitism. The notion that the Irish “got it wrong” exposes gobsmacking ignorance about democracy in the upper echelons of the EU. The very fact that a majority of Irish people said no to Lisbon made it the “right answer”, true and sovereign and final. “No” really does mean no.

    Here, O’Neill gets it slightly wrong. The “upper echelons of the EU” know exactly how democracy works. It is only to be tolerated if it leads to the outcomes preferred by the ruling classes. If not, then something must be done to correct the situation.

    Just keep voting until the voters do things properly.

    Calling Upon the Courts to Void the Vote

    In the US, of course, we don’t bother having additional elections out of the usual schedule. We just have judges overrule the voters whenever the voters get uppity.

    One such case occurred in California in 1994, when nearly 60 percent of the voters approved a measure to deny government services to foreign nationals living illegally in the US. It didn’t call for any deportations, or for any prosecution of any residents.

    The measure was passed with “yes” votes from of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians, and  a third of Hispanics. It won in every region of California except the Bay Area. In heavily Hispanic Los Angeles County, it passed by a 12-point margin.

    After the votes were counted, the result was simply ignored and thrown out. All that was required was to have a federal judge declare the will of the democratic majority to be null and void.

    In more recent years, the courts have wised up and no longer allow the voters to even have a say. In 2018, a measure to split California into three smaller states was successfully placed on the ballot after gaining the required number of signatures from voters and jumping through the usual hoops required of such measures.

    But before a vote could occur, the California Supreme Court deleted the measure from the ballot, ruling:

    “We conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election,” the justices wrote.

    In other words, allowing the voters to have a say on the matter is too risky. Thus, a tiny number of wealthy California judges instead decided for the voters that the only acceptable vote is “no.”

    And who needs voting when you have government judges, anyway? Once upon a time, it was widely accepted that significant changes to the federal constitution required a vote, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

    During the early twentieth century, for example, constitutional amendments were seen as the proper way to do this. It’s why Prohibition required a constitutional amendment and not just a federal law declaring a “war on booze.” It was recognized that new federal powers — like those needed to outlaw alcohol consumption — could not be invented by either the courts or the President, or Congress.

    By the 1960s, however, voting on constitutional amendments was passé. It became far more convenient to go to federal judges instead, and have them simply invent a new version of the constitution.

    Should abortion be regulated by the federal government even though everyone agreed for 180 years that no such federal power existed? No problem, just have the Supreme Court declare it to be so.

    Should the federal government have the power to force people to buy health insurance? Don’t bother with an Amendment. Just have nine federal judges decide the matter for 320 million Americans.

    Want to declare a war on drugs? An amednment is no longer required, as it was in the days of Prohibition. Now, federal judges can grant us feds any power we want!

    Meanwhile, politicians never tire of lecturing us about the sanctity of democracy. But it’s clearly only sacred when the Important People agree with the outcome.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 02:00

    Tags

  • China Launches New Attack Ship With Capabilities Of Invading Taiwan
    China Launches New Attack Ship With Capabilities Of Invading Taiwan

    We have outlined that China represents one of the greatest long-term strategic threats to the Indo-Pacific region and the US military that operates with-in. President Trump made it extremely clear last week that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is a “threat to the world.”

    New reports surfaced on Twitter indicating the PLAN has started the launch process of a new amphibious assault ship that could soon be capable of launching an attack on Taiwan.

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

    A statement from the PLAN Wednesday said the Type 075, a helicopter carrier displacing more than 30,000 tons, is undergoing launch preparations at China State Shipbuilding Corporation’s Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard, reported Naval News.

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

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

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

    The statement said water is being pumped into the dry dock in which the ship’s hull was built.

    PLAN officials said Type 075 is a new class of warship, entirely produced in China, will be able to carry out amphibious combat missions.

    Development work on Type 075 started in 2011, and it will be a “vertical” amphibious assault vessel capable of launching attacks on the mountainous East Coast of Taiwan.

    For comparison, the Type 075 is slightly smaller than the US Navy’s landing helicopter assault vessel and more comparable to ones that are currently deployed in the Australian Navy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The expected launch of Type 075 could be during a massive military parade in Beijing next week (Oct. 01). The PLAN will show the world its advanced vessels, fifth-generation fighters, advanced combat drones, robots, main battle tanks, and a show of force that could result in a few angry tweets from President Trump.

    China has declared Taiwan as its territory although it has never controlled it, and threatens to invade by military force if Taipei resists unification.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese and foreign analysts don’t see China launching an amphibious attack on Taiwan in the near term, rather a conflict with the US could spiral out of control in the South/East China Sea.

    “Looking at various flashpoints in Asia including the Korean peninsula and the South China Sea, I have come to the conclusion that Taiwan is the most dangerous one,” Brendan Taylor, a strategic studies professor at Australian National University, told the Financial Times.

    China has a long term plan, and it’s by the year 2049, Taiwan will be under Beijing control, which means sometime in the coming decades, a war could break out between both countries.

    The world is positioning for conflict, and the reports we bring you — detail how countries are actively preparing for that inevitable day.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 09/26/2019 – 01:00

    Tags

  • Welfare Checks Turn Deadly: You Might Want To Think Twice Before Calling The Cops
    Welfare Checks Turn Deadly: You Might Want To Think Twice Before Calling The Cops

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Anyone who cares for someone with a developmental disability, as well as for disabled people themselves [lives] every day in fear that their behavior will be misconstrued as suspicious, intoxicated or hostile by law enforcement.”

    – Steve Silberman, The New York Times

    Think twice before you call the cops to carry out a welfare check on a loved one.

    Especially if that person is autistic, hearing impaired, mentally ill, elderly, suffering from dementia, disabled or might have a condition that hinders their ability to understand, communicate or immediately comply with an order.

    Particularly if you value that person’s life.

    At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences.

    Unfortunately, police—trained in the worst case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I’ll-shoot tactics employed by America’s police forces.

    Just recently, in fact, Gay Plack, a 57-year-old Virginia woman with bipolar disorder, was killed after two police officers—sent to do a welfare check on her—entered her home uninvited, wandered through the house shouting her name, kicked open her locked bedroom door, discovered the terrified woman hiding in a dark bathroom and wielding a small axe, and four seconds later, shot her in the stomach.

    Four seconds.

    That’s all the time it took for the two police officers assigned to check on Plack to decide to use lethal force against her (both cops opened fire on the woman), rather than using non-lethal options (one cop had a Taser, which he made no attempt to use) or attempting to de-escalate the situation.

    The police chief defended his officers’ actions, claiming they had “no other option” but to shoot the 5 foot 4 inch “woman with carpal tunnel syndrome who had to quit her job at a framing shop because her hand was too weak to use the machine that cut the mats.”

    This is what happens when you empower the police to act as judge, jury and executioner.

    This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else’s.

    Suddenly, everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated.

    In light of the government’s latest efforts to predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data such as FitBits and Apple Watches and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA, the “Health Advanced Research Projects Agency”), encounters with the police could get even more deadly, especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability.

    Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers.

    That’s according to a study by the Ruderman Family Foundation,  which reports that “disabled individuals make up the majority of those killed in use-of-force cases that attract widespread attention. This is true both for cases deemed illegal or against policy and for those in which officers are ultimately fully exonerated… Many more disabled civilians experience non-lethal violence and abuse at the hands of law enforcement officers.”

    For instance, Nancy Schrock called 911 for help after her husband, Tom, who suffered with mental health issues, started stalking around the backyard, upending chairs and screaming about demons. Several times before, police had transported Tom to the hospital, where he was medicated and sent home after 72 hours. This time, Tom was tasered twice. He collapsed, lost consciousness and died.

    In South Carolina, police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia, while he was jogging backwards away from them. Now this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase, running red lights and turning randomly. However, at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges, he was out of the car, on his feet, and outnumbered by police officers much younger than him.

    In Georgia, campus police shot and killed a 21-year-old student who was suffering a mental health crisis. Scout Schultz was shot through the heart by campus police when he approached four of them late one night while holding a pocketknife, shouting “Shoot me!” Although police may have feared for their lives, the blade was still in its closed position.

    In Oklahoma, police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch (he used the pipe to fend off stray dogs while walking). Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn’t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground, police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them.

    In Maryland, police (moonlighting as security guards) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through a second screening of a film. Autopsy results indicate that Ethan Saylor died of complications arising from asphyxiation, likely caused by a chokehold.

    In Florida, police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal, autistic man who was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck. Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist, Charles Kinsey, who had been trying to get him back to his group home. The therapist, bleeding from a gunshot wound, was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes.

    In Texas, police handcuffed, tasered and then used a baton to subdue a 7-year-old student who has severe ADHD and a mood disorder. With school counselors otherwise occupied, school officials called police and the child’s mother to assist after Yosio Lopez started banging his head on a wall. The police arrived first.

    In New Mexico, police tasered, then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia, all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite. Boyd’s death provoked a wave of protests over heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.

    In Ohio, police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed, violent, intoxicated, nor suspected of criminal activity. After being slammed onto the sidewalk, handcuffed and left unconscious on the street, Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position.

    And in North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed a 29-year-old deaf motorist after he failed to pull over during a traffic stop. Daniel K. Harris was shot after exiting his car, allegedly because the trooper feared he might be reaching for a weapon.

    These cases, and the hundreds—if not thousands—more that go undocumented every year speak to a crisis in policing when it comes to law enforcement’s failure to adequately assess, de-escalate and manage encounters with special needs or disabled individuals.

    While the research is relatively scant, what has been happening is telling.

    Over the course of six months, police shot and killed someone who was in mental crisis every 36 hours.

    Among 124 police killings analyzed by The Washington Post in which mental illness appeared to be a factor, “They were overwhelmingly men, more than half of them white. Nine in 10 were armed with some kind of weapon, and most died close to home.”

    But there were also important distinctions, reports the Post.

    This group was more likely to wield a weapon less lethal than a firearm. Six had toy guns; 3 in 10 carried a blade, such as a knife or a machete — weapons that rarely prove deadly to police officers. According to data maintained by the FBI and other organizations, only three officers have been killed with an edged weapon in the past decade. Nearly a dozen of the mentally distraught people killed were military veterans, many of them suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service, according to police or family members. Another was a former California Highway Patrol officer who had been forced into retirement after enduring a severe beating during a traffic stop that left him suffering from depression and PTSD. And in 45 cases, police were called to help someone get medical treatment, or after the person had tried and failed to get treatment on his own.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, as might be expected, has thus far continued to immunize police against charges of wrongdoing when it comes to use of force against those with a mental illness.

    In a 2015 ruling, the Court declared that police could not be sued for forcing their way into a mentally ill woman’s room at a group home and shooting her five times when she advanced on them with a knife. The justices did not address whether police must take special precautions when arresting mentally ill individuals. (The Americans with Disabilities Act requires “reasonable accommodations” for people with mental illnesses, which in this case might have been less confrontational tactics.)

    Where does this leave us?

    For starters, we need better police training across the board, but especially when it comes to de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention.

    A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that CIT (Crisis Intervention Team)-trained officers made fewer arrests, used less force, and connected more people with mental-health services than their non-trained peers.

    As The Washington Post points out:

    “Although new recruits typically spend nearly 60 hours learning to handle a gun, according to a recent survey by the Police Executive Research Forum, they receive only eight hours of training to de-escalate tense situations and eight hours learning strategies for handling the mentally ill. Otherwise, police are taught to employ tactics that tend to be counterproductive in such encounters, experts said. For example, most officers are trained to seize control when dealing with an armed suspect, often through stern, shouted commands. But yelling and pointing guns is ‘like pouring gasoline on a fire when you do that with the mentally ill,’ said Ron Honberg, policy director with the National Alliance on Mental Illness.”

    Second, police need to learn how to slow confrontations down, instead of ramping up the tension (and the noise).

    In Maryland, police recruits are now required to take a four-hour course in which they learn “de-escalation tactics” for dealing with disabled individuals: speak calmly, give space, be patient.

    One officer in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department’s “mental response teams” suggests that instead of rushing to take someone into custody, police should try to slow things down and persuade the person to come with them.

    Third, with all the questionable funds flowing to police departments these days, why not use some of those funds to establish what one disability-rights activist describes as “a 911-type number dedicated to handling mental-health emergencies, with community crisis-response teams at the ready rather than police officers.”

    In the end, while we need to make encounters with police officers safer for people with suffering from mental illness or with disabilities, what we really need – as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People – is to make encounters with police safer for all individuals all across the board.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 23:50

  • Beijing Opens Its Massive New 'Starfish' Airport – Set To Be The World's Largest & Busiest
    Beijing Opens Its Massive New ‘Starfish’ Airport – Set To Be The World’s Largest & Busiest

    On Wednesday Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the earlier than scheduled opening of Beijing Daxing International Airport in a public ceremony. Abbreviated PKX, it’s the Chinese capital’s latest boost to support tourism and business related to Xi’s flagship infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, and is vying to eventually be the world’s busiest international hub.

    The city’s current main aviation hub, Beijing Capital International Airport (BCIA) currently the second busiest in the world behind Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson airport, is considered at capacity and increasingly wracked with delays. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Beijing Daxing International Airport, via Global Look Press

    The ambitious expectations for the massive ‘starfish’ designed airport is that it will handle 300 take-offs and landings an hour, seeing 45 million passengers go through its gates by 2021.

