Today’s News 3rd September 2019

  • When People Get Married Around The World

    Marriage ages vary widely across the globe – with a lot of underlying reasons. An analysis of UN data (for all countries where data for 2013 or newer was available) shows that the oldest grooms in the world can be found in Italy, where men get married at the median age of 35.

    Infographic: When People Get Married Around the World | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The oldest brides live in Ireland (median age of 32.4 years), which is also the country with the smallest age gap between men and women. Grooms were on average one year older than brides in Ireland, reflecting a global trend of male median marriage ages always being higher those of females.

    As Statista’s Katherina Buchholz details, median marriage ages tend to be higher in more developed countries, which is also where the age gap between men and women getting married was mostly, but not always, smaller.

    In developing countries, including many in Africa, people got married younger on average, with age gaps being a little wider at times. Malawi had the lowest marriage age of countries analysed, with women getting married at 19.9 years and men at 23.7 years.

    Scientific studies have found that smaller age gaps in marriages are correlated with higher socioeconomic status and higher class. In some developing countries, large age gaps show a reality of arranged marriages that are tied to families’ econmic well-being through dowry payments as well as reflecting customs that value youth in women and experience in men.

    The country with the largest age gap in the analysis was Guyana, where the median marriage age was 20 for women and 31.8 for men. The Caribbean state has tried to battle child marriage in the past.

  • How The Digital Currency Agenda Has Grown Amidst Resurgent "Nationalism", Part One

    Authored by Steven Guinness,

    In my last two articles I examined the detail behind the simultaneous plans of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve to establish new payment systems. From the evidence at hand, the objective of central banks has been to make their new systems compatible with distributed ledger technology (DLT) as a basis for introducing central bank digital currency to supersede physical money over the next decade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As we will learn, the rhetoric from globalist institutions and figureheads on the subject of digital currency has developed significantly since the EU referendum and Donald Trump’s presidency.

    But to begin with, it is worthwhile looking at some of the commentary from the central banking community prior to the onset of renewed political ‘nationalism.’

    2015

    A few days after the EU referendum bill passed through parliament, the Bank of England’s Chief Economist Andy Haldane delivered a speechwhich discussed negative interest rates on currency (referred to as the ‘zero lower bound‘). He brandished the idea of removing the lower bound by abolishing paper currency and issuing a government backed currency in electronic form which would be held in digital wallets. Such a move would ‘allow negative interest rates to be levied on currency easily and speedily.’

    Haldane also remarked that the distributed ledger technology within Bitcoin ‘has real potential‘ before going on to say:

    Work on central bank-issued digital currencies forms a core part of the bank’s current research agenda. Perhaps central bank money is ripe for its own great technological leap forward.

    This generated some press coverage at the time, notably from the Financial Times who said converting paper currency into digital would ‘help the bank to manage inflation by enabling it to bypass the current constraint against lowering rates below zero.’

    In November 2015, the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures issued a paper simply titled ‘Digital Currencies‘. The CPMI works through the Bank for International Settlements in that the BIS hosts the CPMI secretariat. The governing body presiding over the CPMI is the Global Economy Meeting, which is one of three bimonthly meetings held at the BIS. The CPMI is also a member of the Financial Stability Board, another association hosted at the BIS.

    In the paper, the CPMI reflected on how the bulk of digital currencies such as Bitcoin are transferred via a distributed ledger:

    This aspect can be viewed as the genuinely innovative element within digital currency schemes.

    One option is to consider using the technology itself to issue digital currencies.

    They concluded by recommending that ‘central banks could consider investigating the potential uses of distributed ledgers in payment systems or other types of FMI’s‘ (financial market infrastructures). This is something that central banks are now openly doing.

    2016

    As the UK was preparing for the upcoming EU referendum, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Monetary Policy Ben Broadbent spoke at the London School of Economics in March (Central banks and digital currencies).

    Speaking about Bitcoin, Broadbent was adamant that the most important innovation within this particular digital currency was the distributed ledger. He spoke of potentially widening access to the BOE’s balance sheet ‘beyond commercial banks‘, and how DLT would make this process easier for non-financial firms and perhaps even individual households.

    If so, our accounts would no longer be a claim on commercial banks but, like banknotes, the liability of the central bank.

    Broadbent aligned himself with Andy Haldane by agreeing that were a central bank digital currency to replace physical assets, it would ‘open the door‘ to ‘materially negative interest rates.’

    That would require explicitly abolishing cash, not just introducing an electronic alternative.

    CBDC’s, as explained by Broadbent, would become ‘the fundamental structure of the financial system.’

    Seven days before the EU referendum took place, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney gave a speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet at Mansion House in London (‘Enabling the FinTech transformation – revolution, restoration, or reformation‘). In my last article I outlined several quotes made by Carney from this speech that were relevant to DLT, one of which was:

    If distributed ledger technology could provide a more efficient way for private sector firms to deliver payments and settle securities, why not apply it to the core of the payments system itself?

    Suffice to say, Carney went on the record as saying that ‘in the extreme, a DL for everyone could open the possibility of creating a central bank digital currency‘.

    2017

    With the Brexit withdrawal process now underway and Donald Trump newly installed in the White House, media outlets began to promote the soundings of avowed internationalists on the subject of global currency. One of these was Mohamed El-Erian, a former deputy director at the IMF. In April, Project Syndicate published an article by El-Erian titled, ‘New Life for the SDR?‘. Here is the preface to that article:

    The rise of anti-globalization political movements and the threat of trade protectionism have led some people to wonder whether a stronger multilateral core for the world economy would reduce the risk of damaging fragmentation. If so, enhancing the role of the IMF’s incipient global currency may be the best option.

    In re-publishing the article, the UK Guardian mused that ‘amid the rise of populism and nationalism, some are asking if revamping the SDR could re-energise multilateralism.’

    As for El-Erian himself, he asked whether ‘today’s anti-globalisation winds create scope for enhancing the SDR’s role and potential contributions?

    A connection between rising nationalism and calls to reform the global monetary system had been established.

    At the beginning of Autumn, the now former IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde spoke at a Bank of England Conference under the heading, ‘Central Banking and Fintech – A Brave New World?‘ Here she commented that:

    Citizens may one day prefer virtual currencies. If Privately issued virtual currencies remain risky and unstable, citizens may even call on central banks to provide digital forms of legal tender.

    We want no holes in the global financial safety net, however much it gets stretched and reshaped.

    I am convinced that the IMF has a strong role to play in this respect. But the Fund will also have to be open to change, from bringing new parties to the table, to considering a role for a digital version of the SDR.

    2018

    This was the year where the narrative around digital currencies was ratcheted up a notch. It began in February with BIS General Manager Agustin Carstens, who gave a lecture called, ‘Money in the digital age: what role for central banks?

    Aside from asking what constitutes acceptable money, Carstens proclaimed that distributed ledger technology had ‘potential benefits‘, and expected central banks to ‘remain engaged on this topic.’

    As with Andy Haldane and Ben Broadbent, Carstens singled out DLT as being the most attractive element of cryptocurrencies. In large part he denounced Bitcoin as being untrustworthy and inefficient. What he did not do, however, is denounce the technology that underpins it. The central message from Carstens was that only central banks can legitimise and regulate digital currencies to make them safe.

    Credible money will continue to arise from central bank decisions, taken in the light of day and in the public interest.

    Carstens’ intervention on the subject of money in the digital age created a path for national central banks to further the discourse.

    Yves Mersch, a member of the Executive Board at the European Central Bank, took the baton with a speech two days after Carstens’ presentation (Virtual or virtueless? The evolution of money in the digital age).

    Mersch labelled Bitcoin as ‘heavily resource intensive, and certainly not a green technology.’ Virtual currencies in general had no intrinsic value, particularly because they were neither legal tender or backed by central banks. For that to change, ‘regulatory acceptance is necessary.’ In other words, until central banks control the infrastructure and regulate their use, digital currencies will not succeed as real money.

    In closing, Mersch said it would be up to citizens to demand a ‘digital representation of cash that replicates the features of cash‘. He did not go into specific societal circumstances that may occur to guide people in this direction.

    Mark Carney was next with a speech in March titled, ‘The Future of Money‘. This speech in particular covered a lot of ground, but to summarise:

    • Carney cautioned against anyone assuming that the Bank of England was an ‘archaic vestige’ that will be ‘swept aside by a digital, distributed future.’

    • He called the rise of the ‘cryptocurrency revolution‘ amidst the financial crisis and rapid technological developments a ‘coincidence.’

    • Expanding on Yves Mersch’s speech, Carney stressed that ‘bringing crypto assets into the regulatory tent could potentially catalyse innovations to serve the public better.’

    • The chief take away from the speech was Carney’s call for payment systems to evolve to meet the ‘demands of fully reliable real-time distributed transactions.’ This is of course a nod to DLT, which at the time Carney said was not yet advanced enough to consider issuing central bank digital currency as a ‘near-term project.’

    The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures then returned with a new paper, ‘Central bank digital currencies.’ They focused much of their attention on ensuring that a future central bank digital currency fulfilled ‘anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing requirements.’

    Add to this concerns raised by globalists on how cryptocurrencies are not environmentally friendly, and it becomes clear that there are multiple inherent weaknesses built into the current crypto network. Weaknesses which central banks are well placed to exploit over time. For example, the CPMI said that dangers arising from today’s cryptocurrencies may necessitate the need for a CBDC to be ‘non-anonymous‘.

    For now, the CPMI recommended that central banks continue their ‘broad monitoring of digital innovations‘, which points to the introduction of a CBDC being a medium to long term objective.

    The year closed out with new speeches from Agustin Carstens and Christine Lagarde (Money and payment systems in the digital age and Winds of Change: The Case for New Digital Currency respectively.)

    Starting with Carstens, he cited the three tenets to ‘sound‘ money. It must be a unit of account, a payment instrument and a store of value. From Carstens’ perspective, cryprocurrencies meet none of these requirements, and he characterised them as ‘fake money‘ and an ‘environmental disaster‘.

    As for distributed ledger technology, the versions used currently ‘are not any better than what we already have today.’ Which is why Carstens continues to advocate that central banks carry on experimenting with the technology:

    I see central banks continuing to play a critical role in pushing the boundaries of how technology can enhance the payment landscape.

    In November, Christine Lagarde’s speech prompted the mainstream pressto pick up on her overriding message: central banks should consider issuing their own digital currency.

    Making the case for central bank digital currencies, Lagarde envisaged a system where central banks provide the currency, with commercial banks providing the service through which the currency flows. According to her, this would represent ‘public-private partnership at its best.’

    If digital currencies are sufficiently similar to commercial bank deposits—because they are very safe, can be held without limit, allow for payments of any amount, perhaps even offer interest—then why hold a bank account at all?

    What if central banks entered a partnership with the private sector—banks and other financial institutions—and said: you interface with the customer, you store their wealth, you offer interest, advice, loans. But when it comes time to transact, we take over.

    November also saw the European Central Bank launch an extension of its TARGET2 payment system called ‘TIPS’ (TARGET Instant Payment Settlement). This system allows access to payment service providers as well as banks.

    As for where the ECB stand on DLT, their position is that it ‘cannot at this stage be considered as an option for the Eurosystem’s market infrastructure.’ But as you might expect, they in no way dismiss it entirely:

    As DLT-based solutions are constantly evolving, the ECB will continue to monitor developments in this field and explore practical uses for DLT.

    By the end of 2018, the Bank of England had advanced their plans to introduce a ‘renewed‘ RTGS payment system that would have the capacity to interface with distributed ledger technology.

    In part two of this series we will look at developments so far in 2019 in regards to digital currency, and how this relates to the current geopolitical climate.

  • The Guide To Real History: Profit & World Domination

    Authored by Sylvain LaForest via OrientalReview.org,

    In the last two centuries, all wars have been machinations orchestrated by bankers pursuing two very simple objectives: profit and a world domination that bears a name: the New World Order.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Education and medias are the main culprits to blame for keeping the important role of bankers in the dark shadows of history. The genuine relevance of Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Morgan and their peers is voluntarily kept hidden from public scrutiny, so that any investigator that digs in the realms of our past can easily be discredited as a «conspiracy theorist». Author Carroll Quigley once had full access to the Council on foreign relations documents and he confirmed the very real world banking conspiracy designed to dominate the world, in his book «Tragedy and hope».

    Bizarrely, education and medias prefer to bring everything back to public figures and politicians like Churchill, Hitler or Stalin, but they will never tell you that these charismatic monsters had no money, nor created it. Hitler was a failed artist that built the most formidable war machine the world had seen in 6 years only, in a near-bankrupt country deprived of any oil production, so do you think he might have had some help?

    The Grand Scheme

    Before 1971, bank loans were based on their gold reserves, but no bank really owned the value in gold of the money it lent over the years, so the scheme wasn’t very different than today’s fractional system of money creation, in which banks have to own 1/10th of their loans. For example, if bank A has a million dollar, it can lend 10 millions to bank B, which can lend 100 millions to a country, since bank B owns 10 millions. This is basically how the world ended up owing 184 trillion dollars (184 000 000 000 000$) to private banks as of today.

    If you doubt this private money creation scheme, just tell me where that money was before we owed it to them? I guess that settles it.

    When a country goes to war, it borrows money from private banks that lend funds that they create out of thin air. Now, bankers will not only get back the funds that they never had, but will also charge interest on these loans. They will even change the interest rate at will, trying to hold in their laughter. Next step, countries will use this fake money to buy military equipment from industries in which international bankers are major shareholders or partners in investment. This equipment is then used to destroy as much infrastructure as possible in the countries at war, so that everything needs to be rebuilt by governments that will borrow more money from bankers, to pay construction companies partially or totally owned by bankers. This is why carpet-bombing on civilians was invented. All of these loans and interests add up to the national debt, or if you prefer, the bill that citizens have to repay through their taxes that they hand to the government with much trust on their good use.