    The long-term projection is that by 2025 it will handle 72 million travelers and by 2040 the hub hopes to see 100 million passengers per year, making it the busiest and largest in the world. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Wednesday’s launch ceremony in the main terminal, which was originally scheduled for Sept. 30, via AFP.

    To reach these numbers will require a planned for increase in runways from its current four to seven runways in total, eventually serving up to 620,000 flights annually

    Beijing Daxing International Airport, pictured below last December while under construction, was designed by architect Zaha Hadid as a ‘giant six-armed alien starfish’.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via CNN

    Its opening also comes days before the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic, which will include a huge military parade through central Beijing on Oct. 1.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Inside the world’s largest central airport terminal. Getty Image

    Located south of Beijing the entire expanse of the airport takes up a whopping 47 square km (18 square miles – over half the size of Hong Kong Island).

    The main terminal itself is the largest in the world at nearly 700,000 square meters.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A prior model displaying the airport, via Imaginechina, SCMP

    Construction on Beijing Daxing International Airport, funded primarily by the Chinese government, came in at around $17.47 billion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Projected final appearance, via Business Traveler. 

    The new airport boasts of its own Huawei 5G base station as well as ‘facial ID’ check-in and security clearance upon boarding. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 23:30

  • Miami Real Estate Is About To Collapse
    Miami Real Estate Is About To Collapse

    Submitted by Harris Kupperman of Adventures in Capitalism

    Miami has a highly cyclical property market where the magnitudes of the booms and busts dwarf anywhere else in the country.  In my experience, trends in Miami real estate also tend to lead national trends by a few quarters. Therefore, smart guys always watch Miami.

    Roughly a year ago, I noticed that Miami property prices started to decline after a two or three-year period of leveling off. The pace of decline has clearly accelerated recently. Most properties on South Beach (where I live) are off by 20 to 35% from peak prices, but that is nothing compared to the carnage across the bridge in areas like Brickell and Edgewater.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Why are prices dropping? It’s more than simple supply and demand—though the glut of new supply is clearly part of it. Rather, your typical condo has a carrying cost of 4-7% of fair value before financing costs (property tax/condo fees/insurance/maintenance/special assessments/etc). This adds up fast when a property is worth hundreds of thousands or even millions. It is pretty much mathematically impossible to have a positive yield from buying and renting out a Miami condo (trust me, I’ve done the math many times). The only way owning is viable, is if prices go up and allow you to extract capital to fund the carrying costs—though debt service then makes the monthly cash flow even worse. The basic law of Miami condo pricing is that if prices stop going up, they collapse due to the carrying cost. Suddenly, it seems as though a lot of owners are becoming financially distressed—forcing them to hit bids at a time when demand is somewhat lacking.

    With all of that in mind, I got drinks last weekend with a buddy in the hard-money lending market to discuss the state of the market. For those of you who are unfamiliar with hard-money lending, these are loans made on the basis of the asset value, not the ability of the borrower to pay. In fact, in some cases it is assumed that the borrower will not repay the loan and through penalty interest, you rapidly chew through their equity and get to own a high-quality property at a great initial entry price. This works well in an up market. How does it work when things go no-bid?

    Friend: Holy sh*t Kuppy, it’s about to blow!!

    Me: You said that 3 months ago…

    Friend: It’s different now, the whole system is jammed up.

    Me: What do you mean?

    Friend: Before, when a borrower would default, we’d put him into penalty default interest (which is 25% on loans over $500k in Florida).  My business is to underwrite safe loans and to clip a coupon, not to own real estate.  The lenders that ARE looking for big returns (and risks and headaches) on real estate watch the public records for notices of defaults and then barrage the distressed borrower with offers of 12-16%, interest only private loans… not any borrower’s idea of a good time but still better than 25% default rate plus legal fees.  These offers often come with periods of prepaid interest that temporarily take some pressure off the borrower… but also help sharpen the axe for when it finally falls (larger, artificially inflated final loan amount).  We could play these same games with the defaulted borrowers, but my investors want the defaulted paper off the books—we don’t want to re-possess the property and have to sell it. Our specialty is underwriting—not foreclosure. We’re happy when someone takes our problems away.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Me: So?

    Friend: The story usually ends with a “fire sale” of the property by the defaulted borrower or by the lender (after foreclosure).  End users are seeing that the “fire sale” price may very well be next quarter’s market price, and the units aren’t moving.  Even the County foreclosure sales, which have been loaded with fix-and flip reality TV fans bidding 110% of value for the past 5 years, are seeing below market priced deals with no bids.

    Suddenly, no one wants our defaulted borrowers. The shark lenders are all jammed up with loans they poached last year. They used to be able to recycle their capital by selling the assets, but now they can’t. This means that no one is buying the distressed loans off our books without demanding a discount on principal. The whole conveyer belt is frozen. Even a few months ago, there were still idiots from out of town, or kids with daddy’s offshore money who’d come down here with a new hard money-fund and make stupid decisions. Now those guys are jammed up too or at least they’re not coming down here anymore. This means that we need to now take possession of our defaults.

    Me: How’s that going?

    Friend: Lemme explain it this way. We underwrote this one deal two years ago for a $4.5 million purchase of a new construction condo, we leant $2 million against it. The guy defaulted and we’re up to $2.5 million in principal and default interest and we took possession—figuring we were plenty protected by over a million in equity left on the asset. Remember, our basis is $2 million. Well, it’s been for sale for 9 months now. It may not even trade with a 2-handle. Meanwhile, I’m stuck carrying the thing—which isn’t cheap. I have no idea how to even sell it. We’re on our 3rd broker now. No one has a clue what to do with it, yet these assholes keep building more product.

    Me: Welcome to the Miami property cycle. If your build cost is $300 a foot and you think you can sell it for $700, you’ll flood the market. Once you’ve made a “go decision” you’re gonna finish the thing—even if you only sell it for $200 in the end.

    Him: It’s even worse. Every month they break ground on hundreds of additional units when the existing ones won’t sell. Some of the most high-profile buildings have had less than 50% sell-through and the majority of what’s “sold” is immediately dumped onto the market unfinished and unfurnished, below the developer sale price for fear that the developer will drop his price and leave these guys even further underwater. Pretty soon they’ll all be forced into another round of price cuts. It makes no sense to build more, but they keep doing it!!

    Me: Won’t the 50-bps the fed cut help clear the log-jam?

    Him: Are you f*cking kidding me? I’m charging these guys 10% because they cannot get traditional loans. They can cut a few points off rates and it wouldn’t matter. Besides, the guys who qualify for real loans are all selling because they cannot hold onto their own properties. That’s why every third unit is suddenly for sale. Prices stopped going up and the whole thing blew apart and now there’s no buyers. Remember, the price for a whole building is set on the last trade. Banks look at the data and won’t underwrite new loans.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Me: So, what are you doing to clear these bad assets?

    Him: I have no idea. I’ll probably smack the bid wherever it is and take the hit—before someone else does. At least I won’t have to keep making condo payments and 2% property tax payments. My fund has basically stopped lending on condos and is well below 50% LTV on everything else. We’re building cash. I don’t want any more of this crap on my balance sheet!! A surprising number of my existing loans are starting to go bad. I know what my competitors underwrote, trust me, they’re in MUCH worse shape. They underwrote all sorts of nonsense that I wouldn’t ever touch. I’ll be fine, but they’re toast.

    Me: …and Bank of Ozarks? Haha

    Him: They underwrote the stuff the scumbag local lenders wouldn’t touch at 15%, but those jokers got paid fed funds plus 3 to take the risk. We should build a fund to pick at their carcass in 2 years. Good thing they just popped down a new branch in Sunset Harbor. We can use it as the REO office. Haha

    Me: Why isn’t any of this showing up in the data yet?

    Him: Most traditional borrowers have money and are trying to hold on. Besides, property is a slow burn process. Guys are in extreme pain, transaction volumes have collapsed, properties on offer have exploded. Eventually someone blinks, people realize where the real marks are on their assets, then they ask themselves why they are paying 10% a year to hold onto something that they’re underwater on and dropping in price. It’s going to be just like 2009. Wait 6 or 9 more months. They can take rates to zero, it won’t matter. That’s not the key cost of holding these things anyway.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Me: Will it really be as bad as last cycle?

    Him: Last time, a lot of the stuff that defaulted was upper middle-class product. It just needed lower prices and it eventually cleared. This time, the glut is fake “super-luxury.” 3,500 ft units with private exterior jacuzzies don’t ever clear. The property tax is $50,000 alone. Who the hell can afford this stuff? You can give it away for free. A middle-class guy cannot afford to hold it. Last cycle, it was a few hundred units of high-end that went bad. Now you have whole city blocks that are nothing but high end. 200 units per building. There’s thousands and thousands of these things. The property prices can halve and that means the property tax halves, but you’re still paying condo fees and remember, when your neighbors stop paying, you’re on the hook for their payments.

    There aren’t enough rich Venezuelans and Russians to buy all these units. Besides, those guys aren’t buying here anymore. They’re scared of Trump and they’re broke anyway. This time it really is gonna blow…

    Me: Sweet!! Lemme know when I can get a great deal on something nice.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 23:10

  • "Concerned For His Safety:" Oil Trader In Hiding After Losing $320 Million On Wrong-Way Derivatives Bets
    “Concerned For His Safety:” Oil Trader In Hiding After Losing $320 Million On Wrong-Way Derivatives Bets

    In a wrong-way derivates bet, we reported last week that a ‘rogue trader’ from Mitsubishi Corp. was fired after losing a whopping $320 million. Now Bloomberg is providing some clarity on what exactly happened after conversations with the trader’s lawyer.  

    The trader, who worked for Petro-Diamond Singapore Pte Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corporation, incurred significant losses when a “premature” settlement of a derivatives positions had to be closed out, said Joseph Chen, the Singapore-based lawyer for the trader, Wang Xingchen.

    “Our client takes the position that he had not engaged in unauthorized trades in crude oil derivatives,” Chen said in a statement.

    Mitsubishi Corp. and Petro-Diamond said the trader had been taking unauthorized derivatives positions since January, and suffered massive losses over the summer as oil prices plunged.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Xingchen reportedly occupied a relatively senior position, and was in charge of all transactions involving China for the subsidiary.

    Mitsubishi Corp. said Petro-Diamond launched an investigation into Xingchen’s trading logs while he was on vacation and sick leave in August. They found unauthorized positions, and decided to unwind them in August. The losses are expected to be about 6% of Mitsubishi’s projected profit for the fiscal year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Both companies allege Xingchen had manipulated its risk-management system, and was able to make it look like the derivative trades were associated with customer orders.

    Chen told Bloomberg his client followed internal reporting procedures and policy at all times. “Internal controls were in place” throughout the period in question, he said. 

    Chen said his client is in hiding because of concerns for his safety, adding that Wang has given “appropriate responses” to Petro-Diamond.

    Singapore Police Force officials confirmed to Bloomberg that they’re investigating the matter, declined to give further details. 

    Mitsubishi and Petro-Diamond said after an internal review – all-sufficient controls were in place at the time. It added that new controls could be put in place to detect trading mishaps “at a much earlier stage.”

    The incident is a reminder of the destruction that a rogue trader can cause to a large financial institution.

    * * *

    Read Mitsubishi’s announcement below:

    Losses from Overseas Subsidiary’s Crude Oil Trading

    This is to inform you that Mitsubishi Corporation (hereinafter “MC”) can confirm that one of its subsidiaries based in Singapore has realized a previously unidentified loss from derivatives trading. Investigations are currently ongoing to determine all of the details, but what is known so far is outlined below.

    MC recognizes the seriousness of this matter and shall be redoubling efforts throughout the entire MC Group to ensure that it does not happen again.

    1. Situation at Present

    Petro-Diamond Singapore (Pte) Ltd. (hereinafter “PDS”), a subsidiary of MC that engages in the trade of crude oil and petroleum products, has confirmed that it expects to book a loss of approximately 320 million USD from its trade of crude oil derivatives.

    Although PDS has already closed the position in question and determined how much was lost on the underlying derivatives, we are now examining the total amount of losses.

    2. Facts Determined Thus Far

    An employee who was hired locally by PDS to handle its crude oil trade with China (hereinafter “the employee”) was discovered to have been repeatedly engaging in unauthorized derivatives transactions and disguising them to look like hedge transactions since January of this year. Because the employee was manipulating data in PDS’s risk-management system, the derivatives transactions appeared to be associated with actual transactions with PDS’s customers. Since July, the price of crude oil has been dropping, resulting in large losses from derivatives trading. PDS began investigating the employee’s transactions during his absence from work in the middle of August, and that is when the unauthorized transactions were discovered.

    3. MC’s and PDS’s Response

    After recognizing that the transactions being investigated could result in a loss for PDS, MC and PDS immediately consulted with an outside lawyer and established an investigation team, including local outside experts, to gain an overall picture of the situation and identify the causes.

    • PDS quickly closed the derivatives position in question and determined the losses caused by the transactions which were not associated with any crude oil transactions with PDS’s customers. PDS also has since prevented the commencement of any similar transactions.
    • MC conducted internal investigation at PDS, which included inspections of PDS’s contracts, rules, risk-management system and internal controls. Based on its findings, MC has reconfirmed that PDS has sufficient internal controls in place, including a middle office responsible for risk management. MC also confirmed PDS already tightened its governance to ensure that any similar improprieties can be detected at a much earlier stage.
    • MC also performed investigations at its other MC group companies and MC’s in-house business departments engaged in derivatives trading to determine whether or not any similar improprieties have been taking place. These investigations confirmed that there are no such problems or risks at present.
    • PDS terminated the employment of the employee on September 18. In order to take a strong action in response to the violation of internal rules and laws committed by the employee, which has caused PDS this significant loss, PDS lodged a police complaint against the employee on September 19.

    4. Impact on MC’s FY2019 Forecast

    How the losses will impact MC’s forecast for FY2019 is under investigation and shall be announced if and when a performance review is necessary.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 22:50

  • Here's How We Are Silenced By Big Tech
    Here’s How We Are Silenced By Big Tech

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    This is how they silence us: your content has been secretly flagged as being “unsafe,” i.e. “guilty of anti-Soviet thoughts;” poof, you’re gone.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Big Tech claims it isn’t silencing skeptics, dissenters and critics of the status quo, but it is silencing us. Here’s how it’s done. Let’s start with Twitter. Twitter claims it doesn’t shadow ban (Setting the record straight on shadow banning), which it defines as deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.

    Nice, but what do we call labeling legitimate websites “unsafe” and banning Twitter users from retweeting links to posts on those sites? This is what’s happening to oftwominds.com– Twitter has labeled this site “unsafe” due to unspecified violations of the Twitter User Agreement, which I have reviewed and can categorically state the oftwominds.com site and posts have never violated the terms of the Agreement or the Twitter Rules, except if posting several tweets that contain the URL of my current post somehow violates the Rules. (If bloggers can’t list the URL of their original content more than once a day, then the Twitter Rules are prejudicial and should be amended.)

    Note that Twitter doesn’t identify or provide the user with evidence of the violation of its User Agreement that justifies the “unsafe/can’t retweet” shadow-banning. The process of contesting such arbitrary and opaque censorship is absurdly unsatisfactory. There is no form for content owners/Twitter users to contest being tossed in the “unsafe/can’t retweet” gulag; users must click through a bunch of “contact us” screens, none of which have an option for contesting being tossed in the “unsafe/can’t retweet” gulag.

    When you give up and just send Twitter Support a “report on spam,” i.e. that your own site is wrongly being labeled spam, you get (of course) an automated response in which Twitter promises to do nothing and tell you nothing.

    If original content that is obviously not violating the Terms of Service/User Agreement can be arbitrarily banned from being retweeted without any evidence or due process, how is this not censorship? This is straight out of Kafka: an unaccountable, all-powerful, completely opaque bureaucracy arbitrarily bans your Twitter followers from retweeting a link to your original, copyrighted content.How is that not flat-out censorship (by a privately owned and operated entity with extra-legal powers)?

    This is exactly like the Soviet Union, where citizens were routinely tossed in the gulag for having “anti-Soviet thoughts.” Twitter, Facebook and Google routinely hold the equivalent of extra-legal administrative “trials” in which those accused of violating open-to-interpretation (“anti-Soviet thoughts”) Terms of Service are not presented with evidence of their “crimes” nor are they given a chance in a transparent, fairly administered process to contest their “guilty” verdict.

    As for Facebook: direct links from Facebook users to oftwominds.com dropped by 90% last year over the course of a few days. What could have caused this sudden collapse? The only possible cause is Facebook limiting the number of people who could see my posts on their feeds. If this isn’t shadow-banning, then what do we call it, other than censorship?

    As for Google–who knows how your rankings in search are jiggered? We do know that having “anti-Soviet thoughts” will get you de-platformed from YouTube, which not only silences you but also demonetizes your content, so not only are you thrown into the censorship gulag, you’re stripped of your livelihood as well.

    I have long suspected that the root of oftwominds.com being censored by the Big Tech platforms is my “false arrest for sedition” via the scurrilously fabricated PropOrNot list that was gleefully promoted by the odious propaganda organ Washington Post— promoted, we should note, without any journalistic investigation or even rudimentary fact-checking.

    Having been put on a list of sites deemed “guilty of anti-Soviet thoughts” by propagandists purporting to reveal propaganda, I’ve been shadow-banned and censored without any recourse or opportunity to contest my sentence in the Big Tech gulag. This is how Big Tech silences us, quietly, without any evidence, without any hearing, without any recourse, in secret extra-legal proceedings where we are refused the opportunity to question our accuser and contest the “evidence,” if any.

    Big Tech is a privately owned and operated gulag straight out of Kafka. As I have argued before, the only way to dismantle this privately owned and operated gulag, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits from adverts and selling user data, is to turn their services into public utilities that cannot collect any data and cannot target adverts.

    This is how they silence us: your content has been secretly flagged as being “unsafe,” i.e. “guilty of anti-Soviet thoughts;” poof, you’re gone.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 22:30

  • Listen: Fremont Cop Radios For Help After His Tesla Battery Dies During High Speed Chase
    Listen: Fremont Cop Radios For Help After His Tesla Battery Dies During High Speed Chase

    A Fremont police Tesla engaged in a high speed chase last Friday ran out of battery power while in pursuit of “felony vehicle”, according to the Mercury News

    The department’s Model S was in pursuit of a vehicle and was traveling at speeds of up to 120 miles per hour on the highway when the officer driving it radioed in that he might not be able to continue the chase he was leading. 

    Officer Jesse Hartman said to fellow officers nearby: 

    “I am down to six miles of battery on the Tesla so I may lose it here in a sec. If someone else is able, can they maneuver into the number one spot?”

    But the officer lucked out: shortly after radioing the battery warning in, the person he was chasing began driving on the shoulder and police had to call off the chase for safety reasons. 

    While the rest of the officers made their way back to headquarters, Hartman had to make a pit stop.

    “I’ve got to try to find a charging station for the Tesla so I can make it back to the city,” Hartman said. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    He eventually found a charger in San Jose and was able to return back to headquarters. The Tesla had reportedly not been recharged after its previous shift before Hartman took it out on Friday, so the battery level was “lower than it normally would have been”, a Fremont police spokeswoman said. 

    “Hartman was monitoring the charge and responsibly notifying everyone of its status,” the spokeswoman said.

    Recall, Fremont’s police department made headlines for being the first police agency in the nation to roll out Teslas as part of its fleet. The used 2014 Model S is considered as part of a “pilot program” to determine whether or not Teslas are suitable for police use on a larger scale. 

    The four year old Model S cost the department $61,000 when they bought it in 2018 – $20,000 more than a new Ford Explorer police vehicle that the department uses for its other patrol vehicles. 

    You can listen to the audio of the chase here: 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 22:10

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 25th September 2019

  • As UK Election Looms, Corbyn Is The Most Unpopular Opposition Leader Since 1977
    As UK Election Looms, Corbyn Is The Most Unpopular Opposition Leader Since 1977

    Even before the hammer blow of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, it was for many a damning indictment on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, that in a time of such disarray and division in the (now minority) government, that they are still behind in the polls and showing no real signs of being able to beat Boris Johnson and the Tories in an election.

    As Statista’s Martin Armstrong points out, this situation is now also underscored by historic survey analysis by Ipsos MORI. Going all the way back to 1977, there hasn’t been a leader of the opposition which has inspired so little confidence among the British public.

    Infographic: Corbyn: most unpopular opposition leader since 1977 | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    When comparing the lowest ‘net satisfaction rate’ (see infographic footnote for a definition) of all opposition leaders, Corbyn is, with his current minus 60 percent, the most unpopular in over 40 years. Michael Foot managed to sink to minus 56 percent when sitting across from Margaret Thatcher in August 1982, but otherwise, no other leader has come close to Corbyn’s September 2019 low.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 02:45

    Tags

  • They're Murdering My Son – Julian Assange's Father Tells Of Pain And Anguish
    They’re Murdering My Son – Julian Assange’s Father Tells Of Pain And Anguish

    Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, gave an interview to Strategic Culture Foundation over the weekend. After arriving from his home country of Australia, Shipton is visiting several European states, including Russia, to bring public attention to the persecution of Julian Assange by British authorities over his role as a publisher and author.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    First though an introduction to the Assange case.

    Few media figures can be attributed with transforming international politics and the global media landscape. Arguably, Julian Assange, author, publisher and founder of the Wikileaks whistleblower website (2006), is in the top tier of world-changing individuals over the past decade.

    The Australian-born Assange has previously been awarded with accolades and respect for his truth-telling journalism which exposed massive crimes, corruption and nefarious intrigues by the US government and its Western allies.

    One of the most shocking exposés by Wikileaks was the video ‘Collateral Murder’ (2010) which showed mass, indiscriminate deadly shootings by US troops in Iraq. Similar war crimes by American troops in Afghanistan were also revealed by Wikileaks. The so-called US and NATO “war on terror” was exposed as a fraud and gargantuan crime.

    Assange worked with American whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, the latter revealing the illegal systematic global surveillance by US spy agencies against ordinary citizens and political leaders around the world in flagrant violation of human rights and Washington’s much-vaunted claims of upholding civil liberties and international law.

    The powers-that-be have gone after these truth-tellers with a vengeance for daring to expose their hypocrisy and vile record. Snowden is in exile in Russia unable to return to the US out of fear of imprisonment for “treason”. Manning is currently being detained indefinitely in the US because she refuses to testify against Assange. Julian Assange’s ground-breaking journalism exposing government crimes did so in a way that so many established Western news media outlets failed to do out of cowardly deference to the powers-that-be. Such so-called “independent” media are now facilitating the persecution of Assange by smearing his reputation and ignoring his plight in prison. He has been smeared, among other slanders, as a “Kremlin agent” and a “cyber terrorist”.

    After almost seven years (2012-2019) confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London where he sought political asylum to avoid arbitrary arrest by British authorities over trumped-up sex assault claims (since dropped), Assange was illegally arrested in April this year by UK police storming the Ecuadorian embassy. He has since been detained in maximum security Belmarsh prison where he is held under conditions of solitary confinement. He is being detained indefinitely while the US prepares a request to British authorities to extradite him. If he is extradited to the US, Assange will face charges under the Espionage Act which could result in 175 years in jail.

    Belmarsh prison in London is a Special Category A jail (the most severe of four grades of detention centers in the British penal system). It has been used previously to detain mass murderers and the most dangerous convicted terrorists. Julian Assange’s ongoing incarceration there under lockdown is preposterous. It is an outrage, and yet Western media show little or no concern to report on this gross violation of due process and human rights law.

    Earlier this month, on September 13, Assange was ordered by a British judge to be detained further even though he was due to be released this week on September 22, after having served out his sentence over a minor bail infringement that occurred back in 2012 when he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. That bail infringement is null and void since the original sex-assault claim in Sweden has been dropped due to lack of evidence against Assange.

    Evidently, his detention is being used by the British government (no doubt at the behest of Washington) in order to destroy his health and very being. At age 48, his physical and mental condition are deteriorating by the day under the extreme conditions which amount to torture, as the UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer noted after visiting the prisoner back in May this year. The UN report called for Assange’s immediate release.

    The following is an interview conducted with Assange’s father, John Shipton. He is currently on a tour of European countries to highlight the gross miscarriage of justice against his son. Shipton is visiting Britain, Ireland, Austria, Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden to campaign for Julian’s immediate release. He is also traveling to Russia.

    In contrast to Western media indifference, John Shipton says he has encountered great public support for Julian, demanding his freedom. Among his supporters are prominent public figures, award-winning journalist John Pilger, renowned thinker and writer Noam Chomsky, Pink Floyd singer-songwriter Roger Waters and the courageous actress Pamela Anderson.

    Interview

    Q: Can you describe the current prison conditions for Julian and his state of health?

    Julian has lost 15 kilos in weight, is held in Belmarsh Maximum Security prison hospital 22 hours per day in solitary confinement. Nils Melzer, United Nation’s special rapporteur on torture, visited in company with two people expert in recognizing the effects of torture. Nils’ report stated Julian showed the effects of torture physically and mentally. Since Nils’ visit in May 2019, Julian continues to lose weight, now totaling 15 kilos. Nils and company describe Julian’s deeply distressing condition in firm language. UN report linked.

    Q: It is reported that you are being restricted from contact with your son in prison despite you having traveled from Sydney, Australia, to visit him. Is that correct?

    Julian can receive two, two-hour social visits per month. My visit was double-booked with another thus cancelled. A week later, in company with Ai Wei Wei, we visited Julian. Sitting in the prisoners’ meeting room for 46 minutes, upon complaining we were told Julian could not be found. Couple of minutes later Julian was brought in.

    Q: Is Julian being restricted from contact with his lawyers in order to prepare his defense against the pending extradition case from Britain to the US?

    Yes, severely. Sentenced to maximum security as a Grade B prisoner in solitary confinement, without access to computer or library. I gather the prison library has no books on criminal law.

    Q: The latest development this month on September 13 saw a British judge rule that Julian’s detention in London’s max security Belmarsh prison is to be extended indefinitely despite him being due to be released on September 22 after serving his time for a bail infringement back in 2012. What, in your view, is objectionable about the latest ruling by the British judge?