    «War is a racket», wisely said General Smedley Butler. Therefore, why would the almighty central banks that hold a permanent private power and control over countries, would kindly accept to share it with a puppet president on his 4-year journey?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But the plot thickens.

    Splitting ideologies

    Just when you think that you’ve discovered the ultimate manipulations that have been set on us for centuries, thorough researches will lead you even further in the abyssal depth of the conspiracy that few have talked about. Thanks to James Madison, we know that the American founding fathers had designed the bipartite electoral system as a way to confine democracy in a tiny box limiting the choice of the people between two heads of the same monster, so that a mass of poor people could only maintain an effective plutocracy with their votes. All that was left to do would be to polarize opinions, by adding different ideologies and characteristics to each party, to give the impression that your vote could really determine the future of the country, but we all know by now that it never fundamentally changed anything. Therefore, an objective analysis will quickly take over the initial astonishment of your findings, since what’s next describes more likely than not how politics really work.

    We often imagine Karl Marx as a lone writer in some crummy apartment, designing his great Communist Manifesto in 1848 under a flickering candlelight to break the capitalist tyranny, in the name of the workingman. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the general plan was to divide the world and bring it to wage perpetual wars, for perpetual revenues. Guy William Carr just wasn’t anybody; he was an officer in the Canadian Secret Services and had been in charge of the whole Royal Canadian Navy. Much like Carroll Quigley, he was a real insider with access to secret plans that we’re never told. Here’s what he had to say in his 1958 praised book «Pawns in the game».

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Karl Marx

    While Karl Marx was writing the Communist Manifesto under direction of one group of Illuminists, Professor Karl Ritter of Frankfurt University was writing the antithesis under direction of another group, so that those who direct the conspiracy at the top could use the differences in these two ideologies to start dividing larger and larger numbers of the Human Race into opposing camps, so they could be armed and then made to fight and destroy each other, together with their political and religious institutions.

    It is public knowledge by now that the Rothschild family had financed both Napoleon and his British foes early 19th century, which set a most successful example for profiting from double funding. One cannot lose a war if one owns both sides of the front line! Thus, author Anthony Sutton made a lot of sense when he described the details on how Zionist bankers and Wall Streeters funded communism in «Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution», published in the mid-seventies.

    This activity in behalf of the Bolsheviks originated in large part from a single address: 120 Broadway, New York City. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York was at 120 Broadway. The vehicle for this pro-Bolshevik activity was American International Corporation — at 120 Broadway. AIC views on the Bolshevik regime were requested by Secretary of State Robert Lansing only a few weeks after the revolution began, and Sands, executive secretary of AIC, could barely restrain his enthusiasm for the Bolshevik cause. Ludwig Martens, the first Soviet ambassador, had been vice president of Weinberg & Posner, which was also located at 120-Broadway. Guaranty Trust Company was next door at 140 Broadway but Guaranty Securities Co. was at 120 Broadway. John MacGregor Grant Co., which was financed by Olof Aschberg in Sweden and Guaranty Trust in the United States, and which was on the Military Intelligence black list, was at 120 Broadway. The Guggenheims and the executive heart of General Electric (also interested in American International) were at 120 Broadway. We find it therefore hardly surprising that the Bankers Club was also at 120 Broadway, on the top floor.

    You get the idea. So here’s what a timely little mustached totalitarian then said in «Mein Kampf», right after WW1 and the Bolshevik Revolution:

    This colossal Empire in the East is ripe for dissolution. And the end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen by Destiny to be the witnesses of a catastrophe, which will afford the strongest confirmation of the nationalist theory of race.

    Destiny, really Adolf? This looked more like a boxing match between artificial ideologies created decades earlier, with Hitler and Stalin wearing the gloves, accompanied by Karl Ritter in one corner and Karl Marx in the other, holding the spit-buckets.

    A twist in history

    Thing is, Hitler had been vastly funded by American banks and industries to pressure the Rothschild to share their hegemony on the world, which was confirmed in Bretton-Woods in 1944, where the US dollar replaced the English pound as the world reserve currency. In other words, the American Empire replaced the British Empire to lead the New World Order, but it was the same banking scheme, just a different set of owners.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Josef Stalin at the Yalta Conference in 1945. Source: US Library of Congress/wikipedia.org

    In Yalta, Stalin and Roosevelt effectively divided the world in two ideologies for their masters, while Churchill was wondering what had bloody happened, since the other two seem to have a lot of fun together. That left him with ample time to think about his next historical quote for posterity.

    After WW2, NATO and the CIA were created to counter the lurking Red Menace. Soviet citizens were depicted everywhere like cold-blooded killing robots, as if they were something else than ordinary folks making a living for their kids and having fun on the weekend. The whole planet got in the Cold War, providing great tension zones such as Eastern Europe and Southern Asia, justifying insane military funding and the industrial production of nukes. Wars could be waged without any objective, just for the sheer pleasure of making big money to the profit of bankers and military industrialists; on both sides of the Iron Curtain, I should add.

    Perpetual wars

    The case of the Korean War is sad and appalling. The UN conducted the aggression on North Korea as soon as 1950, because neither China nor USSR vetoed the attack at the Security Council. There are a few reasons that were given for this, but none as likely as the existence of Bigfoot.

    General MacArthur quickly pushed back the North Koreans all the way to the Chinese frontier and only had to blow up the bridges on Yalou River to break any hopes of reinforcement from China, when he got a call from CFR member General Marshall, whom ordered him to leave the bridges untouched. A Chinese army crossed them, the communists pushed the UN troops back to the middle of the country, MacArthur resigned, and they settled for a tie. After a couple of years of bombing and 3 million dead Koreans later, the separation line was put back in its original place on the 38th parallel, but if we look at the bright side, banks and military industries had made an impressive bundle ending with 9 zeros, and we owed it to them, with interests.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    United Nations forces cross the 38th parallel while withdrawing from Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, 1950

    Then there was Vietnam. And then Afghanistan. Fighting communism was the motto for perpetual purposeless wars. We cannot have any serious analysis about the 75-year Cold War, without taking account of how and why the communist movement was created. This manipulation ended with the fall of USSR in 1991, which was immediately replaced by the fear of Islamism, ignited that very same year with the Gulf War in Iraq. Since history repeats itself over and over, what happened in Korea solves the mystery of why George Bush Sr didn’t go all the way to Saddam.

    What used to be communism vs. capitalism is now Islam vs. Christianity. If we listen to medias, every Muslim is a potential jihadist that wants to impose the sharia law on us, as if they were something else than ordinary folks that make a living for their kids and have fun on the weekend. We’re stuck in a carbon-copy replica of the Cold War that scared the world for three-quarters of a century.

    Conclusion

    The sad reality appears to be that politics and ideologies are nothing more than bullcrap created to polarize opinions and divide the population, while central bankers don’t give a hoot if a country is run by democrats, communists, fascists, Nazis, dictators, socialists, green parties, a king or even plumbers, as long as the government maintains the plutocracy that enslaves the population through debt, that plunders our natural resources, and fully controls our economy through their money creation monopole.

    Dividing the population prevents it from uniting against our real common enemy, who gives the true meaning to «Divide and conquer». For example, independence movements are perfect to polarize opinions and split people apart, and once a nation becomes independent, it is from the neighbor who’s stuck in the same crappy plutocracy as yours, not from bankers who will keep looting your money and profit from your resources. Think about it next time you argue with your brother-in-law about politics, when you praise your party that is so much better than his. Think about it when you vote.

    If we got rid of private banking in public affairs, and governments issued all currencies, unbearable peace and prosperity would roam the earth. Today, a few men are fighting this deeply corrupted world financial system: Putin was the first and main one by helping President Assad to keep Syria free from international banks, then came Xi and Trump. Now you know what Donald means by «giving back the country to the people»! He’s openly fighting the Federal Reserve, talks about the nationalization of this private institution, and he’s been the most efficient politician ever to convince the people on the constant media lying, the base of our general ignorance.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    US Department of Defence conducted a flight test of a conventionally configured ground-launched cruise missile at San Nicolas Island on August 19, 2019, less than 3 weeks after the U.S. officially abandoned the INF Treaty.

    But neither mainstream medias, nor official history books ever talked about the grand scheme, and that makes me a «conspiracy theorist» to most. Even independent journalists and analysts rarely mention banks by fear of the conspiracy theory curse, a label that was created by the CIA in 1967 to ridicule those who disputed the Warren Commission conclusion on JFK’s murder, by the same agency. Conspiracy theories now apply on everything that mainstream medias can’t justify with lies that appear to make some sense and are not too obvious.

    If you do a quick check on Wikipedia, Carroll Quigley, Guy William Carr, General Smedley Butler and Anthony Sutton are all described as conspiracy theorists today, because they all decided to use their access to extremely serious files and secrets for the benefit of the people through a denunciation of international banks as the source of every war, and the conspiracy curse is the last desperate attempt to discredit them. The CIA technique works on those whose minds are still programmed by mainstream medias, though more and more people now understand that these amazing analysts and genuine humanists weren’t some dumb lunatics, but were simply describing a reality that many of us find difficult to accept.

    So, I’m sorry, forget what I said, nothing wrong happened. Just keep working, whistle and look away as you’re being robbed, carpet-bombed, spied-on or sent to war, as you’re being told what you can or can’t do with your life, when you vote or argue with someone who’s trying to explain, like you’ve done all of your life, and like your great-grandfather also did.

    But at least, your old man didn’t know.

  • US Travel Industry Nightmare Unfolds As Chinese Tourist Stay Away From Washington, DC

    A new report via China News Service shows how Chinese tourists visiting Washington, DC, has fallen off a cliff. 

    Destination DC, a local tourism promotion organization, said in a new report that 226,000 Chinese tourists visited DC in 2018, which is a 25% drop from the prior year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The plunge in Chinese tourism represents the second consecutive year of declines, having fallen 3% in 2017.

    Benoit Barraud, general manager of bus company Big Bus Tours, said his company had seen 20-25% declines in overseas customers taking tours in downtown DC in 2018. Barraud said much of the decline is coming from Chinese tourists.

    “I absolutely do not want this trend to continue,” Barraud said.

    With nationalism and protectionism rising in the US, and even anti-Chinese sentiment that is being manufactured by the Trump administration, Chinese tourists have had enough, and are now going elsewhere. This could be problematic for the DC tourism industry because on average, these folks spend $6,700 per visit, are some of the top spenders in the world.

    “The Chinese are my best clients, I like them,” a Washington events planner who declined to be named told to Xinhua.

    China News Service said New York City is also feeling the slump in Chinese tourist.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New York’s tourism promotion agency, NYCgo, said the rate of Chinese inbound travel “continues to cool from previous gains” but is still expected to grow marginally this year.

    Some believe the trade war between the US and China is directly responsible for the decline of inbound Chinese to DC and New York.

    “Rhetoric from the White House is dampening foreign tourists’ enthusiasm to visit Washington,” Destination DC’s CEO Elliot Ferguson said.

    NYCgo told businesses in New York that the trade war was responsible for the slowing traffic from China.

    Wilka Nascimento, sales director at a Hyatt Place hotel in central DC, noted that the uptick in visa denials for foreign tourists had slowed the hospitality business.

    “In one case half of a tour group were denied visas,” she said, adding that new rules only allow tourist with vias to book rooms.

    The US Travel Association warned that tourism from China might never recover as other countries will take market share.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the last year, Chinese tourists have been flocking to Russia, Europe, Australia, and Canada, spending record amounts of money.

    “If market share loss continues in future years, the United States will be losing out on one of the largest and fastest-growing source markets of global travel,” the US Travel Association warned.

    Earlier this month, we reported that a collapse in tourism was seen in Beverly Hills as Chinese and Saudi tourist went elsewhere. 

    With escalating trade tensions between both countries might not result in a trade deal until after the 2020 election, the tourism industry in DC, New York, and even Beverly Hills will likely implode, due to the lack of Chinese tourist. 

  • A Blogger's Lament: Demoralized, Depressed, Detached, & Defiant

    Authored by Jim Quinn, founder of The Burning Platform blog,

    I’ve now been running The Burning Platform blog for over ten years. It’s been over eleven years since I wrote my first article – Why We Need Ron Paul – in May 2008 during the Republican primaries. I really thought I could change enough minds through my writing to influence voters and help wake up people to the truth about our deteriorating financial situation. I would send op-eds to my local paper, and they would publish them. My articles on Seeking Alpha in 2008/2009 were the most read and commented on their site.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    My assessment of the Wall Street banks, coming financial crisis and recession were accurate enough that I was being sought out by Glenn Beck on CNN, Neal Cavuto on Fox, and Maria Bartiromo on CNBC to be interviewed on their shows. I didn’t want that kind of attention, since it would likely have negatively impacted my day job – which actually supported my family.

    I had already experienced negative blowback when I predicted the bankruptcy of General Growth Properties in one of my articles. It seems the CFO was a Wharton grad and large donor to the real estate department. He called the Dept. head, who called the Deputy Dean, who called my boss, the CFO. It was at this point where any mention of Wharton was forbidden on my part, or I risked being terminated.

    The interesting part of the story was the General Growth CFO said none of my facts were incorrect and six months later General Growth Properties filed for bankruptcy. I sent a link of the announcement to my boss, who throughout his tenure defended my right to free speech whenever the Dean’s office received complaints about my articles. We had a good laugh about their bankruptcy.

    During late 2008 and early 2009 I was driven to write at least two massive articles per week about the financial industry, the economy or the military industrial complex. My views were virtually identical to those of Ron Paul. The two sites who published all of my articles – Seeking Alpha and Financial Sense – loved me during the early days of their sites when they were trying to attract eyeballs.

    But their goal was to become mouthpieces for Wall Street and make money, so articles critical of financial markets did not help them achieve their financial ambitions. I had no such ambitions, other than seeking the truth. They began to edit my article submissions. This really pissed me off. In early 2009 a Seeking Alpha reader offered to create a website where I could publish without fear of censorship. Jason created the Raging Debate website and in February 2009 I was live.