    The judge, Vanessa Baraitser, made her own application for Julian’s bail which, with bottomless ignominy, she promptly refused. Baraitser in summing her judgement used the phrase, “likely to abscond”. Julian has partaken of legal conventions of asylum, and to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, reviewed and supported by 32 states in the American Organization of States, and he has ceaselessly offered Swedish prosecutors opportunity to interview him on allegations or travel to Sweden if guarantees of no onward extradition to the United States. Stephania Maurizi’s Freedom of Information requests of United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecuting Service and Swedish Crown Prosecuting Authority had revealed irregular anti-procedural state cooperation keeping Julian in Ecuador’s London embassy. Mini Adolf Eichmanns all of them are.

    Swedish prosecuting authority has had four prosecutors, two interviews, one in Sweden 2010 and 2017 in Ecuador’s London embassy, during nine years under regulations stating that cases must be progressed. To land a man on the moon took eight years!

    This is prosecutorial and judicial insouciant malice towards Julian.

    Q: What are your concerns about what could happen if your son is extradited to the US where he is facing charges of violating the Espionage Act?

    They will murder Julian one way or the other.

    Q: What do you say to politicians and media figures, like Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late US senator John McCain, who denounce Julian as a cyber terrorist”?

    US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, moron and crook or if you prefer, crook and moron, if memory serves, first uttered this phrase purportedly bringing Julian under the Patriot Act as a terrorist, thereby able to be extra-judicially murdered. Floundering morons repeat meaningless phrases echoing other bubble-head nonsense. Everyone of those morons are horrified by and terrified by truth and facts which everyone all can see and read on Wikileaks.

    Q: Are you proud of your son’s work as a publisher and whistleblower? What do see as his main achievement from his publishing work?

    The achievements are many. In diplomatic cables we can read of how the geopolitical world is composed and disposed of people therein. We can understand what Uncle Sam wants and how the US state gets what its wants. Many millions of people, communities and states benefit from Wikileaks, some greatly. Example, Chagos Islanders at the International Court of Justice. Iraq War and Afghan files exposing war crimes. Vault 7 exposing CIA cyber illegalities and crimes. The ‘Collateral Murder’ video’s revelation of US war crimes in Iraq. The list of revelations and beneficiaries is long and deep. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a necessity.

    War crimes revealed, sordid practices, blackmail and bribery. Seven countries destroyed, millions dead, rivers of blood and millions displaced. Yet only Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, both innocent of giving hurt and crime, rot in jail.

    Q: Is Julian’s treatment by British and US authorities a grave warning to all citizens about the danger to their right to freedom of expression and independent media?

    Yes, a grim warning. Shut up or be crushed. What free press? English-speaking mass media is homogenous in its deceptions, prevarication and banal lies. Popular internet search engines deflect enquiry to corporate cronies. Facebook corporation is greed incarnate. All these entities can be simply regulated. Nations states have powers, however, do nothing but salivate over access to data we generate… our data.

    For Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are icons of oppressive state violence towards revelation of astonishing corruption and staggering criminality.

    Many gifted, brave writers, commentators and film-makers continue a furious fight in alternate media and blogs. We give our gratitude and salute such men and women, for they all know, intimately, there is no monster colder than the US state and its allies.

    Q: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the government in Canberra have refused to make appeals for Julian’s release despite him being an Australian citizen. How do you view the Australian government’s lack of response to the case? Why are they apparently derelict? For example, Premier Morrison is visiting US President Donald Trump this week but he is reportedly scheduled to not raise the Assange case or to request his release. Why is Morrison acting with such indifference, and deference to the US?

    The Australian government is complicit. More than complicit as silence indicates agreed involvement. Notable exception are ex Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, with concordance of ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, raising Julian with Jeremy Hunt, the former United Kingdom Foreign Minister and Mike Pompeo, the current United States Secretary of State.

    Q: Are you hopeful that Julian will be released in the near future? How important have public supporters like journalist John Pilger, Pink Floyd singer-songwriter Roger Waters and actress Pamela Anderson, as well as ordinary members of the public, been to Julian’s spirits?

    To Julian’s spirits, friends and supporters are alpha to omega of life.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 09/25/2019 – 02:00

    Tags

  • Sergei Lavrov Warns "The World Is At A Crossroads"
    Sergei Lavrov Warns “The World Is At A Crossroads”

    Via Dmitry Orlov’s Club Orlov blog,

    Sergei Lavrov is a world-class diplomatic heavyweight and Russia’s foreign minister. As the saying goes, if you don’t deal with Lavrov, you’ll end up dealing with Sergei Shoigu, defense minister. This speech is important in the context of the borderline nonexistent relations between Russia and the United States. It explains why that is and orders ways out.

    The question is, are American government officials capable of accepting reality and acquiescing to the fact that the world has changed and that they are no longer the ones calling the shots.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These days, the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly opens up. So does a new international “political season”.

    The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.

    Reflecting on the spiritual and moral significance of these landmark events, one needs to bear in mind the enormous political meaning of the Victory that ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind.

    The defeat of fascism in 1945 had fundamentally affected the further course of world history and created conditions for establishing a post-war world order. The UN Charter became its bearing frame and a key source of international law to this day. The UN-centric system still preserves its sustainability and has a great degree of resilience. It actually is kind of a safety net that ensures peaceful development of mankind amid largely natural divergence of interests and rivalries among leading powers. The War-time experience of ideology-free cooperation of states with different socioeconomic and political systems is still highly relevant.

    It is regrettable that these obvious truths are being deliberately silenced or ignored by certain influential forces in the West. Moreover, some have intensified attempts at privatizing the Victory, expunging from memory the Soviet Union’s role in the defeat of Nazism, condemning to oblivion the Red Army’s feat of sacrifice and liberation, forgetting the many millions of Soviet citizens who perished during the War, wiping out from history the consequences of the ruinous policy of appeasement. From this perspective, it is easy to grasp the essence of the concept of expounding the equality of the totalitarian regimes. Its purpose is not just to belittle the Soviet contribution to the Victory, but also to retrospectively strip our country of its historic role as an architect and guarantor of the post-war world order, and label it a “revisionist power” that is posing a threat to the well-being of the so-called free world.

    Interpreting the past in such a manner also means that some of our partners see the establishment of a transatlantic link and the permanent implanting of the US military presence in Europe as a major achievement of the post-war system of international relations. This is definitely not the scenario the Allies had in mind while creating the United Nations.

    The Soviet Union disintegrated; the Berlin Wall, which had symbolically separated the two “camps,” fell; the irreconcilable ideological stand-off that defined the framework of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions became a thing of the past – yet, these tectonic shifts unfortunately failed to bring the triumph of a unifying agenda. Instead, all we could hear were triumphant pronouncements that the “end of history” had come and that from now on there would be only one global decision-making center.

    It is obvious today that efforts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation of the world order has become irreversible. New major players wielding a sustainable economic base seek to increase their influence on regional and global developments; they are fully entitled to claim a greater role in the decision-making process. There is a growing demand for more just and inclusive system. The overwhelming majority of members of the international community reject arrogant neocolonial policies that are employed all over again to empower certain countries to impose their will on others.

    All that is greatly disturbing to those who for centuries have been accustomed to setting the patterns of global development by employing exclusive advantages. While the majority of states aspire to a more just system of international relations and genuine rather than declarative respect for the UN Charter principles, these demands come up against the policies desighned to preserve an order allowing a narrow group of countries and transnational corporations to reap from the fruits of globalization. The West’s response to the ongoing developments reveals true worldview of its proponents. Their rhetoric on liberalism, democracy and human rights goes hand in hand with the policies of inequality, injustice, selfishness and a belief in their own exceptionalism.

    “Liberalism”, that the West claims to defend, focuses on individuals and their rights and freedoms. This begs the question: how does this correlate with the policy of sanctions, economic strangulation and overt military threats against a number of independent countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Syria? Sanctions directly strike at ordinary people and their well-being and violate their social and economic rights. How does the bombing of sovereign nations, the deliberate policy of destroying their statehood leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other peoples to innumerable suffering add up to the imperative of protecting human rights? The reckless Arab Spring gamble destroyed the unique ethnic and religious mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.

    In Europe, the proponents of liberal concepts get along quite well with massive violations of the Russian-speaking population rights in a number of EU and EU-neighboring countries. Those countries violate multilateral international conventions by adopting laws that infringe language and education rights of ethnic minorities.

    What is “liberal” about visa denials and other sanctions imposed by the West on residents of Russia’s Crimea? They are punished for their democratic vote in favour of reunification with their historical homeland. Does this not contradict the basic right of the people to free self-determination, let alone the right of the citizens to freedom of movement enshrined in international conventions?

    Liberalism, or rather its real undistorted essence, has always been an important component of political philosophy both in Russia and worldwide. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that the Western “basket” of liberal values has no alternative. And, of course, these values cannot be carried “on bayonets” – ignoring the history of states, their cultural and political identities. Grief and destruction caused by “liberal” aerial bombings are a clear indication of what this can lead to.

    The West’s unwillingness to accept today’s realities, when after centuries of economic, political and military domination it is losing the prerogative of being the only one to shape the global agenda, gave rise to the concept of a “rules-based order.” These “rules” are being invented and selectively combined depending on the fleeting needs of the people behind it, and the West persistently introduces this language into everyday usage. The concept is by no means abstract and is actively being implemented. Its purpose is to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods for resolving various international problems are developed in circumvention of a legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, the expectation is to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.

    The intentions of those who initiated this “rules-based order” concept affect the exceptional powers of the UN Security Council. A recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions that accused, without any proof, the Syrian government of using prohibited toxic substances, they started to promote the “rules” they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). By manipulating the existing procedures in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they managed (with the votes of a minority of the countries participating in this Convention) to license the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was a direct intrusion in the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. One can also observe similar attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations in order to advance interests outside of the framework of universal intergovernmental mechanisms in such areas as biological non-proliferation, peacekeeping, prevention of doping in sports and others.

    The initiatives to regulate journalism seeking to suppress media freedom in an arbitrary way, the interventionist ideology of “responsibility to protect”, which justifies violent “humanitarian interventions” without UN Security Council approval under the pretext of an imminent threat to the safety of civilians are part of the same policy.

    Separately, attention should be paid to the controversial concept of “countering violent extremism”, which lays the blame for the dissemination of radical ideologies and expansion of the social base of terrorism on political regimes that the West has proclaimed undemocratic, illiberal or authoritarian. This concept provides for direct outreach to civil society over the head of legitimate governments. Obviously, the true goal is to withdraw counterterrorism efforts from beneath the UN umbrella and to obtain a tool of interference in the internal affairs of states.

    The introduction of such new concepts is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism, which rejects the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paves the way back to the times of confrontation and antagonism. It is for a reason that the West is openly discussing a new divide between “the rules-based liberal order” and “authoritarian powers.”

    Revisionism clearly manifests itself in the area of strategic stability. The US torpedoing first the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty (a decision that enjoys unanimous NATO members’ support) have generated risks of dismantling the entire architecture of nuclear arms control agreements. The prospects of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (The New START) are vague – because the US has not given a clear answer to the Russian proposal to agree to extend the New START beyond its expiry date in February 2021.

    Now we are witnessing alarming signs that a media campaign in the United States is being launched to lay the groundwork for abandoning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (which has not been ratified by the United States). This calls into question the future of this treaty, which is vital for international peace and security. Washington has embarked upon the implementation of its plans to deploy weapons in outer space, rejecting proposals to agree on a universal moratorium on such activities.

    There is one more example of introducing revisionist “rules”: the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council that is of key importance for the nuclear non-proliferation.

    Yet another example is Washington’s open refusal to implement unanimous UN Security Council resolutions on the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    In the economic field, the “rules” consist of protectionist barriers, sanctions, abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment, ensuring competitive advantages by non-market methods, and extraterritorial use of US laws, even towards the United States’ closest allies.

    At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently trying to mobilise all of their foreign partners to contain Russia and China. Simultaneously they do not conceal their wish to sow discord between Moscow and Beijing and undermine multilateral alliances and regional integration projects in Eurasia and Asia-Pacific that are operating outside of the US oversight. Pressure is exerted on those countries that do not play by the rules imposed on them and dare make the “wrong choice” of cooperating with US “adversaries”.

    So, what do we have as a result? In politics, erosion of the international legal basis, growth of instability and unsustainability, chaotic fragmentation of the global landscape and deepening mistrust between those involved in the international life. In the area of security, blurring of the dividing line between military and non-military means of achieving foreign policy goals, militarization of international relations, increased reliance on nuclear weapons in US security doctrines, lowering the threshold for the use of such armaments, the emergence of new hotbeds of armed conflicts, the persistence of the global terrorist threat, and militarization of the cyberspace. In the world economy, increased volatility, tougher competition for markets, energy resources and their supply routes, trade wars and undermining the multilateral trade system. We can add a surge of migration and deepening of ethnic and religious strife. Do we need such a “rules-based” world order?

    Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to portray Russia as a “revisionist force” are simply absurd. We were among the first to draw attention to the transformation of the global political and economic systems that cannot remain static due to the objective march of history. It would be appropriate to mention here that the concept of multipolarity in international relations that accurately reflects emerging economic and geopolitical realities was formulated two decades ago by the outstanding Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov. His intellectual legacy remains relevant now as we mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.

    As is evident from the experience of recent years, using unilateral tools to address global problems is doomed to failure. The West-promoted “order” does not meet the needs of humankind’s harmonious development. This “order” is non-inclusive, aims to revise the key international legal mechanisms, rejects the principle of collective action in the relations between states, and by definition cannot generate solutions to global problems that would be viable and stable in the long term rather than seek a propaganda effect within an electoral cycle in this or that country.

    What is being proposed by Russia? First of all, it is necessary to keep abreast of the times and recognise the obvious: the emergence of a polycentric world architecture is an irreversible process, no matter how hard anyone tries to artificially hold it back (let alone send it in reverse). Most countries don’t want to be held hostage to someone else’s geopolitical calculations and are determined to conduct nationally oriented domestic and foreign policies. It is our common interest to ensure that multipolarity is not based on a stark balance of power like it was at the earlier stages of human history (for example, in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century), but rather bears a just, democratic and unifying nature, takes into account the approaches and concerns of all those taking part in the international relations without an exception, and ensures a stable and secure future.

    There are some people in the West who often speculate that polycentric world order inevitably leads to more chaos and confrontation because the “centers of power” will fail to come to terms among themselves and take responsible decisions. But, firstly, why not try? What if it works? For this, all that is necessary is to start talks on the understanding that the parties should seek a balance of interests. Attempts to invent ones’ own “rules” and impose them on all others as the absolute truth should be stopped. From now on, all parties should strictly comply with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with the respect for the sovereign equality of states regardless of their size, system of government or development model. Paradoxically, countries that portray themselves as paragons of democracy actually care about it only as they demand from other countries to “put their house in order” on a West-inspired pattern. But as soon as the need arises for democracy in intergovernmental relations, they immediately evade honest talk or attempt to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion.

    No doubt, life does not stand still. While taking good care of the post-WWII system of international relations that relies on the United Nations, it is also necessary to cautiously though gradually adjust it to the realities of the current geopolitical landscape. This is completely relevant for the UN Security Council, where, judging by today’s standards, the West is unfairly overrepresented. We are confident that reforming the Security Council shall take into account interests of the Asian, the African and the Latin American nations whilst any such design must rest upon the principle of the broadest consensus among the UN member states. The same approach should apply to refining the world trade system, with special attention paid to harmonizing the integration projects in various regions.

    We should use to the fullest the potential of the G20, an ambitious, all-encompassing global governance body that represents the interests of all key players and takes unanimous decisions. Other associations are playing a growing role as well, alliances projecting the spirit of a true and democratic multipolarity, based on voluntary participation, consensus, values of equality and sound pragmatism, and refraining from confrontation and bloc approaches. These include BRICS and the SCO, which our country is an active member of and which Russia will chair in 2020.

    It is evident that without collective effort and without unbiased partnership under the central coordinating role of the UN it is impossible to curb confrontational tendencies, build up trust and cope with common threats and challenges. It is high time to come to terms on uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law rather than try to follow the old saying “might goes before right”. It is more difficult to broker deals than to put forward demands. But patiently negotiated trade-offs will be a much more reliable vehicle for predictable handling of international affairs. Such an approach is badly needed to launch substantive talks on the terms and conditions of a reliable and just system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. This objective has been declared multiple times at the top level in the OSCE documents. It is necessary to move from words to deeds. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) have repeatedly expressed their readiness to contribute to such efforts.

    It is important to increase our assistance to the peaceful resolution of numerous conflicts, be it in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America or the post-Soviet space. The main point is to live up to the earlier arrangements rather than to invent pretexts for refusing to adhere to the obligations.

    As of today, it is especially relevant to counter religious and ethnic intolerance. We urge all the nations to work together to prepare for the World Conference on Interfaith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue that will be held in Russia in May 2022 under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN. The OSCE that has formulated a principled position condemning anti-Semitism should act with equal resolve toward Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

    Our unconditional priority is to continue providing assistance to the unhindered formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific that involves the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all other countries of the Eurasian continent, including the EU countries. It would be unwise to contain the unifying processes or, worse still, to put up fences. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of the common Eurasian region in an increasingly competitive world.

    Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.

    Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry? This depends on all of us. Russia will continue to promote a positive and unifying agenda aimed at removing the old dividing lines and preventing the appearance of new ones. Russia has advanced initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space, establish efficient mechanisms for combating terrorism, including chemical and biological terrorism, and to agree upon practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace for undermining national security or for other criminal purposes.

    Our proposals to launch a serious discussion on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era are still on the table.

    There have been ideas floated recently to modify the agenda and update the terms. The proposed subjects for discussion vary between “strategic rivalry” and “multilateral deterrence.” Terminology is negotiable, but it is not terms but the essence that really matters. It is now much more important to start a strategic dialogue on the existing threats and risks and to seek consensus on a commonly acceptable agenda. Yet another outstanding statesman from our country, Andrey Gromyko (his 110th birth anniversary we mark this year) said wisely: “Better to have ten years of negotiations than one day of war.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • Abortion Rates Fall To Lowest Level Since Procedure Was Legalized In 1973
    Abortion Rates Fall To Lowest Level Since Procedure Was Legalized In 1973

    A new study released on Wednesday by the Guttmacher institute shows that abortion rates have fallen to their lowest level since the procedure was legalized in 1973, according to the BBC

    The study shows that abortion rates declined 7% from 2014 to 2017 and that, in 2017, 862,320 abortions were performed. This is lower than 2011 by about 200,000 abortions and down from a high of 1.6 million in 1990.

    The institute says that the lower number isn’t necessarily a result of new laws or conservative politicians trying to restrict access. Rather, it offers several different theories as to why the rate could be plummeting. 

    First, it suggests that better reproductive healthcare could be part of the reason. The authors of the report found that better access to contraception and improvement in female contraception, like IUDs and implants, may have contributed to the decline. These forms of contraception are now covered by insurance companies due to the 2009 Affordable Care Act. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Elizabeth Nash, a policy manager for the Guttmacher Institute said that the report shows the national average. She pointed out that even though the average distance traveled for an abortion was 34 miles, some women were forced to travel much further. 

    “Some people are going hundreds of miles while some people are living in cities where they can take the bus or the train,” she said.

    Second, the report suggests that at-home abortions could be contributing to the rate falling. Despite 95% of all procedures taking place in clinics, use of the abortion pill accounted for 39% of abortions in 2017, up from 20% in 2014. These abortions are harder to track. 

    Increased legal restrictions may also be part of the reason the rate is dropping. Between 2011 and 2017, 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions on abortions. Some of the “harshest restrictions to date” have been passed by conservative leaning states in 2018, even though some have been blocked by courts temporarily. 

    Anti-abortion advocates believe that the legal restrictions are helping slow the abortion rate. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Laura Echevarria of the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee said: “I think they are having an impact. If it’s not having a huge impact then why is everyone in the abortion industry up in arms every time a law is passed?”

    Nash thinks that even though increased restrictions “play a role” that “the numbers don’t tell the whole story”. 

    She continued: “The abortion rate, whether it declines or increases, is not really the indicator of access. What we need to do is think about what abortion services look like for each individual and whether or not they’re affordable and available.”

    Some states that passed harsher abortion laws between 2014 and 2017 actually saw increases in abortion rates. Several states that opened new clinics saw abortion rates move lower. Overall, the US saw a net gain of clinics between 2014 and 2017. 

    Lower birthrates are also likely helping the abortion trend. In general, women are choosing to have fewer children. With the US birthrate at its lowest level since 1987, the number of births per thousand – and fertility – both fell to their lowest levels since 1987. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The decrease in births is being attributed to women seeking higher education and employment, as well as changing societal expectations and limited provision for parental leave from work. 

    Finally, some believe the decline in abortion rates is a result of anti-abortion advocates having more of an impact. 

    National Right to Life Committee President Carol Tobias said: “The pro-life movement’s efforts to educate American’s about the humanity of the unborn child and pass protective pro-life legislation are having an impact.”

    NRLC Laura Echevarria spokeswoman concluded: “Knowledge of what happens inside the womb has become mainstream.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 23:25

  • NASA And ESA Announce Plans For "Insurance Policy For Earth"
    NASA And ESA Announce Plans For “Insurance Policy For Earth”

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the ESA (Europeans Space Agency) are finally ready to test the Earth’s planetary defenses to see whether we can successfully defend ourselves from the apparent scourge of “space rocks”. Calling it an “insurance policy for Earth,” scientists intend to smash a spacecraft into an asteroid at over 14,000 miles per hour.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to RT, the target they have chosen to crash a spacecraft into is the asteroid Didymos B.  This space rock is roughly 160 meters in diameter, one half of a binary asteroid system. Didymos B orbits the larger asteroid Didymos A every 11.92 hours and this will help determine the ultimate success (or failure) of the mission. The Didymos system is classified as a Near-Earth Object (NEO), meaning it’s close but not too close that it might hit us, making it the perfect test subject to see how well Earth is prepared to steer an asteroid off a collision course with the Earth.

    The joint asteroid impact and deflection assessment (AIDA) project launched by the ESA and NASA in 2015, and Earth’s champion selected for the mission will be NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft. 

    “Today, we’re the first humans in history to have the technology to potentially deflect an asteroid from impacting the Earth,” astronomer Ian Carnelli of the ESA told Technology Review.

    The key question that remains to be answered is, are the technologies and models that we have good enough to actually work? Before you drive a car, you need to have an insurance policy. Well, AIDA is the insurance policy for planet Earth.

    Both space agencies are anticipating some problems with this mission, however.  Things may not go as smoothly as planned. For example, when the Japanese space agency JAXA bombed the asteroid Ryugu in April, it made a far bigger crater than anticipated. Additionally, the material on the surface behaved like sand, which may impact the effectiveness of deflection. There is no way to tell how Didymos B will react when it is struck with a man-made spacecraft.

    “If gravity is also dominant at Didymos B, even though it is much smaller, we could end up with a much bigger crater than our models and lab-based experiments to date have shown,” explained planetary scientist Patrick Michel of CNRS. 

    “Ultimately, very little is known about the behavior of these small bodies during impacts and this could have big consequences for planetary defense.”

    The DART will ram into Didymos B at 23,760 kilometers per hour (14,760mph). However, all that force will only translate into a change in the asteroid’s velocity of just a centimeter per second or so, which could change the orbital period from almost 12 hours to a mere matter of minutes.

    The mission is set to launch in July 2021, with the impact expected in September 2022.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 23:05

  • IG Says Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Had 'Bias' In Favor Of 'Rival Candidate'; Retains Clinton, Schumer Attorney
    IG Says Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Had ‘Bias’ In Favor Of ‘Rival Candidate’; Retains Clinton, Schumer Attorney

    The Trump administration is set to release a document from the intelligence community inspector general which concluded that the whistleblower behind the explosive allegations against President Trump had ‘political bias’ in favor of ‘a rival candidate’ for US president, according to Fox News, citing a senior Trump administration official.  

    What’s more, the whistleblower has retained attorney Andrew Bakaj – who “interned for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year,” per The Federalist

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

    Meanwhile, the White House has also been working as fast as possible to release the whistleblower’s complaint involving phone conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Congress, “as long as it’s legally possible.” 

    The news came just hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated a formal impeachment inquiry by alleging that the administration was hiding the complaint.

    The senior administration official told Fox News that the White House had nothing to hide, that there has been no wrongdoing, and that the White House’s general position has been that it will make everything possible available to Congress or the public regarding Trump’s conversations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint to the intelligence community’s inspector general.

    source familiar with the matter told Fox News this week that the whistleblower had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s July call with Zelensky. Trump vowed earlier Tuesday to release a “complete” transcript of the call by Wednesday. –Fox News

    On Friday, Trump described the whistleblower as ‘partisan,’ and that he had a “totally appropriate conversation” with Zelensky – warning the press that they’re making a giant mistake. 

    “You know the press has had a very bad week with Justice Kavanaugh and all those ridiculous charges, and all of the mistakes made at the New York Times and other places,” said Trum, adding: “You’ve had a very bad week, and this will be better than all of ’em, this is another one. So keep playing it out because you’re gonna look really bad when it falls, and I guess I’m about 22 and 0 and I’ll keep it that way. 

    “…keep asking questions and building it up as big as possible so you can have a bigger downfall.” 

    According to the senior Trump admin official there are a “few words” in the transcript which may raise eyebrows, however it is nowhere near the quid pro quo, pressure tactics or threats that Democrats and the MSM have suggested.

    Throwing a wrench in the gears of ‘justice’

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday went against her better judgement and launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump – specifically charging that the administration violated the law by refusing to turn over the whistleblower complaint. 

    “Today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella … The president must be held accountable,” Pelosi said in a press conference.

    Other prominent Democrats also seemingly said Trump should be impeached no matter what.

    “The president has committed several impeachable offenses,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told reporters after Pelosi’s remarks on impeachment. In another indication that Democrats were apparently hedging their bets on the Ukraine matter, Ocasio-Cortez said alleged Emoluments Clause violations by the president could be included in prospective articles of impeachment.

    Republicans said the move would prove to be a major political mistake.

    “It is a colossal error,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told Fox News just prior to Pelosi’s comments. “And, I’m kind of surprised that Speaker Pelosi, as shrewd as she is, would let it get to this point.”