    The intelligent, volatile, nasty, humorous comment stream, that has been a hallmark of TBP, began immediately, as Seeking Alpha fans followed me to the new site. I was eventually banned by both Seeking Alpha and Financial Sense, as they sold out to the establishment for money to pump stocks and regurgitate the fake Wall Street narrative. As the markets continued to fall and we experienced the deepest recession since the Great Depression, I was contacted through email by some guy saying he wanted me to be in his documentary about the financial crisis. I said no. I didn’t want to be in the public eye, and I was skeptical that it was a real documentary. I had done a number of phone interviews with various like-minded websites, but eventually began turning those down. I couldn’t risk my livelihood, as I was financially responsible for a wife and three boys.

    The documentary filmmaker was persistent. He wouldn’t take no for an answer. He had read all my Seeking Alpha articles and insisted I be in his film. I finally agreed to meet him in NYC after work. I paid my own way to take an Amtrak train after working a full day at Wharton. I arrived at an office building and went up to the floor where they were filming. I expected to be asked questions and then answer.

    Instead the filmmaker just asked me to start talking about how the housing market led to the greatest financial collapse in history. I talked for 30 minutes and about 20 seconds made it into the documentary. The documentary was Generation Zero, based upon Strauss & Howe’s Fourth Turning theory. And the filmmaker was a little-known man named Steve Bannon. It was a cool moment in my life when I was able to take my wife and kids to the world-premiere in NYC the following year. I think Bannon went on to bigger things.

    Not having the chore of running the website allowed me to do nothing but write. I was pumping out one large article per week and daily posts about the various economic lies put out by the government. But, my penchant for scorning and ridiculing the establishment, the government, Wall Street and corporate America was at odds with Jason’s plan to convince a mainstream media outlet to buy the Raging Debate and cash out.

    I had no interest in his vision. He began to censor my articles and tell me what I could and couldn’t publish. It got ugly and we both burned our bridges. He pulled the plug on me and I was left without a site. A good friend at Wharton had an Indian IT company and put his best guy to work on creating a WordPress site using a cheap server company to host it. I was up and running about a week later with version 1 of The Burning Platform.

    The daily visitor counts averaged 3,000 in the early days. It was the wild wild west. The daily commenters (Smokey, Llpoh, Stuck in NJ, AWD, Davos, and a few others) would have epic shitfests over the smallest disagreements. During the OWS protests in 2012 the competing factions would fight with such vitriol and venom, we would abandon the site for days. I tried everything I could think of to increase visitors, including having Burning Platform business cards printed, and leaving them next to student computers across the university.

    But it turns out the best way to increase traffic to your site is to write provocative articles and get them published on other more popular sites. I owe most of my site’s success to Zero Hedge for publishing every article I’ve sent them for ten years. But Lew Rockwell, 321gold, Dollar Collapse, Market Oracle, Steve Quayle and several other sites have also contributed to my increase in visitors.

    In the early days I was driven to write. I felt I could influence enough people with my views regarding the crooked politicians, terrible financial shape of the country, government lies, media propaganda, Deep State control, and how all of this would be impacted by the current Fourth Turning. My Fourth Turning articles even came to the attention of Neil Howe and we met for lunch to discuss how this Crisis might progress. As I kept writing, the visitor counts grew. I signed up for Google Ads and I started to make a few bucks. The revenue covered my server costs.

    But my articles tended to piss off the establishment. It wasn’t long before Google pulled the plug after I wrote a critical article about their Orwellian tactics. Being a capitalist at heart, it was gratifying to earn a few bucks from my writing, but it is like getting punched in the gut when these left-wing goliath social media companies ban you from their ad platforms. Over the next several years at least a half dozen ad companies have abruptly pulled the plug on TBP with no warning and no chance to respond.

    I can honestly say it is depressing when you work 365 days per year trying to keep a blog interesting and lively, and the rug is pulled out beneath you when the modest amount of income you were generating is gone in an instant. The goal of the SJW’s who complain to the left-wing internet media conglomerates about my site is to shut me down and shut me up. They don’t want dissent from their fake news narrative. They don’t want my site to infect too many people with the truth.

    They are worried truth-telling, fact-based sites like mine will undermine the establishment and create resistance to their agenda of control. The undermining of my revenue streams has temporarily taken the wind out of my sails, but every time they have knocked me down, I’ve found alternative advertisers and my dedicated TBP family have picked me up with their generous donations.

    As this Fourth Turning has progressed (or regressed is more fitting) I’ve found myself becoming more and more detached from the daily minutia. For years I would scour every BLS, BEA or Census report from the government apparatchiks and methodically and sarcastically skewer their fake data narratives. But, based on the lack of comment stream on these posts and me getting bored saying the same thing over and over again, I stopped analyzing the bullshit government reports. What good does it do?

    Anyone who has followed TBP for a long period of time knows the government lies. The ignorant masses who believe everything they are told by their keepers don’t read my website. Trying to convince people who are already onboard is not necessary. The blog has migrated towards political and social issues because that’s what the readers want. This has required a shift in how I view my blog.

    I decided it was no longer about me and what I had to say. I’ve resolved myself to the fact nothing I write or say will change anything in this world. We are on a path towards a painful future. I thought it had arrived in 2008/2009 and we’d be faced with a relentless onslaught of pain and suffering. I filled my storage area in the basement with water, food, and survival supplies. I bought some guns and took lessons to learn how to shoot properly. I had exited the stock market well before the crash and have stayed out for the last ten years of this bull market.

    I could chalk it up to being early, but that isn’t any different than being wrong for a decade. I’ve made it a mission to use any funds from TBP to pay down my mortgage. Being completely debt free in the next three years is the goal. I’ve had a tumultuous work situation for the last four years that has sapped my mental strength. We’ve dealt with some serious medical issues in our household over the last couple years, which further detracted from my ability to think and write. Hopefully, the work and medical issues are resolving themselves, but you never know what looms over the horizon.

    As my increasing detachment has led to less output on my part, I’ve encouraged my extremely intelligent readers to make their voices heard by writing their own articles. This has been a resounding success, as dozens of readers have found their voice and written outstanding, thought provoking articles. Many other bloggers have approached me as they try to get their blogs off the ground and asked if I would post their articles. I’ve done this gladly, as I remembered how ZeroHedge and Lew Rockwell helped me get off the ground.

    Supporting like-minded websites is our only defense against the oligarchy, media conglomerates, surveillance state and leftist Big Brother agenda. Whenever I’ve found myself depressed or in a funk, it’s the commentary, courage, fortitude and not giving a fuck attitude of the TBP crowd that sustains me and keeps me plugging away. I’ve always been inspired by this Samuel Adams quote:

    “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

    The readers of my blog are most certainly a minority in this warped, corrupt, decadent society. I met a few of them at Marc’s farm. We are irate. We are tireless. We love liberty and freedom. We coalesce on TBP because we want to be among others who believe in freedom from a tyrannical government, a manipulative media, an out of control military industrial complex, and a cabal of greedy evil bankers.

    By committing myself to keeping TBP relevant and entertaining, I’ve become mostly a publisher of others, rather than a writer of my own stuff. It is grueling trying to find 15 to 20 posts every day, mostly done at night after work or early in the morning before work. When I start to feel sorry for myself, I think about what my life would be like without the people I’ve come to admire and call family on TBP.

    So here we are, eleven years since the start of this Fourth Turning. It probably has close to ten years to go. I hope I’m wrong again about the intensity and amplitude of the coming hurricane of consequences brought on by our recklessness and foolishness over many decades. But I fear I will not be wrong this time. The mood in the country and across the globe continues to darken. Sides are being drawn. Enemies are being chosen by nations, politicians, and citizens alike. Simmering animosities are rising to the surface.

    There will be no compromise in the current environment. The unmistakable smell of conflict is in the air. We have entered the time of year when stock markets crash and those swimming naked are revealed. Debt, civic decay and global disorder are three category 5 hurricanes relentlessly moving towards a final denouement. The next decade will surely be perilous, but most people are wholly unprepared, mesmerized by their iGadgets and zombified by the relentlessly false mainstream media narrative.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.” ― Emiliano Zapata

    I simply cannot visualize a positive outcome to our current Crisis situation. Some people may say I’m prone to viewing situations from a negative viewpoint, but I think I view the world from a rational realistic point of view. The problem for people like me is the world has adopted a delusional, unrealistic, head in the sand perspective on the desperately irrational “solutions” put forth by our ruling class.

    I’ve been wrong for ten years because I thought rationality would come back into style after the second crash in eight years caused by the Federal Reserve and their minions in Washington D.C. Instead, they double downed on their debt dependent debauchery. The world has gone mad and I’ve been left demoralized, depressed and now detached.

    No one blinks an eye at $22 trillion in debt, trillion dollar annual deficits, 0% interest rates for ten years, $17 trillion of negative interest debt in the world, retro-active adjustments to GDP and savings rate calculations to make them more positive, 40% of the working age population not working – but unemployment reported as 3.7%, inflation reported at less than 2% when the average person experiences inflation in excess of 5%, corporations using their billions in tax cuts to buy back stock to boost their stock price, a military waging undeclared wars across the globe, an out of control surveillance state monitoring our communications, media companies using propaganda and censorship to push their new world order agenda, and $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities that cannot be honored.

    Facts won’t matter until they matter. I wonder what historians fifty or one hundred years from now will say about this profoundly corrupt, aberrational, willfully ignorant episode in world history. How could we be so stupid, egotistical and disinterested in the fate of future generations by wasting the wealth of the unborn to live above our true means today? The selfishness, greed and myopia of those steering the ship of state, and the willingness of the masses to go along with the lies as long as they can be distracted and entertained by their phones is mind numbingly ludicrous in my opinion.

    But clearly my opinion is not worth much these days. I guess that’s why I find it harder and harder to write articles pointing out the absurdity of everything going on around me. I think my time is better spent working in the yard, taking long walks with my wife, going to the gym, and just letting this Fourth Turning play out as it will, with an unforeseeable culmination and new beginning – I hope.

    Whenever the feelings of demoralization and depression sweep over me and I wonder what’s the use of running my blog, I am sustained by the thoughts of the long-time virtual relationships I’ve formed, the community that has grown within TBP, the great people I’ve met in person, the knowledge there are thousands of people who read TBP every day but don’t comment, and knowing the establishment would like it if I shut TBP down. This is where defiance enters the picture.

    The establishment has tried to shut me down with denial of service attacks, trying to get me fired from my job, cutting off my modest revenue stream, and trying to suppress my articles. They didn’t realize pissing me off is the exact opposite of what will work. It was my anger and outrage that drove me to start the blog. The anger directed inward results in depression. As long as I have enemies to fight, I’ll keep TBP alive and defying the forces I view as the enemy.

    As my brain tells me the next phase of this Fourth Turning will be tumultuous, dangerous and bloody, my heart hopes I won’t have to face the tragedy and fateful choices that lie ahead. I doubt many people are mentally and emotionally prepared for tests on par with those about to be faced by Americans in 1860 and 1940. Note the 80- year gap. And understand 2020 is 80 years since the last major test of human fortitude and courage. I find myself pondering what trigger will ignite the next phase of this Crisis period.

    A financial crash resulting in a bail-in from 401k holders to sustain the Wall Street cabal would push people into the streets (i.e. Hong Kong, Paris). A leftist president attempting to initiate national gun confiscation would provoke violence in the streets. Lastly, if the government tried to force my three sons to fight in a foreign war for oil, the gloves would come off and I’d take to the streets. I will continue to fight the establishment through the free thought allowed on my blog. It’s good ideas and freedom of thought which are the only hope for generating a positive outcome at the climax of this Fourth Turning. The gathering storm approaches. The tests ahead will try our souls.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth — more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid … Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.” ― Bertrand Russell, Why Men Fight

    *  *  *
    The corrupt establishment will do anything to suppress sites like the Burning Platform from revealing the truth. The corporate media does this by demonetizing sites like mine by blackballing the site from advertising revenue. If you get value from this site, please keep it running with a donation. [Jim Quinn – PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443]

  • Manhattan Luxury-Apartment Sales Plunge After New Transfer Tax

    A new report from The Wall Street Journal shows how a new transfer tax in Manhattan has led to a slump in sales of luxury properties this summer. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The new tax, basically a one-time payment on homes valued above $2 million, was enacted on July 01. The new policy led to a massive surge in June sales of luxury residential properties. But when it came time for luxury sales in July, those sales collapsed to a six-year low. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The change in tax policy suggests New York City policymakers were attempting to manipulate consumer behavior by forcing home sales to be brought forward this summer to lift the sagging real estate market. 

    “Consumer behavior is modified by tax-policy change, and this is exactly what we are seeing,” said Jonathan Miller, president and CEO of the market research and appraisal company Miller Samuel.

    The new transfer tax sparked sellers to close on homes before the July 01 deadline, setting records with the most sales above $2 million, above $10 million and above $25 million. And as soon as all of the artificial selling was over, luxury home sales (above $2 million) collapsed to 162 homes for July, compared with 685 in June.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    WSJ said Manhattan luxury home sales fell from a record $4.9 billion in June to about $1.54 billion in July, which is the lowest July total since 2009 and the weakest month overall since 2013.

    Last month, we mentioned how the median sales price for an apartment in Manhattan was $975,000 in July, flat on the year, but down from its $995,000 peak last July.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Miller was cited in another report talking about the deteriorating Manhattan housing market and said sales prices are a lagging indicator. He noted that the market has been trending lower for third consecutive quarters.

    “I characterize that as a reset, and it does have the potential to fall farther,” Miller said.

    “Demand is continuing to be softer than it was last year.”

     

    WSJ said the new transfer tax didn’t affect apartments below $2 million. Those sales were up 2.5% from June. 