    Swing district Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., acknowledged to Fox News that supporting the impeachment inquiry “could” affect her electorally, but she maintained that Trump voters in her district “understand,” and that Trump crossed a red line. –Fox News

    While taking great pains not to discuss Biden’s alleged malfeasance in Ukraine, Democrats have also latched onto the Trump administration’s decision to pause $391 million in military aid to Ukraine about a week before the call between the two world leaders – suggesting that Trump threatened to withhold it unless they investigated claims that Biden abused his position as US Vice President to benefit his son, Hunter, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company which was under investigation. The elder Biden openly bragged about threatening to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless then-President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:45

    Tags

  • Normal Intrusions: Globalising AI Surveillance
    Normal Intrusions: Globalising AI Surveillance

    Authored by Binoy Kampmark via Oriental Review,

    They all do it: corporations, regimes, authorities.  They all have the same reasons: efficiency, serviceability, profitability, all under the umbrella term of “security”.  Call it surveillance, or call it monitoring the global citizenry; it all comes down to the same thing.  You are being watched for your own good, and such instances should be regarded as a norm.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Given the weaknesses of international law and the general hiccupping that accompanies efforts to formulate a global right to privacy, few such restrictions, or problems, preoccupy those in surveillance.  The entire business is burgeoning, a viral complex that does not risk any abatement.

    The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has released an unnerving report confirming that fact, though irritatingly using an index in doing so.  Its focus is Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.  A definition of sorts is offered for AI, being “an integrated system that incorporates information acquisition objectives, logical reasoning principles, and self-correction capacities.”

    When stated like that, the whole matter seems benign.  Machine learning, for instance, “analyses a large amount of information in order to discern a pattern to explain the current data and predict future uses.”

    There are several perturbing highlights supplied by the report’s author, Steven Feldstein.  The relationship between military expenditure and states’ use of AI surveillance systems is noted, with “forty of the world’s top fifty military spending countries (based on cumulative military expenditures) also [using] AI surveillance technology.”  Across 176 countries, data gathered since 2017 shows that AI surveillance technologies are not merely good domestic fare but a thriving export business.

    The ideological bent of the regime in question is no bar to the use of such surveillance.  Liberal democracies are noted as major users, with 51 percent of “advanced democracies” doing so.  That number, interestingly enough, is less than “closed autocratic states” (37 percent); “electoral autocratic/competitive autocratic states” (41 percent) and “electoral democracies/illiberal democracies” (41 percent).  The political taxonomist risks drowning in minutiae on this point, but the chilling reality stands out: all states are addicted to diets of AI surveillance technologies.

    Feldstein makes the fairly truistic point that “autocratic and semi-autocratic” states so happen to abuse AI surveillance more “than governments in liberal democracies” but the comparisons tend to breakdown in the global race for technological superiority.  Russia, China and Saudi Arabia are singled out as “exploiting AI technology for mass surveillance purposes” but all states seek the Holy Grail of mass, preferably warrantless surveillance.  Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 did more than anything else to scupper the quaint notion that those who profess safeguards and freedoms are necessarily aware about the runaway trends of their security establishment.

    The corporation-state nexus is indispensable to global surveillance, a symbiotic relationship that resists regulation and principle.  This has the added effect of destroying any credible distinction between a state supposedly more compliant with human rights standards, and those that are not.  The common thread, as ever, is the technology company.  As Feldstein notes, in addition to China, “companies based in liberal democracies – for example, Germany, France, Israel, Japan, South Korea, the UK, the United States – are actively selling sophisticated equipment to unsavoury regimes.”

    These trends are far from new.  In 1995, Privacy International published a report with the unmistakable title Big Brother Incorporated, an overview of surveillance technology that has come to be aptly known as the Repression Trade. 

    “Much of this technology is used to track the activities of dissidents, human rights activists, journalists, student leaders, minorities, trade union leaders, and political opponents.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Corporations with no particular allegiance except to profit and shareholders, such as British computer firm ICL (International Computers Limited) were identified as key designers behind the South African automated Passbook system, Apartheid’s stand out signature.  In the 1980s, the Israeli company Tadiran, well in keeping with a rich tradition of the Repression Trade, supplied the murderous Guatemalan policy with computerised death lists in their “pacification” efforts.

    The current galloping power in the field of AI surveillance technology is China, underpinned by the clout-heavy Belt and Road Initiative rosily described by its fans as a Chinese Marshall Plan Where there are market incentives, there are purchasing prospects for AI technology. 

    “Technology linked to Chinese companies are found in at least sixty-three countries worldwide.  Huawei alone is responsible for providing AI surveillance technology to at least fifty countries.” 

    Chinese technology, it is speculated, may well boost surveillance capabilities within certain African markets, given the “aggressiveness of Chinese companies”.

    Other powers also participate in what has become a field of aggressive competitors.  Japan’s NEC is its own colossus, supplying technology to some 14 countries.  IBM keeps up the pressure as a notable American player, doing so to 11 countries.  That particular entity made something of a splash in May, with a report revealing sales of biometric surveillance systems to the United Arab Emirates security and spy agencies stirring discussion in May this year.  Another recipient of IBM surveillance technology is the Philippines, a country more than keen to arm its police forces with the means to monitor, and more than occasionally murder, its citizens.  (The Davao City death squads are a bloody case in point.)

    Issues with the report were bound to arise.  A humble admission is made that the sampling method may be questionable in terms of generating a full picture of the industry.  “Given the opacity of government surveillance use, it is nearly impossible to pin down by specific year which AI platforms or systems are currently in use.”  Nor does the index “distinguish between AI surveillance used for legitimate purposes and unlawful digital surveillance.”  A murky field, indeed.

    For all the grimness of Feldstein’s findings, he is also aware of the seductive element that various platforms have offered.  Rampant, amoral AI surveillance might well be a hideous by-product of technology, but the field teems with promise in “deep learning; cloud computing and online data gathering”, “improved performance of complex algorithms; and market-driven incentives for new uses of AI technology.”  This shows, in a sense, the Janus-faced nature in critiquing such an enterprise; such praise tends to come with the territory, given Feldstein’s own background as former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau of the US State Department.

    Feldstein leaves room to issue a warning.  “As these technologies become more embedded in governance and politics, the window for change will narrow.”  The window, in many instances, has not so much narrowed as closed, as it did decades ago.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:25

  • Macron Slams Greta Thunberg After Teenage Activist Sues France Over Climate – But Leaves Out China
    Macron Slams Greta Thunberg After Teenage Activist Sues France Over Climate – But Leaves Out China

    French President Emmanuel Macron slammed Greta Thunberg after the 16-year-old climate activist filed a legal complaint accusing five countries of inaction on global warming in violation of the 30-year-old UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. Germany, France, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Notably, she left out China – which is the world’s worst polluter by total volume

    After browbeating the UN for ‘stealing her childhood‘ on Monday, Thunberg tweeted “Today at 11:30 I and 15 other children from around the world filed a legal complaint against 5 nations over the climate crisis through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” 

    Thunberg’s complaint calls out nations that have ratified the UN treaty, yet – according to her – have not upheld their obligations. And again, she’s said nothing about pollution from China or India

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

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

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

    In response to the Swedish activist, French President Emmanuel Macron told Eruope1 that her stance was “very radical” and likely to “antagonize societies.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “All the movements of our youth — or our not-so-young — are helpful,” said Macron, adding “But they must now focus on those who are furthest away, those who are seeking to block the way.”

    The head of state stressed that he didn’t feel “that the French government nor the German government, currently, were blocking the way.”

    Macron also said he wanted young people to “help us put pressure on those who are blocking the way” and to “partake in very clear action.” –Business Insider

    President Trump, meanwhile, appears to be having fun with the whole thing. 

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


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:14

  • US Special Forces Still Deploying Banned Chinese-Made Drones In 'Sensitive' Operations
    US Special Forces Still Deploying Banned Chinese-Made Drones In ‘Sensitive’ Operations

    A searing report in the major US government-funded Voice of America has spotlighted that despite growing controversy over Chinese tech and communications products used in American government, especially in light of the recent Huawei affair, the Air Force and Navy have continued to rely on Chinese-manufactured drones for elite forces even months following a prior DoD ban on their use

    Despite a May 2018 formal Pentagon order which prohibits “all commercial off-the-shelf drones,” by US armed forces, which cited “cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” it appears some of the military’s most elite squads are still relying on them. 

    Apparently a ‘special exemption’ is required for special forces to continue using Chinese drones “on a case by case basis, to support urgent needs,” according to a Pentagon spokesman cited by VOA.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US military file image via Reuters.

    But the report finds alarmingly, that the exception increasingly looks to be the “norm” even when it comes to the most sensitive operations by such elite teams as the Navy SEALS

    According to documents examined by VOA:

    …purchase orders completed in August and November 2018 show that the Navy spent nearly $190,000 and the Air Force spent nearly $50,000 on drones made by DJI.

    The Air Force bought 35 DJI Mavic Pro Platinum drones, and the Navy bought an undisclosed number of drones from DJI’s “Inspire” series.

    The 2018 drone purchase orders obtained by VOA via public records appear to be for some of the military’s most sensitive and secretive operators, including the Air Force’s only special tactics wing and Navy Sea Air Land (SEAL) teams.

    DJI, it must be remembered, is China’s drone-market-leader Da Jiang Innovations, which Washington officials eyed closely in 2017 on suspicion the company was assisting Beijing in spying efforts abroad, and specifically on the United States government. 

    Speaking of DJI drones, Ellen Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, admitted to reporters last month“We know that a lot of the information is sent back to China from those, so it is not something that we can use.”

    In 2017 the US Army ordered all units to stop using China’s DJI drones.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Getty Image

    So it appears the potential for China’s military to gain a peak into US elite forces’ most sensitive operations has been acknowledged by US officials as a distinct possibility, even likely, yet the military has said it is developing ‘software fixes’ to thwart equipment being used as a Chinese spying ‘back door’. 

    The VOA report continues:

    Partially-redacted copies of documents justifying the purchase of DJI drone kits for the 24th Special Operations Wing confirmed that 15 Chinese-made drones were already being fielded by eight Air Force Special Tactics Squadrons and warned that tactics, “software, and optical system development would be negatively impacted if this system was abandoned.”

    One document acknowledged the security concerns raised over the Chinese-made technology and claimed the military had developed a fix.

    Specifically, it said that “software has been developed (specific to this model) and implemented to eliminate the cyber security concerns that are inherent to the DJI Mavic Pro.”

    Currently, a there’s a bipartisan Congressional effort to further investigate the military’s continued use of the security-vulnerable drones, given the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee put a provision into the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) effecting a blanket ban on their use by the armed forces. 

    The bill delineating the DoD budget for the upcoming year is expected up for debate in the coming weeks. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 22:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 24th September 2019

  • 'Work Less, Make More': Labour Party Introduces Plan For 4-Day Work Week
    ‘Work Less, Make More’: Labour Party Introduces Plan For 4-Day Work Week

    As Labour’s 2019 party conference started yesterday, the party’s leadership was busy selling their slate of far-left policies.

    In addition to support for a ‘Green New Deal’ (not dissimilar to the one from the US) and the abolition of private schools, the Labour Party is pushing a plan for a four day work week. But don’t worry: workers will still earn the same amount of money, they’ll just need to work less for the money.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    By Labour’s reasoning, since the link between increasing productivity and expanding free time has been broken, it’s time for the government to step in and set the trend right. After all, increasing automation was supposed to allow Britons to work less, not more.

    But with the next general election expected in the coming months, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell pledged during a speech on Monday that Labour would implement the 32-hour-work-week within 10 years if votes deliver a majority.

    McDonnell’s pledge stopped short of making a 32 hour week compulsory, saying that only “average” hours worked would be cut. But he insisted that lower in the number of hours worked by most Britons is the right course of policy: “millions are exhausted from overwork,” McDonnell said to the audience at Labour’s Party conference in Brighton. And that must end.

    “As society got richer, we could spend fewer hours at work. But in recent decades progress has stalled,” McDonnell added. “People in our country today work some of the longest hours in Europe.”

    That’s actually not true, according to official EU data, which found that Greeks put in the longest work weeks (at an average 42.3 hours per week), followed by Bulgaria and Poland. The only western European nation that made the top ten was Portugal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Before the conference, a report commissioned by crossbench peer Robert Skidelsky found that working fewer hours would be good for Briton’s wellbeing but that “a rigid four-day week was not realistic or desirable.”

    But Labour clearly can’t resist the headline: A 32 hour work week! With no loss in pay!

    Unsurprisingly, McDonnell received a standing ovation when he finished his speech. But just wait until this crosses the pond.

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


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 02:45

  • The Collapse In Germany Is Real… And Accelerating
    The Collapse In Germany Is Real… And Accelerating

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

    Back in April I told you that Germany was a “Dead Economy Walking.” Today, I get to tell you that it’s legs are gone.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yesterday morning’s manufacturing PMI print was the worst news Angela Merkel could have imagined, 41.4. A figure so awful dogs will want to roll on it.

    Overall, Germany’s economy at the purchasing manager’s level is contracting. And with Merkel masking a massive tax increase as a political cave to the rising Greens the future for Germany’s economic growth looks as bad as the following chart.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Aside from the obvious, the big takeaway from this chart is the consistency with which analysts who are paid a lot more than me over-estimate this number. It’s a brilliant depiction of confirmation bias.

    And you can see why this happens. Conventional wisdom tells us that an accommodative central bank, and the ECB’s negative interest rates are the height of accommodation, should support continued manufacturing growth because credit is cheap.

    But, it doesn’t if there’s no capacity for the buyers of German goods to take on more debt. Negative interest rates are supposed to increase currency flow because who wants to lose money on their savings, right?

    Paging Larry Summers (you incompetent halfwit!) that’s not what they actually signal to the markets. They signal that things suck and the central bank has no confidence in the economy.

    It should be no surprise to anyone that the ECB became dovish the minute they got the data that Germany’s economy was shrinking. Because without Germany expanding exports there can be no support for a stable euro, regardless of Brexit.

    And as the Remainiacs continue to play games to scuttle Brexit their arguments look weak as it is obvious to all that Europe needs the U.K. more than the other way around.

    But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of some people’s religion.

    In fact, every time they try to create a headline to blame things on Brexit uncertainty, it further highlights just how much it is they who are creating it by dragging out the process.

    Yesterday’s data from Europe hit the markets hard. Oil prices resumed their fall on the heels of this news and speculation that Iranian President Rouhani will meet with both President Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly this week.

    Though Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zavir ruled out a meeting with Trump, the Iranians prepped the stage with Johnson by releasing the U.K. tanker Stena Impero.

    Though I suspect nothing will come of that while Johnson is embroiled in Brexit.

    The Euro lost $1.10 and gold resumed its rise in all currencies, including the U.S. dollar.

    And with the dollar funding markets in serious turmoil, Martin Armstrong reminds us that both the Fed and the ECB are trapped. The Fed will keep their emergency repo window open until October 10th.

    With the rising pressure outside the USA to eliminate cash in order to confiscate money from their citizens to support the broadening collapse of socialism, there has been a MAJOR panic pushing into the dollar.

    Despite the fact that early in 2019 the headlines were that foreign governments were dumping US debt spinning this into stories that the dollar would crash. In reality, selling of US debt at that point in time was an effort to stop the dollar’s rise.

    Martin has always been right that falling confidence in Europe and the Euro are what’s driving the current dynamic of strong U.S. asset prices.

    Last week I speculated that there’s a connection between this window and the upcoming $200+ billion in auctions at the U.S. Treasury this week.

    The primary dealer banks have to be flush enough with cash to ensure they could take down their part of the issuance because any tailing in the yield will be bad.

    The dollar funding crisis is real and accelerating as is the implosion of the German economy. And it’s not just Germany anymore. The French PMI print was terrible and the whole of the composite PMI for the Eurozone teeters on contraction.

    What everyone needs to worry about now is the reversal against the huge move into European sovereign debt. These bond yields have defied gravity all year and cannot be sustained against a falling euro.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The German yield curve is beginning to rise at the short end. The inversion is worsening. U.S. Treasury demand is still rising.

    Is it any wonder that the European Council is finally beginning to change its tune about a potential deal with Boris Johnson on Brexit?

    Germany is in trouble and with it the entire European Project. Good.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon if you want to stay up on the collapse of the Euro-zone Install Brave if you want to keep Google from letting you talk about it.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 09/24/2019 – 02:00

  • Evidence That Iran Violated The Nuclear Deal Since Day One?
    Evidence That Iran Violated The Nuclear Deal Since Day One?

    Authored by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh via The Gatestone Institute,

    • The IAEA first ignored the reports about Iran’s undeclared clandestine nuclear facilities. This should not come as a surprise: the IAEA has a long history of misreporting the Islamic Republic’s compliance with the deal and declining to follow up on credible reports about Iran’s illicit nuclear activities.

    • New evidence shows that Iran’s theocratic establishment was most likely violating the nuclear agreement since the day that Obama’s administration and Tehran struck the deal in 2015.

    • The international community would truly do itself a great service to recognize that the nuclear deal was nothing more than a pro-mullah agreement which provided Iran’s ruling clerics with billions of dollars to pursue their anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Iranian people and pro-terror activities, while simultaneously providing cover for Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

    The Iranian government is advancing its nuclear program at a faster pace. Recently, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) declared that Tehran took the third step in increasing its nuclear activities by activating advanced centrifuges: 20 IR-4 and 20 IR-6 centrifuges.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The previous two steps that Tehran took includedincreasing the enriched uranium stockpile beyond the 300kg cap, which was set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and enriching uranium to levels beyond the limit of 3.67 percent.

    As part of its rush to a nuclear breakout capability, the Islamic Republic of Iran is also expanding its research and development work beyond the limitations set by the JCPOA. Iranian nuclear agency spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi told a televised news conference, “We have started lifting limitations on our Research and Development imposed by the deal … It will include development of more rapid and advanced centrifuges.”

    The ruling mullahs are claiming that Iran’s recent moves and violations of the nuclear deal are the fault of the US government, because the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA, but the claim is a lie. New evidence shows that Iran’s theocratic establishment was most likely violating the nuclear agreement since the day the Obama administration and Tehran struck the deal in 2015.

    To clarify: Do you remember when the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano immediately to inspect an “atomic warehouse” in Iran last year?

    Netanyahu stated in his speech to the UN General Assembly that Iran had a “secret atomic warehouse for storing massive amounts of equipment and material from Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.” Tehran claimed that the warehouse, which is located in a village (Turquz Abad) in the suburbs of Tehran, was a place where carpets were cleaned.

    At the same time, two non-partisan organizations based in Washington, DC — the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) — released detailed reports about Iran’s undeclared clandestine nuclear facilities as well.

    The IAEA first ignored the reports. This should not come as a surprise: the IAEA has a long history of misreporting the Islamic Republic’s compliance with the deal and declining to follow up on credible reports about Iran’s illicit nuclear activities. Iran’s clandestine nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak were revealed by the opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

    In any event, after a significant amount of pressure was imposed on the IAEA, and after the IAEA’s chief passed away and Iran was reportedly able to moving the suspected materials out of the secret nuclear facility, inspection of the site was recently implemented.

    What was the outcome? Even though the Iranian leaders had cleaned up the facility, the IAEA’s inspectors were able to detect traces of radioactive uranium at the site. Israel’s warning and other reports had proved accurate.

    Now, Tehran is declining to answer the IAEA’s questions about the secret facility. More importantly, one of the most basic requirements of the nuclear deal (while it lasted) was that Iran had to reveal its nuclear activities to the IAEA — a condition with it even overtly failed to comply.

    In other words, the detection of radioactive particles in Turquz Abad, Iran’s reluctance to answer simple questions about the secret facility and non-partisan evidence about Iran’s nuclear activities at the location, all point to the fact that Tehran was most likely violating the nuclear deal since it was reached.

    Where, you may ask, are the strong advocates of the nuclear deal after the new evidence revealed that Iran has long been violating the nuclear deal and pursuing its nuclear ambitions? They are silent.

    The international community would truly do itself a great service to recognize that the nuclear deal was nothing more than a pro-mullah agreement which provided Iran’s ruling clerics with billions of dollars to pursue their anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Iranian people and pro-terror activities, while simultaneously providing cover for Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • In Trade-War Win For Trump, Apple Will Make New Desktop At Texas Factory
    In Trade-War Win For Trump, Apple Will Make New Desktop At Texas Factory

    In what looks like another trade-deal victory for the Trump Administration, Apple announced on Monday that it would manufacture its Mac Pro Desktop at a factory in Austin, Texas.

    After the US government approved tariff waivers on 10 key components for the Mac Book Pro that the company sources from China.

    “Manufacturing of the new model was made possible after the US government approved on Friday Apple’s request for a waiver on 25% tariffs on 10 key components imported from China.”

    Some analysts have warned that key components will still be made in China and exported to the US for final assembly in Austin, but the number of components for the new desktop increased by 2.5 times from the previous model.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In an interesting about-face for Trump, the president had previously signaled that he wouldn’t grant the waivers, but has apparently decided to cave. We imagine the softening in his approach is related to the tit-for-tat pre-trade-talk detente going on new between  Washington and Beijing.

    Trump had previously signaled that relief from tariffs on the Mac Pro would be rejected, saying in a July 26 tweet that “Apple will not be given Tariff waiver, or relief for.” Mac Pro parts that are made in China. Make them in the USA, no Tariffs!” However, the president later told reporters that the two families “we’ll work it out.”

    Still, with five other requests pending before the DoC, Apple has plenty of reason to be anxious. So far, Cook has been spared from most duties. But products such as the Apple Watch, AirPods and iMac computers were hit by 15% tariffs earlier this month, while the iPhone, iPad and other major Apple products are set to be impacted later in December.

    Apple said construction for the new desktop will begin “soon,” which roughly equates to: “Before the holiday shopping season ends.” Meanwhile, the revamped model was announced in June at the company’s annual conference for developers, with a starting price of $6,000. Compared with the previous version, the new model is far more customizable and integrates with a new high-resolution external monitor.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 23:25

  • The Saudi Arabia Drone Attacks Have Changed Global Warfare
    The Saudi Arabia Drone Attacks Have Changed Global Warfare

    Authored by Patrick Cockburn via The Unz Review,

    The devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities by drones and missiles not only transforms the balance of military power in the Middle East, but marks a change in the nature of warfare globally.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On the morning of 14 September, 18 drones and seven cruise missiles – all cheap and unsophisticated compared to modern military aircraft – disabled half of Saudi Arabia’s crude oil production and raised the world price of oil by 20 per cent.

    This happened despite the Saudis spending $67.6bn (£54bn) on their defence budget last year, much of it on vastly expensive aircraft and air defence systems, which notably failed to stop the attack. The US defence budget stands at $750bn (£600.2bn), and its intelligence budget at $85bn (£68bn), but the US forces in the Gulf did not know what was happening until it was all over.

    Excuses advanced for this failure include the drones flying too low to be detected and unfairly coming from a direction different from the one that might have been expected. Such explanations sound pathetic when set against the proud boasts of the arms manufacturers and military commanders about the effectiveness of their weapons systems.

    Debate is ongoing about whether it was the Iranians or the Houthis who carried out the attack, the likely answer being a combination of the two, but perhaps with Iranorchestrating the operation and supplying the equipment. But over-focus on responsibility diverts attention from a much more important development: a middle ranking power like Iran, under sanctions and with limited resources and expertise, acting alone or through allies, has inflicted crippling damage on theoretically much better-armed Saudi Arabia which is supposedly defended by the US, the world’s greatest military super-power.

    If the US and Saudi Arabia are particularly hesitant to retaliate against Iran it is because they know now, contrary to what they might have believed a year ago, that a counter-attack will not be a cost-free exercise. What happened before can happen again: not for nothing has Iran been called a “drone superpower”. Oil production facilities and the desalination plants providing much of the fresh water in Saudi Arabia are conveniently concentrated targets for drones and small missiles.

    In other words, the military playing field will be a lot more level in future in a conflict between a country with a sophisticated air force and air defence system and one without. The trump card for the US, Nato powers and Israel has long been their overwhelming superiority in airpower over any likely enemy. Suddenly this calculus has been undermined because almost anybody can be a player on the cheap when it comes to airpower.

    Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, succinctly sums up the importance of this change, writing that “the strikes on Saudi Arabia provide a clear strategic warning that the US era of air supremacy in the Gulf, and the near US monopoly on precision strike capability, is rapidly fading.” He explains that a new generation of drones, cruise missiles, and precision strike ballistic missiles are entering the Iranian inventories and have begun to spread to the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    Similar turning points in military history have occurred when the deployment of an easily produced weapon suddenly checkmates the use of a more complicated one.

    A good example of this was the attack on 11 November 1940, on five Italian battleships, moored at their base at Taranto by 20 slow moving but sturdy British Swordfish biplanes, armed with torpedoes and launched from an aircraft carrier. At the end of the day, three of the battleships had been sunk or badly damaged while only two of the British planes were missing. The enormity of the victory achieved at such minimal cost ended the era when battleships ruled the sea and replaced them with one in which aircraft carriers with torpedo/bomber were supreme. It was a lesson noted by the Japanese navy which attacked Pearl Harbour in similar fashion a year after Taranto.

    The Saudis showed off the wreckage of the drones and missiles to assembled diplomats and journalists this week in a bid to convince them that the Iranians were behind the air raid. But the most significant feature of the broken drone and missile parts was that, in full working order, the weapons that had just rocked the world economy would not have cost a lot. By way of contrast, the US-made Patriot anti-aircraft missiles, the main air defence of Saudi Arabia that were so useless last Saturday, cost $3m (£2.4bn) apiece.

    Cost and simplicity are important because they mean that Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah and almost any country can produce drones and missiles in numbers large enough to overwhelm any defences they are likely to meet.

    Compare the cost of the drone which would be in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to the $122m (£97.6m) price of a single F-35 fighter, so expensive that it can only be purchased in limited numbers. As they take on board the meaning of what happened at Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities, governments around the world will be demanding that their air force chiefs explain why they need to spend so much money when cheap but effective alternatives are available. Going by past precedent, the air chiefs and arms manufacturers will fight to their last breath for grossly inflated budgets to purchase weapons of dubious utility in a real war.