    Donna Olshan, a broker who monitors the Manhattan luxury market, said the slowdown in luxury housing is becoming more evident in late summer. Olshan said the number of contracts signed for properties with a list price above $4 million plunged 17% this year through August. 

    The slowdown in Manhattan is a combination of an exodus of foreign buyers; President Trump’s income tax changes, which limited the deductions for mortgage interest to the first $750,000 borrowed and capped state and local taxes (including property taxes) to $10,000; a domestic economy that is slowing; trade war uncertainties from the Trump administration; and a global synchronized slowdown.

    “The crisis seems to be going sideways,” Olshan said. Sellers who lower their prices are doing deals, she said, while other listings sit on the market. Many condo developers aren’t lowering prices, but they are telling brokers to “‘just make me an offer,'” she said.

    WSJ said 12 transactions for $10 million or more were completed in July, a below-average month, and the lowest monthly total since 2015. 

    Miller said inventory is quickly building with more than 6,000 units for sale in Manhattan.

    “We’re definitely going through a period of change,” Miller said, “and it’s not entirely clear where it’s heading right now.”

    And it was only last year when we cited a report from Bank of America that rang the proverbial bell on the US real estate market, which said existing home sales have peaked, reflecting declining affordability, more significant price reductions and deteriorating housing sentiment.

    “Call your realtor,” the BofA note proclaimed: “We are calling it: existing home sales have peaked.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Interventionist policymakers in New York City, who are willing to change tax law to spur artificial economic activity in a sagging real estate market in Manhattan shows just how desperate officials are to reverse the housing market downturn. However, with intervention, there are always consequences, those consequences are being seen with a drastic drop in sales in July and the months ahead. 

  • Is Elon Musk Right About Global "Population Collapse"?

    Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

    Elon Musk continues to suggest a population collapse is in store within a few decades time…and he is 110% correct if you make two caveats…

    1) focus on the young and potential child bearing populations and

    2) look at the world excluding a single continent…Africa.

    To begin, note the collapsing populations of young (0 to 15 years old) and childbearing populations (15 to 40 years old) across broad swaths of the greatest consumer nations on earth.  Absent broad die-offs from war, pandemics, famine, etc.; population collapses begin from the decline of births that eventually work their way into declining childbearing populations.

    East Asia (China, Japan, N/S Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.

    • Young, peaked in 1976 – declined by 138 million (32% decline) so far, projected to decline 259 million (61% decline) by 2100.  This is based on the assumption of rising fertility rates…if they remain flat or fall further, the reality is likely to be far lower!?!

    • Childbearing peaked in 2005, declined by 96 million (14% decline) so far, projected to decline 357 million (54% decline) by 2100.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Europe (including Russia and Eastern Europe) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.

    • Young peaked in 1965, declined by 48 million (29% decline) so far, projected to decline 78 million (46% decline) by 2100.  Again, this decline is based on the assumption that fertility rates will do the exact opposite of the current reality and suddenly rise?!?  If not, far lower births and resultant populations should be expected.

    • Childbearing peaked in 1989, declined by 41 million (15% decline) so far, projected to decline 105 million (39% decline) by 2100.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Latin America plus Caribbean (everything in Western Hemisphere but US/Canada) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.

    • Young peaked in 2001, declined by 11 million (7% decline) so far, projected to decline by 74 million (44% decline) by 2100.

    • Childbearing set to peak in 2025 and projected to decline by 87 million (33% decline) by 2100.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    North America (US/Canada) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.

    • Young peaked in 1965, zero growth since ’65projected to grow by 9 million (14% increase) by 2100.  I have detailed repeatedly why given current fertility rates, trends, and immigration patterns, this growth is highly unlikely and continued flat to outright declines should be the base case.  Since 2007, US fertility rates have been in freefall and in 2018, the US hit a record low fertility rate of 1.72 and is still falling fast…with Canada even lower at 1.56.  There is no sign nor logical rationale to anticipate a rise in fertility rates in North America.

    • Childbearing projected to grow 13 million (11% increase) by 2100.  Again, this is premised on unrealistically high fertility rates and immigration rates above the current reality…this is also highly unlikely and near zero growth should be the base case.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    ASIA (excluding East Asia) childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.

    • Young peaked in 2018, projected to decline 275 million (34% decline) by 2100.  This is India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. plus all of Western Asia (Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

    • Childbearing projected to peak in 2038 and decline by 240 million (20% decrease) by 2100.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Africa childbearing population (blue line) and young population (green line), below.

    • Young projected to rise 400 million and peak around 2090!?!

    • Childbearing population projected to grow nearly 1 billion through 2100.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Consider:

    • Since 1980, Africa has grown from 11% to 17% of the worlds total population

    • Since 1980, Africa has grown from 17% to 30% of annual global births

    • In 1989, annual global births (excluding Africa) peaked and have declined 15% since (and still falling)

    • The 3+ decade decline in global births (excluding Africa) has nearly (but not quite) been offset by increasing births in Africa

    • By 2023, the worlds childbearing population (excluding Africa) will be in indefinite decline…and only Africa’s childbearing population will continue growing

    • A declining childbearing population (excluding Africa) with deeply negative fertility rates (excluding Africa) is highly likely to see births fall at an accelerating rate (far more than the gradual decline predicted by the UN)

    • However, over the past five decades, African income per capita has risen just 240% compared to Upper Middle income nations (China, Brazil, Russia, etc.) rising 950% and high income nations 410%…Africa is clearly losing ground

    • By the best proxy for true economic activity, energy consumption, suggests Africa has grown from just 2.4% to 3.6% of global energy consumption…and the future there is not brightening.

    • Africa’s economic growth is dependent on global growth (x-Africa)…but with declining global markets for exports and significant overcapacity, Africa’s export driven growth potential is very low

    • Lastly, Africa (particularly Sub-Saharan Africa where most of the population growth is occurring) has one of the lowest emigration rates of any poor region.

    • By 2030, Africa will be 22% of the worlds population, be 200% of annual growth among the childbearing population, and be responsible for 38% of global births…but still just estimated to be 4.6% of global energy consumption.

    • In short, when excluding Africa, births have already collapsed and due to the imminent decline in childbearing population, far larger declines (also known as collapse) are imminent

    That is to say, Africa is all the growth in the childbearing population and births…but with minimal increase anticipated in energy consumption or global economic impact.  There is essentially no transfer mechanism from the first world wealth to the poor of the third world nor is there a strong avenue for emigration.  The global economy will impact Africa but Africa is very unlikely to impact the global economy.  And as the UN noted recently, the end of global population growth is now in sight and the global population is likely to peak around 2100, under 11 billion persons (detailed here, HERE).  The collapse of populations in East Asia, Europe, and Eurasia is already a done deal.

    The Big Picture

    Annual global population change, excluding Africa, peaked in 1988 and growth has decelerated since.  However, growth really decelerates from here and is projected to end entirely by 2055…and global depopulation (excluding Africa) is the primary global feature there-after.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But focusing on the 15 to 65 year old working age population (x-Africa) which drives the global economy and consumption, the halving of growth in millions (and 2/3rds decline in percentage) is already in the rearview mirror.  By 2040, global working age population growth is estimated to end entirely and a persistent decline (depopulation) among potential employees/consumers persists indefinitely there-on.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Why point all this out?  Because it is the annual growth in the global childbearing population (excluding Africa, blue columns below) that drives demand, inflation, and the Federal Funds interest rate (yellow line).  From 1950 to 1980, it was the accelerating rise in the childbearing population of potential consumers (above and beyond existing capacity) that pushed prices upward (more demand than supply) just as the Fed was hiking the cost of servicing debt (reducing growth in potential capacity).  Then from 1981 to present, the deceleration of growth among the same population coincided with decelerating inflation (decelerating demand with accelerating supply from lower interest rates).  The imminent declines in the same population will coincide with outright deflation (declining demand against a flat to potentially rising capacity thanks to a return to ZIRP or even NIRP).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    15 to 40 year old population growth (as a %) versus federal funds rate, below.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Looking at the global childbearing population (excluding Africa, blue line below) versus 0-15 year old young (x-Africa, red line), the divergence is plain to see below.  The total size of the two population sets were essentially identical in the late 1960’s.  However, outside of Africa, the global population of young is clearly in decline…and soon, the global childbearing population (x-Africa) will follow.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Below, the annual change in the global childbearing population (x-Africa, blue columns) and annual change in the global population of young (x-Africa, red columns) versus the Federal Funds Rate (yellow line).  The shape of the rate curve should make more sense when matched against the real world changing demand of potential consumers.  The rationale for rate cuts, ZIRP, and sooner than later, NIRP should also be clear as we are at the end of population growth driven demand increases.  The onset of secular declines among the nexus of economic activity is inevitable and imminent.  From a growth perspective, the sky has truly fallen…and will only continue to fall faster.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Broadening out to view the global annual childbearing population growth, world (excluding Africa, blue columns) versus Africa (red columns, below).  The 90% deceleration of the annual growth of the childbearing population (excluding Africa) versus the doubling of the childbearing population growth in Africa has not resulted in rising economic activity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Below, global births annually (excluding Africa, blue line) versus births in Africa (red line).  Global annual births (x-Africa) peaked in 1989 and have declined by 17 million (-15%).  Over the same timespan, annual births in Africa have risen 18 million (+178%).  Trading a poor soul for a relatively wealthy soul (essentially a 1:1 population trade but a 90%+ downgrade in purchasing power) ultimately means global consumption is in big trouble, as rate cuts and debt burdens have reached their full potential.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Africa consumes 3.6% of the total global primary energy supply.  From 1980 through 2016, Africa’s portion of global energy consumption has risen from 2.4% to 3.6%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Below, 1980 through 2016, year over year change in global total primary energy consumption.  World consumption (excluding Africa, blue columns) versus Africa (red columns).  The deceleration of global annual growth with little to no offsetting demand growth from Africa is clear.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As growth ends among the world (x-Africa) and shifts solely to Africa, the differential and disparity of income per capita between the groups that make up the world versus that of Sub-Saharan Africa doom further economic growth.  The population rise in poor Africans is only offsetting the declining population of the rest of the world.  The chart below details that the average African can consume just 3% what a single high income nation resident would.  The average African can consume just 18% what an upper middle nation resident (China, Mexico, Russia, Brazil, etc.) would…and only 70% what a lower income nation resident (India, Pakistan, etc.) would consume.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Total population among each age segment below, green line is the young (0-14yr/olds), blue line is the child bearing population (15-44yr/olds), and the grey line is the “post breeding stock” (45+yr/olds).

    Noteworthy is the peak population of young (x-Africa) was hit over 2 decades ago, and the worlds population of young is in active decline.  Prior to 2030, the global childbearing population (x-Africa) will likewise begin it’s secular decline.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Looking at population growth (x-Africa) by age groups but on a year over year change basis, below. 

    Super noteworthy is the 90%+ deceleration of annual population growth among the childbearing population of the world (x-Africa).  And by 2023, the childbearing population will begin declining.  BTW – the annual growth of the childbearing population (x-Africa) is very closely mirrored by the Federal Funds Rate.  The accelerating growth of this population drove demand above and beyond existing capacities, pushing organic inflation and the deceleration in growth of this population is the death of organic, demand based inflation (too much accelerating capacity thanks to automation, AI, robots, etc. versus decelerating demand growth).  Inflation is now a synthetically engineered currency event, not demand based.

    The impact of a shrinking population capable of childbearing with significantly negative fertility rates (x-Africa) will collide…likely producing a must sharper decline in young (x-Africa).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Next, Africa is nearly all the population growth, but little of the global immigration…

    Sources of Global Migration

    Since the source of population growth is pretty much solely Africa, the sources of migration should also be clear. The chart below shows the primary sources of migration, per five year periods (1950 through 2015), by global region. Some key takeaways:

    • Sub-Saharan Africa has been a relatively insignificant source of immigration since the 1980’s…and even then it never rivaled the migrations from Latin America (primarily Mexico) or presently from S. Asia. Essentially, what happens in Sub-Saharan Africa stays in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    • Northern Africa has been a more significant source of migration since the 1990’s but the regions birthrates (2.8 children per female) are falling more in-line with Europe than Sub-Saharan Africa (4.9 children per female).

    • Latin America was the primary source of migration but this has hugely decelerated, with Mexico experiencing a 10 fold decrease in immigration since 2005.

    • The S. Asia region, (primarily India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) are producing the bulk of the worlds migrants.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This whole scenario seems to suggest not just a global slowdown is imminent, but an outright collapse in demand, birthrates, and global populations is more likely than not.

    Population data from UN World Population Prospects 2019, Migration data from UN 2017 International Migrant Stock; Primary energy data from EIA, GNI per capita via Atlas method, World Bank.

  • "A Murderer's Row": Oil And Gas Bankruptcies To Accelerate As $137 Billion Debt Matures Over Next Two Years

    Oil and gas companies are facing an onslaught of bankruptcies as the “shale revolution” appears to be coming to an unceremonious end, at least on Wall Street, according to the Wall Street Journal

    Companies like Sanchez Energy Corp., Halcon Resources Corp. and 26 other oil and gas producers have all filed for bankruptcy this year, already matching the 28 industry bankruptcies from all of 2018. The number is expected to rise as debt maturities for those looking to cash in on the shale revolution and make bets on higher oil prices years ago are now looming. 

    5.7% of all energy companies with junk rated bonds are defaulting as of August, the highest level since 2017. The metric is “considered a key indicator of the industry’s financial stress.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The defaults are on the rise as companies struggle to service debt, bring in new money and refinance existing debt. The once-darling shale business model has been under significant scrutiny from Wall Street over the last 18 months, adding to the headwinds for many companies. 

    Investor interest has faded after years of meager returns while, at the same time, companies struggle to meet their cost of capital with oil prices below $60/barrel. 

    Private companies and smaller drillers have felt the most pain thus far. These companies “collectively generate a large portion of U.S. oil,” and their distress is indicative of wider distress throughout U.S. shale. 

    Patrick Hughes, a partner at Haynes & Boone said: “They were able to hang in there for a while, but now their debt levels are just too high and they’re going to have to take their medicine.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Halcon filed for bankruptcy in August, just three years after it last filed for bankruptcy, due to a production slowdown in West Texas and higher than expected processing costs. The company’s chief restructuring officer (which we guess is probably becoming somewhat of a permanent position after filing bankruptcy twice in 3 years) said the bankruptcy was partly a result of lenders cutting the company’s credit line by $50 million earlier this year after it violated its debt covenants due to too much leverage. 

    Sanchez Energy also filed for bankruptcy in August, citing falling energy prices and a dispute with Blackstone over assets that were jointly acquired from Anadarko Petroleum in 2017. Blackstone said Sanchez defaulted on a joint deal to develop the assets and, as a result, Blackstone was entitled to take them over. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Other shale drillers, like EP Energy Corp., have also missed debt payments. EP missed a $40 million interest payment due August 15 as it continued to struggle from the debt piled atop of it as a result of an Apollo-led buyout in 2012. 

    As of Q2 2019, the company had debt to the tune of 6x its EBITDA. The company has said it has to mid-September to make the payment and is considering a “range of options”, including bankruptcy, to deal with the issue. 

    Lately, the slew of bankruptcies isn’t so much a result of low crude prices, either. In 2016, when crude prices were below $30/barrel, 70 U.S. and Canadian oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy. Crude prices have nearly doubled since then. Instead, it’s more a result of debt – and the many companies who took on debt after the 2016 slump all face upcoming maturities over the next four years. While just $9 billion is set to mature throughout the remainder of 2019, about $137 billion will be due between 2020 and 2022, according to S&P.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And debt of companies like Alta Mesa Resources remains as risky as it gets. After being handed a $1 billion “blank check” to invest in shale, the tide has turned on the company in a big way. 

    Paul Harvey, credit analyst at S&P, said: “A lot of companies are highly levered and facing maturities on their debt that I like to call a murderer’s row, maturities are coming year after year.” 

    According to S&P, the lowest possible yield an investor can earn on a bond without the issuer defaulting stands at 7%, as of July, in oil and gas. That metric is about 4% for the overall market. For junk bonds, such yields are almost 13%. Energy companies have predictably backed away from the high yield market as the cost of capital has increased, with high yield issuances falling 40% from the same period a year earlier. Overall high yield issuances were up 32%. 

    Tim Polvado, the head of U.S. energy for the Paris-based bank Natixis SA concluded: “Any available capital structure is going to be more expensive than it was a year ago.”

    As is the case in many bankruptcies, equity holders could be “all but wiped” in many of these shale companies, while bondholders jockey for seniority and priority as the likely new owners.

  • Venezuela Smashes Weekly Bitcoin Trading Record With 114 Billion Bolivars

    Authored by William Suberg via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Bitcoin trading has hit a giant new record yet again in Venezuela as the country’s crippling hyperinflation continues to play out

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    Localbitcoins volume up 48%

    Data published on Sep. 2 from monitoring resource Coin Dance, which tracks trade volumes on P2P crypto exchange platforms, showed Venezuelans traded more last week than ever before.

    In the seven days ending Aug. 31, 114 billion sovereign bolivars (VES) changed hands on Localbitcoins alone. 

    That figure dwarfs the previous record set the week before at 77 billion. In Bitcoin terms, however, the uptick was far smaller, rising from 465 BTC to 533 BTC.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Venezuela Localbitcoins trade volume. Source: Coin Dance

    Authorities tout sanctioned Petro

    As Cointelegraph has reported, recent weekly highs in VES trading underscore the weakness of the Venezuelan currency as it devalues against every other. 

    The inflation rate in fact dipped in July after the government brought in financial controls. While figures of 10 million percent circulated before, July’s annual rate of inflation was more like 265,000%, Reuters reported in August.

    The government nonetheless is still pushing its controversial national currency, which includes state-issued digital currency, Petro. Last week, a remittance system for Petro came into being, but its use perspectives remain uncertain in the wake of sweeping sanctions against the token.

    A deal to allow one of Venezuela’s largest department store chains, Traki, to accept cryptocurrency payments meanwhile completed the week previously.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 2nd September 2019

  • Brazil's Bolsonaro Bans Bic Pens "Because They're French" As Macron Feud Escalates

    As one of the most entertaining contemporary diplomatic spats drags on, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro (who, like President Trump, is known for his sometimes outrageous commentary) reportedly said Friday that he would no longer use Bic pens to sign official documents “because they’re French.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The background: Bolsonaro and French President Emmanuel Macron have been feuding since the latter criticized the former over his handling of the wildfire “crisis” in the Amazon. Macron started by accusing Bolsonaro of lying about who caused the wildfires, then Bolsonaro accused Macron of “insulting” him by raising a whopping $25 million from the G-7 to help with wildfire relief. Since then, the two have been regularly exchanging barbs, the AFP reports.

    And in the latest round, Bolsonaro said he would stop using pens made by the French company, and use pens made by Brazilian company Compactor instead.

    “A pen (of the Brazilian brand) Compactor and no more Bic, will work,” Bolsonaro said.

    When asked by reporters whether Bolsonaro was joking, or being serious, the Brazilian government declined to comment.

    If Bolsonaro truly does intend to abandon pic, it looks like the joke is on him: Most of the Bic ballpoint pens sold in Brazil are made at a factory in the Brazilian city of Manaus (which is situated in one of the country’s Amazonian regions). Previously, Bolsonaro said he and his government would start using Bic pens, which are cheap and widely used, as part of their plan to cut back on government expenses and waste.

    Bic refused to comment on Bolsonaro’s comments (though, in what appears to be a subtle snub of the Brazilian president, the company’s spokesman said Bic felt “flattered” to be recognized as a “democratic” brand).

    As for the feud between the two leaders, there’s little hope for detente in sight: Bolsonaro is refusing to speak with Macron unless the French president first apologizes to him for his remarks.

  • European Dreams Vs. Mass Migration

    Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

    • Unfortunately, the European mindset refuses to face the reality, as if the challenge is too severe to be addressed.

    • “The conference took place under the theme ‘Penser l’Europe’ [‘Thinking of Europe’]… There, I was disturbed to hear Tariq Ramadan speaking of Europe as dar al-Shahada, i.e. house of Islamic belief. The attending audience was alarmed, but did not get the message of the perception of Europe… as a part of house of Islam. If Europe is no longer perceived as dar al-Harb/house of war, but viewed as part of the peaceful house of Islam, then this is not a sign of moderation, as some wrongly assume: it is the mindset of an Islamization of Europe”. — Bassam Tibi, Professor Emeritus of International Relations, University of Goettingen.

    • It is a false Marxist notion among young people here in Europe that if you are successful or comfortable, it can only have been at the expense of humanity: “If I win, somebody else must lose.” There seems to be no concept at all of “win-win” — “If I win, all of you can win too: everyone can win!” — which underpins the free economy and has lifted so much of the world so spectacularly out of poverty.

    • It is important to… reject the current fashion of self-abasement. Europe seems to be afflicted with a skepticism about the future, as if the decline of the West is actually a justified punishment and a liberation from its faults of the past…. “For me, today,” notes Alain Finkielkraut, “the most essential thing is European civilization”.

    Europe presents itself as the vanguard of the unification of humanity. Europe’s cultural roots, as a result, have been put at risk. According to Pierre Manent, a renowned French political scientist and a professor at the School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris:

    “European pride or European self-consciousness depend on the rejection of European history and European civilization! We want nothing to do with the Christian roots and we absolutely want to be perfectly welcoming to Islam”.

    Manent delivered these words to the French monthly, Causeur. He cited, as an example, Turkey:

    “It was very clear that not only was its massively Islamic character (even before Erdogan) not an obstacle but a sort of motive, a reason to bring the Turkey into the EU. It would finally have been the definitive proof that Europe had detached itself and freed itself from its Christian dependence”.

    Europe’s southern border is now the front line for this mass-migration; Italy risks becoming that refugee camp. In the last few months, Italy has faced a succession of boats from Africa, challenging its policy: first the Sea Watch 3, then the Open Arms and finally the Ocean Viking. Until just before Italy’s March 2018 elections, migrants were crossing the Mediterranean at the rate of 200,000 a year.

    Since European security ministers failed to agree on the Mediterranean refugee crisis, Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, willing to stand virtually alone, chose to close Italian ports. Although Italian court tried to charge him with “kidnapping” migrants, Salvini’s policy worked and landings plummeted. In the first two months of 2019, 262 seaborne migrants reached Italy, compared to 5,200 in the same period last year, and more than 13,000 in the same period of 2017.

    The Italian government collapsed on August 20; there is now the great possibility that a new pro-immigration leftist coalition will take its place. A ship attempting to bring to Italy 356 migrants from Africa, more than all who came in the first two months, has been stranded at sea since it picked up the migrants between August 9-12, while awaiting permission to land. In one standoff after another, NGOs have been attempting to break Salvini’s barricade against illegal immigration.

    One ship already did. One of the captains of the Sea Watch 3, a German citizen, Pia Klemp, was even honored by the city of Paris for breaking the Italian blockade. According to the other German captain, Carola Rackete: “My life was easy… I am white, German, born in a rich country and with the right passport” — as if her determination to help migrants would be, in her own words, related to the comparatively privileged life she has lived in the West.

    It is a false Marxist notion among young people in Europe that if you are successful or comfortable, it can only have been at the expense of humanity: “If I win, somebody else must lose.” There seems to be no concept at all of “win-win” — “If I win, all of you can win too: everyone can win!” — that underpins a free-market economy and has lifted so much of the world so spectacularly out of poverty. Many of the young people see only barriers to be broken down. Pascal Bruckner called it, the “tyranny of guilt“.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Unfortunately, the price for cultural relativism has become painfully visible in Europe. The disintegration of Western nation-states is now a real possibility. Multiculturalism — built on a background of demographic decline, massive de-Christianization and cultural self-repudiation — is nothing more than a transitional phase that risks leading to the fragmentation of the West. Among the reasons for that, the historian David Engels listed “mass-migration, the aging of the population, Islamization and the dissolution of nation states”.

    Mass-migration has already undermined the unity and solidarity of Western societies and — combined with demonizing Israel in the hope of obtaining inexpensive oil and preventing terrorism — has destabilized the post-1945 political consensus.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy of open doors — “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do it”) — led to a right-wing party in her parliament. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now leading the polls in regional elections in the former East Germany. The French Socialist Party, which governed the country under President François Hollande, is now disappearing. The diktats of Brussels on immigration and quotas have broken the unity of Europe and resulted in the virtual “secession” of the Visegrad countries (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia). The migration utopia in Sweden brought a populist right-wing party into parliament, and the arrival of half a million illegal immigrants pushed the once-marginal League of Matteo Salvini to the top of Italy’s political establishment.

    This list does not even include Brexit, the British vote to leave the EU. According to German journalist Jochen Bittner, writing in The New York Times last year:

    “In late 2015, the Leave campaign started putting up placards which showed the exodus of refugees from Syria and other countries through the Balkans, and adorned them with slogans like ‘Breaking Point’ and ‘Take Back Control’. With Ms. Merkel declaring an open-door policy, the message hit home for millions of worried Britons and Europeans. Not coincidentally, it was around this time that support for Brexit began to tick up”.

    Instead of crying at “populism” and “nationalism” all the time, might Europe rethink its decision?

    Currently, the Europe that promised to avoid building more walls after 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, is raising one after another one to defend itself from an unprecedented situation. There is the 15-meter Spanish barrier in Ceuta and Melilla; the Hungarian wall of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán; one at Calais in France; an Austrian fence planned at its border with Italy, a fence Slovenia wants to build at its border with Croatia and North Macedonia’s fence for its border with Greece.

    Whether one likes it or not, Europe seems to be feeling an existential cultural threat from these great migratory flows. There is not only the pressure of illegal immigration; there is also pressure from legal immigration. More than 100,000 people applied for asylum in France in 2017, a “historic” number, and more than 123,000 applications in 2018. In Germany, there were 200,000 requests for asylum in 2018.

    This mass immigration is changing Europe’s internal composition. In Antwerp, the second-largest city in Belgium and the capital of Flanders, half the children in elementary schools are Muslim. In the Brussels region, you can get some idea of the change by studying the attendance of religion classes in primary and secondary schools: 15.6% attend Catholic classes, 4.3% Protestant and Orthodox classes, 0.2% attend Judaism classes, and 51.4% attend Islamic religion classes (12.8% attend secular “ethics” classes). Is it clearer now what will happen in the capital of the European Union? We should not be surprised that immigration tops the list of worries of the Belgian population.

    Marseille, the second-largest city in France, is already 25% Muslim. Rotterdam, the second-largest city in the Netherlands, is 20% Muslim. Birmingham, the second-largest city in Britain, is 27% Muslim. It is estimated that in one generation, a third of the citizens of Vienna will be Muslim. “Sweden is in a situation that no modern country in the West has ever found itself in”, observedChristopher Caldwell. According to the Pew Research Center, Sweden might well be 30% Muslim by 2050; and 21% Muslim in the unlikely event that the flow of immigrants stops altogether. Today, 30% percent of Sweden’s babies have foreign-born mothers. The city of Leicester in the UK is presently 20% Muslim. In Luton, out of 200,000 inhabitants, 50,000 are Muslim. Most of the population growth in France between 2011 and 2016 was driven by the country’s large urban areas. At the top are Lyon, Toulouse, Bordeaux and the Paris area, according to a studypublished by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies. In Lyon, there are about 150,000 Muslims out of a population of 400,000. According to one article, 18% of the newborns in France carry a name that is Muslim. During the 1960s, the number was 1%.

    In the most extreme scenario, the percentages of Muslims in Europe in 2050 are estimated to be: France (18%), UK (17.2%), Netherlands (15.2%), Belgium (18.2%), Italy (14.1%), Germany (19.7%), Austria (19.9%), Norway (17%). 2050 is just over the horizon. What, then, is to be expected in two or three generations, when the late historian Bernard Lewis said that Europe would, “at the very latest“, be Islamic ?

    Unfortunately, the European mindset refuses to face the reality, as if the challenge is too severe to be addressed. “The unstoppable progression of this system makes me think of a tea on board the Titanic”, prominent French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut writes.

    “It is not by turning a blind eye to tragedy that it will be prevented from happening. What will be the face of France in fifty years? What will the cities of Mulhouse, Roubaix, Nantes, Angers, Toulouse, Tarascon, Marseille and the whole Seine Saint-Denis department look like?”

    If the population changes, the culture follows. As the author Éric Zemmour points out, “after a certain number, quantity becomes quality”.

    While the power of European Christianity seems to be falling off a demographic and cultural cliff, Islam is making giant strides. It is not just a question of immigration and birth rates; it is also one of influence. “In September 2002 I participated in a meeting of the cultural centers of the leading European Union member states in Brussels”, the German-Syrian intellectual Bassam Tibi, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the University of Göttingen, wrote.

    “The conference took place under the theme ‘Penser l’Europe’ [‘Thinking of Europe’] while being given the title ‘Islam en Europe’. There, I was disturbed to hear Tariq Ramadan speaking of Europe as dar al-Shahada, i.e. house of Islamic belief. The attending audience was alarmed, but did not get the message of the perception of Europe in an Islamist mindset as a part of house of Islam. If Europe is no longer perceived as dar al-Harb/house of war, but viewed as part of the peaceful house of Islam, then this is not a sign of moderation, as some wrongly assume: it is the mindset of an Islamization of Europe…”

    The good news is that nothing is set in stone. Europeans could still decide for themselves how many immigrants their societies need. They could put in place a solution that is coherent rather than chaotic. They could still rediscover their humanistic heritage. They could resume having children and they could launch a real program of integration for the immigrants already in Europe. But none of these steps, necessary to avoid the transformation of large parts of the continent and its falling apart, is taking place.

    It is important to listen to Pierre Manent’s prognosis and to reject the current fashion of self-abasement. Europe seems to be afflicted with a skepticism about the future, as if the decline of the West is actually a justified punishment and a liberation from its faults of the past. Yes, many faults may have been terrible, but are they truly so much worse than the faults of many other countries, such as Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, Mauritania, Cuba, Nigeria, Venezuela or Sudan, to name just a few? More important is that at least the West, as opposed to many other places, has tried to correct its faults. Most important is to avoid over-correcting and ending up in a situation worse than before.

    “For me, today,” notes Finkielkraut, “the most essential thing is European civilization”.

  • Falling From Grace: The Decline Of The US Empire

    Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Years ago, Doug Casey mentioned in a correspondence to me, “Empires fall from grace with alarming speed.”

    Every now and then, you receive a comment that, although it may have been stated casually, has a lasting effect, as it offers uncommon insight. For me, this was one of those and it’s one that I’ve kept handy at my desk since that time, as a reminder.

    I’m from a British family, one that left the UK just as the British Empire was about to begin its decline. They expatriated to the “New World” to seek promise for the future.

    As I’ve spent most of my life centred in a British colony – the Cayman Islands – I’ve had the opportunity to observe many British contract professionals who left the UK seeking advancement, which they almost invariably find in Cayman. Curiously, though, most returned to the UK after a contract or two, in the belief that the UK would bounce back from its decline, and they wanted to be on board when Britain “came back.”

    This, of course, never happened. The US replaced the UK as the world’s foremost empire, and although the UK has had its ups and downs over the ensuing decades, it hasn’t returned to its former glory.

    And it never will.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If we observe the empires of the world that have existed over the millennia, we see a consistent history of collapse without renewal. Whether we’re looking at the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Empire, or any other that’s existed at one time, history is remarkably consistent: The decline and fall of any empire never reverses itself; nor does the empire return, once it’s fallen.

    But of what importance is this to us today?

    Well, today, the US is the world’s undisputed leading empire and most Americans would agree that, whilst it’s going through a bad patch, it will bounce back and might even be better than ever.

    Not so, I’m afraid. All empires follow the same cycle. They begin with a population that has a strong work ethic and is self-reliant. Those people organize to form a nation of great strength, based upon high productivity.

    This leads to expansion, generally based upon world trade. At some point, this gives rise to leaders who seek, not to work in partnership with other nations, but to dominate them, and of course, this is when a great nation becomes an empire. The US began this stage under the flamboyant and aggressive Teddy Roosevelt.

    The twentieth century was the American century and the US went from victory to victory, expanding its power.

    But the decline began in the 1960s, when the US started to pursue unwinnable wars, began the destruction of its currency and began to expand its government into an all-powerful body.

    Still, this process tends to be protracted and the overall decline often takes decades.

    So, how does that square with the quote, “Empires fall from grace with alarming speed”?

    Well, the preparation for the fall can often be seen for a generation or more, but the actual fall tends to occur quite rapidly.

    What happens is very similar to what happens with a schoolyard bully.

    The bully has a slow rise, based upon his strength and aggressive tendency. After a number of successful fights, he becomes first revered, then feared. He then takes on several toadies who lack his abilities but want some of the spoils, so they do his bidding, acting in a threatening manner to other schoolboys.

    The bully then becomes hated. No one tells him so, but the other kids secretly dream of his defeat, hopefully in a shameful manner.

    Then, at some point, some boy who has a measure of strength and the requisite determination has had enough and takes on the bully.

    If he defeats him, a curious thing happens. The toadies suddenly realise that the jig is up and they head for the hills, knowing that their source of power is gone.

    Also, once the defeated bully is down, all the anger, fear and hatred that his schoolmates felt for him come out, and they take great pleasure in his defeat.

    And this, in a nutshell, is what happens with empires.

    A nation that comes to the rescue in times of genuine need (such as the two World Wars) is revered. But once that nation morphs into a bully that uses any excuse to invade countries such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria, its allies may continue to bow to it but secretly fear it and wish that it could be taken down a peg.

    When the empire then starts looking around for other nations to bully, such as Iran and Venezuela, its allies again say nothing but react with fear when they see the John Boltons and Mike Pompeos beating the war drums and making reckless comments.

    At present, the US is focusing primarily on economic warfare, but if this fails to get the world to bend to its dominance, the US has repeatedly warned, regarding possible military aggression, that “no option is off the table.”

    The US has reached the classic stage when it has become a reckless bully, and its support structure of allies has begun to de-couple as a result.

    At the same time that allies begin to pull back and make other plans for their future, those citizens within the empire who tend to be the creators of prosperity also begin to seek greener pastures.

    History has seen this happen countless times. The “brain drain” occurs, in which the best and most productive begin to look elsewhere for their future. Just as the most productive Europeans crossed the Pond to colonise the US when it was a new, promising country, their present-day counterparts have begun moving offshore.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The US is presently in a state of suspended animation. It still appears to be a major force, but its buttresses are quietly disappearing. At some point in the near future, it’s likely that the US government will overplay its hand and aggress against a foe that either is stronger or has alliances that, collectively, make it stronger.

    The US will be entering into warfare at a time when it’s broke, and this will become apparent suddenly and dramatically. The final decline will occur with alarming speed.

    When this happens, the majority of Americans will hope in vain for a reverse of events. They’ll be inclined to hope that, if they collectively say, “Whoops, we goofed,” the world will be forgiving, returning them to their former glory.

    But historically, this never occurs. Empires fall with alarming speed, because the support systems that made them possible have decamped and have become reinvigorated elsewhere.

    Rather than mourn the loss of empire that’s on the horizon, we’d be better served if we focus instead on those parts of the world that are likely to benefit from this inevitability.

    Socialist ideas are becoming increasingly popular in the US. At the same time the US government is printing money hand over fist. All while the US empire continues to overstretch itself across the world.

    It’s all shaping up to be a world-class disaster… one unlike anything we’ve seen before.

    That’s exactly why New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video showing how it all could go down. Click here to watch it now.

  • UN Budget: Who Has (And Has Not) Paid Their Dues?

    All permanent UN members have made their full regular payments to the intergovernmental body, except the United States. The on-time payment period ends at the end of February, and by that point this year only 17 percent of countries had paid their dues in full. But, as Statista’s Sarah Feldman notes, six months later 64 percent of the budget has been paid, meaning that over half of nations still have not paid their dues.

    Infographic: UN Budget: Who Has Paid Their Dues? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    President Trump has routinely complained about the alleged skewed payment of United Nations dues system, where the U.S. pays 22 percent of the overall regular budget.

    All member states are legally required to make payments to both the regular budget and the peacekeeping budget, two separate budgets with two different payment calculations. The UN considers gross national income, population, and debt burden when coming up with its operational budget.

    Earlier this year, the UN announced cutbacks to the human rights division. The cutbacks are the result of delayed member state payments and the long-term payments nations owe, of which the U.S. owes a hefty portion. As a result, the international body is cutting back on human rights committees, which are designed to oversee adherence to treaties that uphold international laws relating to children’s rights, combat civil and political repression, discrimination against women, torture, and racial discrimination. The human rights office is one of the three pillars of the United Nations, but it receives less than 4 percent of the organization’s budget.

  • In Search Of A Russiagate Scalp: The Entrapment Of Maria Butina

    Authored by John Kiriakou via ConsortiumNews.com,

    In need of a “collusion” connection, top FBI officials have now been shown to be behind the false portrayal of an unregistered lobbyist as a spy…

    Much has been written about Maria Butina, the Russian “spy” who was accused of seeking to infiltrate the National Rifle Association and other organizations to try to gain a foothold in the Trump campaign and, later, in the White House. Much of it turned out to be nonsense. Butina wasn’t a spy. She wasn’t charged with spying. She wasn’t accused of being a spy. But that’s how the media branded her. The important thing is that there actually were spies around her. And they weren’t who you might have thought.

    In the Butina case, the FBI and the Justice Department needed a scalp in the midst of the frenzy about the ultimaely unproven collusion theory of “Russiagate,” and so Butina was charged and convicted of “conspiracy to fail to register as an agent of a foreign government.”

    Seriously. Let me explain what that means. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was passed into law in 1938.

    It “requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts, and disbursements in support of those activities.”

    The law, the registration, and the database are meant to keep track of foreign lobbyists. Nothing more.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Butina: Unregistered agent falsely portrayed as a spy.

    In realistic terms it means this: In 2008, I was hired by the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce to write a series of op-eds in support of doing business in the city. I wrote four op-eds and they paid me a fee. But I had to go to the Justice Department’s FARA website and register as a “foreign agent,” meaning that I was being paid by a foreign government. No problem. It didn’t mean that I was a “secret agent” for Abu Dhabi. It just meant that I was temporarily in the employ of a foreign government.

    Washington attorneys and lobbyists do this kind of thing every day. And more often than not, they don’t register, either because they are too busy, they don’t realize that they have to, or they don’t believe, as in the current case ofWashington super lawyer Greg Craig,that they have to. They are very rarely prosecuted.

    Anybody can go to the FARA website and do a records search. I did one for the purpose of this article to search for people I know—attorneys, friends, acquaintances—and found many of them taking money from the governments of Libya, Chad, Jordan, Saudi Arabia (lots of them), Greece and other countries. It’s no big deal. It’s just a paperwork exercise.

    In the case of Maria Butina, though, the paperwork was the hook to arrest her and to use her failure to register under FARA as leverage to get her to testify about her “work.” The problem, at least for the FBI, was that she wasn’t a spy. As things turned out, she really was just an overly-aggressive Russian grad student at American University who really, really loved guns and was trying to ingratiate herself with the NRA. But the Justice Department came down on her like a ton of bricks, forced her into taking a plea, and sentenced HER to 18 months in a federal prison: for conspiring to fail to fill out a form. The federalsentencing guidelines for a first-time offender violating this law is 0-6 months in a minimum-security work camp and a fine of up to $5,000. That, apparently, was never an option for Butina.

    Forgive me if this is burying the lede, but I also want to talk about how Maria Butina got into this predicament in the first place. We know that she was very active in the gun rights movement in both Russia and the U.S. and that she sought to improve contact between gun groups in both countries. We also know that she met and began dating Patrick Byrne, the founder and CEO of Overstock.com. We learned recently, thanks to Byrne himself, that he was a longtime FBI source and that the FBI directed him to begin dating Butina. He did so. And he reported back to the FBI that she was simply a graduate student. That wasn’t good enough for the FBI, though and, according to Byrne, he was instructed to go back to Butina, to begin a sexual relationship with her, and to again report back to the FBI. He did that, too.

    In the end, the Justice Department accused her publicly of “trading sexual favors” for access, an accusation that prosecutors had to withdraw. It was patently untrue. But that didn’t stop them from accusing her in the press of being a Russian spy, which she was not. And it didn’t stop the judge from giving her three times the maximum sentence called for by the sentencing guidelines.

    I will ask your forgiveness again if I sound like a broken record. But this is how the FBI makes their cases. They entrap people. I’ve written extensively about how the FBI brazenly carried out a sting operation against me (unsuccessfully) that could have resulted in an espionage conviction and as much as 30 years in prison. They did the same thing to Butina.

    Butina wasn’t committing a crime, so they just made something up, leaked it to the press, allowed it to influence the public and the judge, and hoped she would cave and take a plea. She did. Byrne went on CNN last week to say that two of the three people who instructed him to do all of this were James Comey, Peter Strzok, and another as-yet-unnamed individual. The operation was hatched at the top. The whole story sickens me.

    With the deck stacked the way it was, there was probably nothing that Butina or her attorneys could have done to save her. The fix was in. I wish I had been able to convey to her something that one of my attorneys said to me on the day that I finally took a plea to a greatly reduced charge in 2012:

    “Do you know what your problem is? Your problem is that you think this is about justice. It’s not about justice. It’s about mitigating damage.”

    Nice system we have.

  • Criminals Are Now Sexually Assaulting People By Hacking Their Internet-Enabled Dildos And Butt Plugs

    In the Bluetooth and internet-enabled age, sexual assault can now happen from anywhere, at any time. That is, of course, assuming you walk around with an internet-enabled dildo shoved up your ass 24 hours a day.

    This phenomenon was recently covered, at length, in a Daily Star article where the subheading is actually, “Security expert showed how easy it is to hack a butt-plug”.

    Internet-enabled vibrators and sex toys are meant for couples that seek to “spice up their love lives” using what is being called a “new generation of teledildonic devices”. We swear, we are not making this up.

    Yes, gone are the pesky days of actually having to reach out and touch your partner to stimulate them. In this day and age, who has time for such an archaic act, when fulfilling your relationship sexual duties is now as easy as hitting the Staples “That Was Easy” button?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Or Jim Cramer’s “BUY BUY BUY” button…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But with the good comes the bad, and the main problem is that some of the sex toys, including some that feature cameras, can be easily hacked, turning your private sexual encounters into an unwanted “gangbang” of sorts.

    Believe it or not, the idea of sex toys over the Internet isn’t a new one, either. It was first floated back in 1998, when it was patented by Warren J. Sandvick, Jim W. Hughes, and David Alan Atkinson. And back in 1993, David Rothchild predicted the basic idea in an essay. The word “teledildonics” was actually born in 1975.

    The diagram below shows the original patent for such a device.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
    When the 1998 patent expired in August 2018, the “teledildonics gold rush” took off. But, like with any new burgeoning technological device, they are susceptible to hackers.

    In fact, Italian infosec researcher Giovanni Mellini demonstrated (hopefully not on himself) in 2017 how a Bluetooth enabled butt plug could easily be taken over by hackers and allow unauthorized access.

    The devices use Bluetooth to allow sexual partners to control each other’s pleasure remotely. Mellini showed how a hacker could easily gain access to a device and commit a wireless sexual assault. Yes, imagine standing in line to order your Pumpkin Spice Latte at Starbucks when the ole’ butt plug accidentally kicks in…

    Trend Micro also demonstrated how criminals could hack into a web connected vibrator at the CeBIT technology fair in Germany.

    Raimund Genes, chief technology officer at Trend Micro said:

     “If I hack a vibrator it’s just fun. But if I can get to the back-end, I can blackmail the manufacturer.”

    The fact that some of these devices have cameras attached to them makes the security threat all the more worrisome.  

    Sex toy maker Lovense, who manufactures the compromised butt plug, said: “There are three layers of security. The server side, the way we transfer information from the user’s phone to our server and on the client side. We take our customer’s private data very seriously, which is why we don’t serve any on our servers.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Shanlon Wu, a US lawyer who specializes in sex crimes says that unauthorized access to a sex toy is rape: “The typical definition of a felony-type sexual abuse is an unconsented-to penetration, whether that penetration is with a body part or with an object.”

    He continued: “If I’m entering a boxing match … I’m consenting, obviously, to the contest with my opponent. If he hits me, I can’t be yelling, ‘Oh, he assaulted me, he punched me!’ because we’re consenting to punching each other. But if his corner man, his manager, comes out and clocks me in the head during the match, they can’t argue, ‘You consented to a boxing match, so anybody gets to beat up on you.’” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Secret Barrister, an anonymous legal expert whose book Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken lifts the lid on how the legal profession really works agreed: 

    “My instinct is yes, it would be an offense. Consent would potentially be vitiated as the nature and quality of the act consented to (automated sexual activity) would have been replaced with an act not consented to (human-operated sexual activity). It is arguably on similar lines to cases where deception as to an offender’s gender has the effect of rendering otherwise consensual activity non-consensual.”

  • Moscow Fuels Arctic LNG Race With Billions Of Dollars

    Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

    Novatek, Russia’s largest private natural gas company, will receive a tax deduction of about US$600 million (40 billion rubles) from the regional budget of Yamal-Nenets and US$1.5 billion (100 billion rubles) from the federal budget to build an LNG export terminal in the autonomous region in northwestern Siberia, Russian daily RBC reported this week.

    The information, which was confirmed by Novatek, is the latest indication that Moscow is doubling down on liquefied natural gas at a time of growing demand for the commodity that will inevitably displace a portion of demand for one of Russia’s top export commodities, oil.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Novatek, which last year overtook Gazprom in market capitalization, operates the Yamal LNG plant, which has a nameplate capacity of 17.4 million tons annually, and is building the Arctic LNG plant, which will add another 19.8 million tons when completed. Eventually, Novatek plans to operate total annual liquefaction capacity of 60 million tons.

    The Russia company is not going it alone. Its partners in Arctic LNG 2 include Total, CNPC, Japan Arctic LNG, and CNOOC. There were many reports that Saudi Aramco would buy into the project, but with 60 percent for Novatek and 10 percent for each of the minority partners, all the stakes have been divided– and Novatek has said it would not reduce its 60-percent holding in the project.

    Novatek is widely seen as the spearhead of Russia’s international LNG expansion. Gazprom also produces LNG but on a smaller scale than the private company, for the time being. Earlier this year, in an interview with Bloomberg, Novatek’s chief financial officer Mark Gyetvay said Russia could emerge as one of the top four global LNG producers over the next few years.

    Bloomberg estimates that from April this year, the U.S. and Qatar could both have installed capacity of 100 million tons annually by 2030, sharing the top spot, with Australia following with 95 million tons annually and Russia coming fourth with 75 million tons of LNG capacity.

    Estimates are an uncertain thing, however. Low gas prices, especially in the key Asian markets, have stalled a lot of private LNG projects, notably in the United States. This is where government support for Novatek becomes essential. With it, the company could stick to its plans and schedules and add production capacity before competitors who struggle with project delays and cost overruns. And there is another factor working for Novatek: climate change.

    As the weather warms, parts of the Arctic are melting, opening up the Northern Sea Route for longer periods than before. The route, which incidentally plays an important Part in China’s Belt and Silk Road initiative, cuts shipping times from Western Europe to China by as much as 15 days. This naturally has important implications for pricing and, consequently, competitiveness.

    It is no coincidence Chinese companies hold stakes in both of Novatek’s LNG facilities. In the Yamal LNG plant, these include CNPC with a 20-percent interest, and the state Silk Road Fund, with another 9.9 percent, bringing the total Chinese participation to almost 40 percent.

    China will emerge as the world’s largest LNG importer in the coming years and it is making sure to secure supply early on, led by purely economic considerations. This means other suppliers would need to find ways to make their LNG more competitive, at least while the gas glut lasts, pressuring prices and turning the market into a buyers’ market.

  • China's Lunar Rover Has Encountered Strange 'Goo' On Dark Side Of The Moon

    After several months hanging out on the dark side of the Moon, China’s Chang’e-4 lunar rover has really stepped in it according to NBC News

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The mission’s rover, Yutu-2, came across a “gel-like” substance on its 8th day – which caused scientists to put a full stop on its planned schedule and try to figure out what exactly the goo is. 

    On July 28, the Chang’e-4 team was preparing to power Yutu-2 down for its usual midday “nap” to protect the rover from high temperatures and radiation from the sun high in the sky. A team member checking images from the rover’s main camera spotted a small crater that seemed to contain material with a color and luster unlike that of the surrounding lunar surface.

     

    The drive team, excited by the discovery, called in their lunar scientists. Together, the teams decided to postpone Yutu-2’s plans to continue west and instead ordered the rover to check out the strange material. –NBC News

    To analyze the material, Chinese scientists used the Yutu-2’s Visible and Near-Infrared Spectrometer (VNIS), which can study materials based on they way light is scattered or reflected. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tracks made by Yutu-2 while navigating hazards during lunar day 8, which occurred during late July and early August 2019.China Lunar Exploration Project)

    The tight-lipped Chinese have only said that the substance is “gel-like” and an “unusual color.” 

    So what could it be? NBC News notes that outside researchers have suggested that the ‘goo’ could be “melt glass created from meteorites striking the surface of the moon.” 

    Lunar goo is far from the first time scientists have been surprised.

    Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt discovered orange-colored soil near the mission’s Taurus-Littrow landing site in 1972, prompting excitement from both Schmitt and his moonwalk colleague, Gene Cernan. Lunar geologists eventually concluded that the orange soil was created during an explosive volcanic eruption 3.64 billion years ago. –NBC News

    The Chang’e-4 mission left earth in early December, 2018, touching down on the moon on January 3. It had covered a total distance of 890 feet by the time they encountered the goo. 

     

  • Is China Backing Away From Xi's "Made In China, 2025" Plan?

    Authored by Eliot Chen via MacroPolo.org,

    “Made in China 2025” Unmade? Visualizing Beijing’s Response to US Pressure Through Media Analysis

    Key Findings

    1. The sudden purging of “Made in China 2025” coverage in Chinese official media was likely a direct response to the escalation of US-China trade tensions after March 2018.

    2. Media analysis of MIC2025 shows how the ebb and flow of coverage can be deliberate and calculated, particularly as Beijing responds to pressure and backlash from abroad.

    3. Official media is inherently a political tool, so the fact that Beijing proactively dialed back media coverage of its cherished MIC2025 may be considered a modest concession of sorts. But Beijing’s move appears to be more of a “concession in perception” rather than meaningfully weakening the policy.

    4. Continued references to MIC2025 in media coverage of China-European relations throughout 2018, as well as frequent usage of related catchphrases, suggest Beijing is still pursuing some version of the industrial policy as part of its foreign relations.

    5. More similar cases and data are needed to better determine how China manages its media when confronting external pressure and to offer some predictive utility of Chinese behavior in these instances.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Methodology in Brief

    Articles in Chinese and US media were sourced from People’s Daily, Xinhua, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, and The Hill, with dates ranging from the earliest mention of “Made in China 2025” to July 1, 2019. The total sample size is 2,975 (CN = 2,542; US = 433).

    On the US side, sentiment analysis was conducted on the contents of each article using the AFINN lexicon to pair each word with an integer score on a positive-negative scale of 5 to -5. Chinese articles were not subject to sentiment analysis because tools are still insufficient to properly and accurately conduct such analysis on Chinese language content.

    A full explanation of the methodology can be found here.

    Introduction

    When China launched its 21st century industrial policy under the banner of “Made in China 2025” (MIC2025) in May 2015, few in the United States were paying attention. While China specialists may have examined MIC2025’s contents and analyzed its significance, it took about three years before the plan became a focal point of US-China trade tensions.

    One factor that changed significantly in those three years was the intensity of US media coverage of MIC2025. The spotlight that was eventually placed on the plan got Washington’s attention: from think tanks and business groups to Congress and policymakers, MIC2025 quickly became short-hand for China’s “Sputnik moment” aimed at surpassing and then replacing US technological leadership.

    The timing also aligned with a shift in China strategy under the Trump administration, where MIC2025 became the embodiment of Beijing’s unfair competitive practices that included subsidizing state enterprises and crowding out foreign competitors.

    The outcome of the convergence of US mainstream media and policymakers’ intense focus on MIC2025 is now well known. MIC2025 became a central target of the US Trade Representative’s Section 301 report in March 2018 that effectively launched the trade war. On the Chinese side, shortly after the issuance of the report, all coverage of MIC2025 in domestic official media virtually disappeared.

    But when exactly did China kill all mentions of MIC2025? And why did Beijing take this action? Was it a response to US pressure?

    This case study seeks to offer some preliminary answers, in part by reconstructing the sequence of events that led to the eventual outcome on both the US and Chinese sides. Based on a first-of-its-kind dataset, this case captures both the blow-by-blow and the scale of US and Chinese media coverage of MIC2025 from 2014 to 2019. The data is complemented by sentiment analysis to determine whether the extent of negative or positive US media coverage may have also factored into Beijing’s response.

    Media analysis can be a useful approach that yields insights on how behaviors and perceptions could affect policy actions and responses. Existing literature has shown how media coverage, headlines, and public discourse can shape mutual perceptions and influence elite opinion. Elite opinion, in turn, tends to affect policy actions. For instance, research has shown that foreign affairs coverage in US media tends to mirrorthe current administration’s preferred policies.

    My analysis attempts to quantify and explore the correlation between American elite perceptions and whether they affected Chinese responses specific to MIC2025. The findings offer some inferences of this relationship, but additional case studies and data are needed before general conclusions or causal linkages can be established.

    Nonetheless, this approach can potentially be applied to other areas of policy interest in the future, particularly where media has a disproportionate impact on how particular issues are viewed and characterized.

    What Happened to MIC2025, and How Did It Happen?

    MIC2025 (中国制造2025) first cropped up in Chinese official media at the end of June 2014, and then steadily picked up in 1Q2015, expanding significantly after the plan’s formal launch in May of the same year. From 2015 to 2017, Xinhua and People’s Dailypublished over 1,400 articles referencing the plan, with the coverage peaking in 4Q2015. During that period, MIC2025 was referenced in more than four articles a day.

    By contrast, US media coverage of the plan was minimal over the same period. All told, the five media outlets from 2014 to 2017 published just 17 articles that mentioned MIC2025. When coverage finally shot up in 1Q2017 (up 50% compared to the previous quarter), negative news reports of the plan also began to emerge. The change in quantity and tone of coverage followed shortly after Berlin-based think tank MERICS published its 76-page report on MIC2025 in December 2016.

    One of the first major criticisms of the plan actually came from the European Chamber of Commerce, which cited the MERICS report. Senior Chinese officials then responded and publicly defended MIC2025 for the first time. This sequence underscores how American media outlets appear to be rather slow in recognizing the significance of Chinese policies, even a plan as expansive and exhaustively covered in Chinese media as MIC2025.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At this point, the US media’s attention intensified. Coverage of MIC2025 saw mostly continuous growth from 2017 to about the end of 2Q2018. That quarter marked peak MIC2025 coverage, likely directly related to the issuance of the Section 301 report that referenced the Chinese plan a full 116 times. For the first time in 2Q2018, US media coverage of MIC2025 surpassed that in the Chinese official media.

    Notably, the sentiment of the US media’s coverage began to tilt negative at this time as well. My data show an increasing amount of negative coverage referencing the plan emerged after the Section 301 report, suggesting that the tone of media’s coverage started to converge with the critical view of the Trump administration.

    However, net sentiment was still in positive territory in the aggregate, even after the release of the Section 301 report. While this may suggest that the tone of MIC2025 coverage had little effect on perceptions, it’s worth noting that negative sentiment articles spiked dramatically and suddenly from essentially zero. As a result of the low-base effect, policymakers that began paying attention to MIC2025 coverage around this period would likely feel bombarded with negative coverage of MIC2025 even if the aggregate is net positive (see Methodology for further explanation of sentiment analysis).

    For the rest of 2018, US media coverage of MIC2025 remained relatively consistent before petering out in 2Q2019. This could be due to the fact that for the previous three quarters, mentions of MIC2025 basically vanished from Chinese official media.

    Why Did Beijing Scrub MIC2025 from Official Media When It Did?

    Based on this data, MIC2025 coverage in the Chinese official media basically disappeared on May 17, 2018, more than a month before US newspapers began reporting on its suspension at the end of June 2018.

    The timing of this cutoff is noteworthy, because it followed a flurry of activity in US-China relations, including the release in March of the Section 301 report, the Trump administration’s April announcement of slapping tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods, and trade negotiations from May 2-4 that ended with no deal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s curious why Beijing chose to make the move of preventing all mention of MIC2025 in Chinese media. Although it’s impossible to know exactly what transpired during trade negotiations, this retreat from Beijing on the domestic front did not seem like one of the major demands from the US side. Washington instead wanted Beijing to halt subsidies to MIC2025 industries and to accept US restrictions of Chinese exports from MIC2025 industries.

    Although difficult to infer correlation, the week that MIC2025 coverage ceased in Chinese media was the same week the US President announced on Twitter that ZTE would get amnesty. Just two weeks earlier, China had pressed the US to relax its ban on the supply of American components to ZTE, which had been punished for violating US sanctions on Iran.

    A subsequent leak of an official directive in June 2018, picked up by China Digital Times, re-emphasized that the media should not report on MIC2025, confirming that China’s Central Propaganda Department had earlier issued a media gag order to not mention the plan. While the timing of the gag order may have been mere coincidence, it’s possible that Washington’s leniency on ZTE factored into Beijing’s response on MIC2025 at that time.

    What Coverage of MIC2025 Remained?

    Coverage of MIC2025 in Chinese media did indeed decline significantly after May 17, 2018. What little remained–about 40 articles over an entire year–were mostly stories about factories launched or new schools built to further MIC2025 goals. More than a quarter of these articles were editorials or op-eds, often condemning the US position in the trade war.

    At least one article, published in both Xinhua and People’s Daily, stands out because it incorporated MIC2025 as part of a historical account celebrating the 40th anniversary of Reform and Opening Up. The fact that MIC2025 is being directly linked to Reform and Opening Up suggests that Beijing continues to attach significance to the plan, if not in name then in substance and spirit.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of some note are the five out of the 40 articles that mention MIC2025 in the context of China-European relations. These articles date from mid-2018 to spring 2019, and include pieces about strengthening ties with Italy, cooperative dialogues with the EU, and a meeting between President Xi and French President Emmanuel Macron. The latter pieces were published in both Xinhua and People’s Daily with identical headlines and content, suggesting that the inclusion of MIC2025 was no accident but a deliberate move.

    Even though a major European business group was the first to criticize the plan, Beijing appears to believe that MIC2025 is not nearly as controversial or sensitive in China-EU relations. It’s possible Beijing believes that some EU countries would be more willing to work together on MIC2025.

    Is MIC2025 Really Dead or Just Replaced?

    The term MIC2025 may have been put on the “endangered terms” list but its spirit seems to live on under different guises. To determine whether the spirit of MIC2025 is still alive, I looked at relevant phrases often associated with MIC2025 to see whether there was any corresponding increase in their usage after May 2018. 

    Two terms that relate to MIC2025 are “indigenous innovation” (自主创新) and “core technology” (核心技术). These are not new—the former has been used officially since the Jiang Zemin era (1989-2002)—but analysts believe they have gained renewed significance under President Xi’s new development priorities and are closely associated with MIC2025.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The data show that after the official retirement of MIC2025 in mid-2018, mentions of “indigenous innovation” remained steady, while references to “core technology” actually saw an uptick on average. But 2Q2019 saw a spike in both terms, up 200% and 400% respectively since April, suggesting that these terms could again dominate discourse on industrial policy priorities, with or without MIC2025.

    In fact, even MIC2025 may be seeing a mini revival since May 2019, following the abrupt end of yet another round of US-China trade negotiations. References to MIC2025 have resurfaced in Chinese official media not only in spirited denunciations of the US trade war position but also in the type of regular domestic news that were common before May 2018.

    The Remaking of MIC2025?

    The sudden purging of virtually all coverage of MIC2025 in Chinese media was likely a direct response to escalating US-China trade tensions after March 2018. However, rather than conceding to US demands to significantly weaken the policy, Beijing’s move appeared to have been more of a “concession in perception.” That is, the term may no longer be discussed much, but the industrial policies around which MIC2025 is built have not disappeared, as evidenced by the continued referencing of “indigenous innovation” and “core technologies.”

    More broadly, media analysis of this particular policy shows how the ebb and flow of coverage can be deliberate and calculated, particularly as Beijing responds to pressure and backlash from abroad. This points to the possibility that media coverage is more than just a blunt instrument of propaganda—it is often used tactically for marketing policy priorities and to manage perceptions, both domestic and foreign. Since official media is inherently a political tool in China, the fact that Beijing proactively dialed back media coverage of its cherished MIC2025 can be considered a political concession.

    Whether this is sufficient to permanently shift the spotlight away from MIC2025 in trade negotiations is a question that needs further investigation. Moreover, to move beyond the preliminary insights contained in this analysis will require examining more cases of Chinese policies that are considered controversial in the West. 

    Some of these cases may include the Belt and Road Initiative or the notion of “self-reliance.” With more cases and data, a pattern may emerge in how China manages its media when confronting external pressure and may even offer some predictive utility for Chinese behavior in these instances.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 1st September 2019

  • New World Order In Meltdown

    Authored by Jon Hellevig via The Saker blog,

    Last week was full of portentous events. Only somebody who has not been awake for the last few years will fail to realize how these at first sight unconnected events are part of the same matrix. There was the ever louder talk in mainstream media about an approaching global recession, inverted yield curves and the negative yields, which tell us that the Western financial system is basically in coma and kept alive only by generous IV injections of central bank liquidity. By now it has dawned on people that the central bankers acting as central planners in a command economy and printing money (aka quantitative easing) to fuel asset bubbles are about to wipe off the last vestiges of what used to be a market economy.

    Then we saw Trump taking new twitter swipes at China in his on-and-off “great trade deal” and the stock markets moving like a roller coaster in reaction to each new twitter salvo. Also, we had both Trump and Macron sweet talking about getting Russia back and again renaming their club G8. Last Tuesday at a G7 presser in Biarritz, the Rothschild groomed Macron took it one step further opening up about the reasons why they all of a sudden longed for friendship with Russia: “We are living the end of Western hegemony.” In the same series, Britain’s new government under Boris Johnson was telling his colleagues in Biarritz that he is now decisively going for a no-deal Brexit, after which he went back to London and staged a coup d’état by suspending parliament to ensure no elected opposition interfered with it.

    Perhaps the weirdest news to crown it all, came from Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where the Western central bankers were holed up for their annual retreat. The president of Bank of England Mark Carney shocked everybody (at least those not present) by announcing that the US dollar was past its best-before and should be replaced with something the central bankers have up their sleeves.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The New World Order is in its death throes

    What these events have in common is that they amount to an admission that the globalist New World Order project in its present form is dead, or at least in its death throes. It has bumped its head against an impenetrable Sino-Russian wall of resistance. The heated totalitarian propaganda against Russia since 2001 (when the NWO realized that Putin wasn’t their man); regime change and color revolutions in neighboring countries; attempts at Maidan style coups in Moscow; and finally the sanctions since 2014 were key to the Anglo-Zionist empires strategy. They needed to take over either China or Russia to gain absolute world hegemony. Taking over either one, they would have checkmated the remaining one, and after that the entire world. They rightly deemed Russia as the weaker piece and went all out in that direction. The NWO wanted to take advantage of Russia’s weakness in form of its Western minded comprador class and a shell-shocked liberal intelligentsia (dominating media, culture and business, just like in Hong Kong, BTW), which is constitutional uncapable of thinking with their own brains to liberate themselves from Soviet era stereotypes (“Soviet Union/Russia bad, West good”).

    They then figured that economic and cultural sanctions (e.g. Olympic ban) coupled with doubling down on the propaganda would break the country. Luckily, the Russian narod, the common people saw through it all and would not play along with the enemy. At the same time, Russia paraded its resurrected military in Crimea and Syria as well as its formidable new hypersonic doomsday weapons. The military option to take over Russia was not in the cards any longer.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Russian economy from strength to strength

    Believing their own propaganda, they had got that totally wrong. Endlessly repeating their own self-serving talking points they must have truly fancied that Russia’s economy amounted to nothing else than export of fossil fuels, that “Russia’s economy is the size of Holland’s,” that “Russia does not produce anything,” and that Russia was “nothing but a gas station with nukes” (somehow managing to ignore the significance of the nukes part). I seriously believe, that the propaganda had become so complete that the Western leaders and the intelligence people actually had come to adapt their own propaganda as the truth. What is for sure, is that all Western media, including what should be the most respected business journals and all those think tanks, had not published one honest appraisal of the Russian economy in 15 years. Every single piece I read over the years had clearly been written with the aim to denigrate Russia’s achievements and economic development. Nowhere to be found were reports on how Putin by 2013 had totally overhauled the economy transforming Russia into the most self-sufficient diversified major country in the world with all the capabilities of the foremost industrial powers. In fact, I tend to think that even the US presidents from Bush to Obama were fed in their intelligence briefings cooked up fake reports about the Russian economy and the whole nation. Actually, I would go one step further. I bet that the CIA itself in the end believed the propaganda it had given birth to. (It has been said that at some point the genuine Russia analysts had all been dismissed or demoted and replaced with a team specializing in anti-Russian propaganda).

    But actually all the data was there in plain view. I myself took the trouble to compile a report on the real conditions of Russia’s economy fresh at the onset of the 2014 crisis. In the report, I set out to show that Russia indeed had modernized and diversified its economy; that it had a vibrant manufacturing industry in addition to its energy and minerals sector; and that its budget revenues and economy at large were not at all as dependent on oil and gas as it was claimed. Among other things, we pointed out that Russia’s industrial production had by then grown more than 50% (between 2000 and 2013) while having undergone a total modernization at the same time. In the same period, production of food had surged by 100% and exports had skyrocketed by almost 400%, outdoing all major Western countries. Even the growth of exports of other than oil and gas products had been 250%.

    The gist of the study may be summarized with this quote from it:

    “The crisis-torn economy battered by years of robber capitalism and anarchy of the 1990’s, which Putin inherited in 2000, has now reached sufficient maturity to justify a belief that Russia can make the industrial breakthrough that the President has announced.”

    Events have borne out this insight. And it is therefore that Russia won the sanctions battle.

    The report represented an appeal to the Western leaders to give up on their vain hope of destroying Russia through their sanctions and risking nuclear war at it. Russia was invincible even in this respect. For that purpose I expressly added this missive in the introduction to the report:

    We strongly believe that everyone benefits from knowing the true state of Russia’s economy, its real track record over the past decade, and its true potential. Having knowledge of the actual state of affairs is equally useful for the friends and foes of Russia, for investors, for the Russian population – and indeed for its government, which has not been very vocal in telling about the real progress. I think there is a great need for accurate data on Russia, especially among the leaders of its geopolitical foes. Correct data will help investors to make a profit. And correct data will help political leaders to maintain peace. Knowing that Russia is not the economic basket case that it is portrayed to be would help to stave off the foes from the collision course with Russia they have embarked on.”

    A follow-up report of June 2017 covering the sanctions years 2014 – 2016, showed how Russia went from strength to strength never mind the Western attempts at isolation. This report stressed that Russia’s economy had now become the most diversified in the world making Russia the most self-sufficient country on this earth.

    In this report we exposed the single biggest error of the propaganda driven Russia analysis. This was the ridiculous belief that Russia supposedly was totally dependent on oil and gas just because those commodities made up the bulk of the country’s exports. Confusing exports with the total economy, they had foolishly confused the share of oil and gas in total exports – which was and remains at the level of 60% – with the share of these commodities of the total economy. In 2013 the share of oil and gas of Russia’s GDP was 12% (today 10%). Had the “experts” cared to take a closer look they would have realized that on the other side of the equation Russia’s imports were by far the lowest (as a share of GDP) of all major countries. The difference here is that while Russia does not export a great deal of manufactured goods, it produces by far a bigger share of those for the domestic market than any other country in the whole world. Taking the 60% of exports to stand for the whole economy was how the “Russia produces nothing” meme was created.

    Finally in a November 2018 report, I could declare that Russia had won hands down the sanctions war having emerged from it as a quadruple superpower: industrial superpower, agricultural superpower, military superpower and geopolitical superpower.

    Macron et co. realizes that Russia actually is a superpower

    These facts have now finally dawned on certain key stakeholders of the globalist regime can be discerned from the fact that they have tasked their handpicked puppet president Macron to make up with Russia. Trump has got the same assignment, which is evident from the siren calls of the two leaders in Putin’s address. Both want to invite Putin to their future G7-8 get-togethers.

    As it was said, Macron went as far as unilaterally capitulating and