    The attack on Saudi Arabia reinforces a trend in warfare in which inexpensive easily acquired weapons come out on top. Consider the track record of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED), usually made out of easily available fertiliser, detonated by a command wire, and planted in or beside a road. These were used with devastating effect by the IRA in South Armagh, forcing the British Army off the roads and into helicopters.

    IEDs were used in great numbers and with great effect against US-led coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Immense resources were deployed by the US military into finding a counter to this deadly device, which included spending no less than $40bn (£32bn) on 27,000 heavily armoured vehicles called MRAPs. A subsequent army study revealed that that the number of US servicemen killed and wounded in an attack on an MRAP was exactly the same as in the vehicles which they had replaced.

    It is unthinkable that American, British and Saudi military chiefs will accept that they command expensive, technically advanced forces that are obsolete in practice. This means they are stuck with arms that suck up resources but are, in practical terms, out of date. The Japanese, soon after they had demonstrated at Pearl Harbour the vulnerability of battleships, commissioned the world’s largest battleship, the Yamato, which fired its guns only once and was sunk in 1945 by US torpedo aircraft and bombers operating from aircraft carriers.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 23:05

  • General Dynamics Unveils 'Light Weight' Tank That Could Be Deployed By 2025
    General Dynamics Unveils ‘Light Weight’ Tank That Could Be Deployed By 2025

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is anticipating the next-generation of main-battle tanks to hit the modern battlefield by 2025. 

    In the meantime, General Dynamics showed off its next-generation of main-battle tanks during the 2019 Modern Day Marine expo in Quantico, Virginia, over the weekend, reported Defense Blog.

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

    General Dynamics Land Systems, a segment within General Dynamics, unveiled the advanced, ‘light tank,’ called the Griffin II. 

    The DoD/Army is currently searching for new tracked armored vehicles able to defend infantry squads on the modern battlefield. 

    Griffin II is part of a more significant effort by the DoD to develop weapons that can be quickly deployed around the world. The new tank is light enough that it can be airlifted into battle. 

    The Army is shifting focus from counterinsurgency to high-intensity war-fighting against China and Russia, and will need a new lightweight tank for the next conflict. 

    Griffin II has a 120mm main gun and weighs around 38-tons. It will “provide soldiers with speed, protection, lethality and the ability to wage a multi-domain battle, working in concert with other ground forces to overwhelm the enemy with multiple simultaneous challenges,” said Defense Blog. It has a scaled-down version of the M1 Abrams turret with a similar overall design. 

    The new tank is expected to have a higher rating of survivability than the M1 Abrams, a tank that entered service in 1980, and has been used in all US involved Middle Eastern wars since the Gulf War (1990-1991).

    The new tank will feature advanced armor, more lightweight than ever before, along with intelligent sensors that are integrated with the hardware, software, and effectors to create an overarching, layered system of passive and active self-defense measures, Defense Blog said. 

    Griffin II could enter service by 2025, and be flown to any battlefield in the world via a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 22:45

  • The Supermassive Black Hole At The Center Of Our Galaxy Just Got Extremely Hungry
    The Supermassive Black Hole At The Center Of Our Galaxy Just Got Extremely Hungry

    Authored by Jake Anderson via The Mind Unleashed blog,

    Scientists believe there is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy named Sagittarius A*. This black hole is 26,000 light-years from the Earth and approximately 4 million times the mass of the Sun.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While Sgr A* has always been thought of as a quiet, relatively modest black hole, new observations show a recent burst of unprecedented activity suggesting it is on a sudden feeding frenzy.

    The observations comes from a research team at the UCLA Galactic Center Group, which published their work in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Using the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile, the team gathered 13,000 images of the accretion disk area of the black hole.

    The accretion disk is where enormous amounts of gas, dust, and radiation accumulate and orbit outside the “point of no return”—or the event horizon. According to their observations, there has been a sudden and “unprecedented” increase in brightness from the Sgr A* accretion disk.

    The paper’s co-author, Andrea Ghez, UCLA professor of physics and astronomy, stated:

    “We have never seen anything like this in the 24 years we have studied the supermassive black hole. It’s usually a pretty quiet, wimpy black hole on a diet. We don’t know what is driving this big feast.”

    Scientists say the increase in brightness means the black hole is consuming more interstellar material, including stars, planets, dust, gas, and asteroids. One of the research team’s lead authors originally believed the glow was a star because Sagittarius A* had never been observed at that level of brightness.

    The advanced techniques used to gather this information is perhaps one of the most noteworthy aspects of this story. The researchers employed speckle holography to extract and analyze distant information from Sgr A* during the last 24 years. Another technique, called adaptive optics, eliminates distortion from Earth’s atmosphere. Combined, researchers were able to conclude that this is the largest amount of radiation detected from our galaxy’s black hole in nearly a quarter of a century.

    Mark Morris, another co-author and UCLA professor of physics and astronomy, speculated on the cause of the increase:

    The big question is whether the black hole is entering a new phase – for example if the spigot has been turned up and the rate of gas falling down the black hole ‘drain’ has increased for an extended period – or whether we have just seen the fireworks from a few unusual blobs of gas falling in.

    Scientists believe that by recording and analyzing such increases in black hole activity, they can get a better understanding of how black holes evolve and impact the development of galaxies.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 22:25

  • Georgia Mulls Restoring Voting Rights To Nonviolent Felons 
    Georgia Mulls Restoring Voting Rights To Nonviolent Felons 

    Georgia’s state legislature is considering whether to restore voting rights to certain classes of felons who have been released from prison – particularly those who were convicted of nonviolent crimes, according to AJC

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Paulette Hunt, a retired veteran, tells Georgia senators she supports restoring voting rights of nonviolent felons once they’re released from prison.

    The discussions began on Friday, and lawmakers have yet to publicly define the threshold for what types of crimes committed by the state’s approximately 250,000 felons would qualify for the new law. 

    Georgia is one of 22 states that denies felons the ability to vote even after they’ve been released from prison, requiring them to also complete parole, probation and pay fines and fees.

    State Sen. Randy Robertson, the chairman of a committee studying the issue, said it’s important for the Senate to evaluate whether felons should be able to vote. –AJC

    “I would hope I’m not wasting my time today on something that’s fruitless,” said Robertson, a Republican from Cataula and a former sheriff’s deputy, after the committee’s meeting at Columbus State University. “Victims are going to have their voices heard, too. … Just starting the conversation is a big step forward.”

    Advocating for felon voting rights are criminal justice groups and several senators, who agree that those convicted of drug possession should be able to vote once they’ve served their time in prison. Other nonviolent yet more serious offenses such as drug distribution, shoplifting and burglary are up for debate. 

    According to the report, some 80% of Georgia’s felons are already living in their communities while on probation or parole, according to Reform Georgia president Maxwell Ruppersburg. 

    “They paid their dues to society. Their sentence has been completed. If that’s true, why are we here having this discussion?” asked retired veteran Paulette Hunt, who spoke during Friday’s meeting. “Where is their justice? The punishment must fit the crime.”

    All felons in Georgia are allowed to re-register to vote after they’ve finished all the conditions of their sentences, but that can take many years.

    Probation sentences in Georgia last an average of 6.3 years, nearly double the national average, Ruppersburg said. –AJC

    That said, perhaps sensing a Democrat scheme – Muscogee County Republican Committee chairman Alton Russell told senators that criminals lose their voting rights for a reason

    “If somebody commits a crime and they’re sentenced, they’ve earned the right not to vote,” said Russell. 

    Among the options Georgia lawmakers have are exempting drug possession felonies – which has been proposed under Senate Bill 11 introduced by Democratic state Senator Harold Jones. The measure is still pending in the Georgia Senate after it failed to receive a hearing this year.

    Another option would be to pass a bill which would define the threshold for losing voting rights. 

    The Georgia Constitution says those who have been convicted of a “felony involving moral turpitude” can’t be registered to vote until their sentences are completed. But the state hasn’t defined which felonies involve “moral turpitude,” and election officials interpret the Constitution to mean that all felonies limit voting rights.

    Another option for lawmakers would restore voting rights when felons are released from prison or jail but still owe fines or fees. –AJC

    “I don’t see how you can say we’re going to take someone off the voting rolls when they’re productive citizens in every other sense of the word,” said Senator Jones. 

    The Senate committee will meet two more times this fall before a decision is made by December. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 22:05

  • Mainstream Media Claims Middle Class Isn't Shrinking (By Redefining What It Means To Be 'Poor')
    Mainstream Media Claims Middle Class Isn’t Shrinking (By Redefining What It Means To Be ‘Poor’)

    Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    If you ask the mainstream media, they will tell you that about half the country is still middle class.  In fact, a CNBC article that just came out says that “52% of American adults live in ‘middle class’ households”.  Of course that is down from 61 percent in 1971, but considering everything we have been through in recent years, that still looks pretty good.  But is it the truth?  In the end, it all comes down to how you define “the middle class”.  If I defined the middle class as anyone that makes from zero dollars to a trillion dollars a year, then 100 percent of Americans would be considered “middle class” by that definition.  So we can’t just look at the final number they give us.  Instead, we have to dig deeper and find out how they came up with the number in the first place.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The larger the household, the more income it takes to sustain a middle class lifestyle.  And according to CNBC, the definition of a “middle class household” is extremely broad at every household size…

    • Household of one: $26,093 to $78,281

    • Household of two: $36,902 to $110,706

    • Household of three: $45,195 to $135,586

    • Household of four: $52,187 to $156,561

    • Household of five: $58,347 to $175,041

    If you are single person and you are making just $26,000 a year, there is no way that you should be considered part of “the middle class”.

    First of all, there is no way that you would be able to buy a home in most major U.S. cities these days, and home ownership has always been considered to be one of the key hallmarks of the middle class.

    Secondly, $26,000 a year breaks down to just a little over $2,000 a month before taxes.  After paying for rent, health insurance and a little bit of food, there wouldn’t be any money left.

    You can define that as a “middle class lifestyle” if you want, but I sure don’t.

    Over the past decade, the cost of living has increased at a far faster pace than our paychecks have.  As a result, many Americans that used to live middle class lifestyles are no longer able to do so.

    Health insurance is just one example.  Thanks to Obamacare, health insurance premiums have absolutely skyrocketed, and this is financially crippling families all over the nation.  In addition to health insurance, here are just a few of the other expenses that average American families must pay on a regular basis…

    -rent or mortgage payment

    -the power bill

    -the water bill

    -food

    -phone

    -Internet

    -vehicle payment(s)

    -gasoline

    -vehicle repairs

    -car insurance

    -dental bills

    -home or rental insurance

    -life insurance

    -student loan debt payments

    -credit card payments

    -furniture, clothing and other necessities

    If you are making just two or three thousand dollars a month before taxes, there is no way that you can cover all of that.

    So I am sorry, but the way that CNBC is defining “the middle class” is just wrong.

    Considering everything that I have just discussed, it should not be surprising to learn that a survey conducted earlier this year found that 78 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck at least part of the time.

    And if you are living paycheck to paycheck, there is a really good chance that you are not middle class.

    Of course another major factor is geography.  If you live in a very expensive coastal city like New York or San Francisco, it has been estimated that it now takes approximately $350,000 a year to be part of the middle class…

    Here’s a sad reality: In order to raise a family in an expensive coastal city like San Francisco or New York, you’ve now got to make $350,000 or more a year.

    You can certainly live on less, but it won’t be easy if your goal is to raise a family, save for your children’s education, save for your own home and save for retirement (so you can actually retire by a reasonable age).

    When I was growing up, I thought that if someone was making $50,000 a year that person really had it made.

    But these days $50,000 a year will barely get you above poverty level depending on the size of your household and where you live.

    In a desperate attempt to maintain a middle class lifestyle when their incomes don’t really allow for it, many Americans are going into shocking amounts of debt.  And these days even our young adults are piling on debt as if tomorrow will never come

    Millennials carry an average of $27,900 in debt, not including mortgages, according to new data released today by Northwestern Mutual. Gen Z, the oldest of whom are now 22 years old, have an average debt of $14,700.

    Having sizable debt at a young age “is the new normal,” said Chantel Bonneau, wealth management advisor at Northwestern Mutual. “There are lots of people who exit school, and before they start their first job, have debt. That is a different situation from 30 years ago.”

    But when you pile on too much debt, it can become financially suffocating very quickly, and many of our young people actually report becoming “physically ill” from worrying about it so much…

    About 45% of millennials and 43% of Gen Z reported feeling guilty about their debt at least every month — more than other age groups. But debt is a major stressor across age groups. One-fifth of all respondents said their debt made them physically ill at least monthly, 45% said it made them anxious at least monthly, and 35% said they felt guilty once a month or more.

    Overall, U.S. households are now over 13 trillion dollars in debt, and one of the primary reasons why we have accumulated so much debt is because most of us want to live lifestyles that we haven’t really earned.

    We are also facing record levels of corporate debt, local government debt, state government debt and federal government debt.  And when this debt bubble bursts, it will completely destroy our system.

    We have entirely mortgaged our future for short-term gain, and we are so proud whenever the short-term economic numbers tick up a little bit.

    But in the process we have completely destroyed the future for every generation of Americans that was supposed to come after us, and that is not something to smile about at all.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 09/23/2019 – 21:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest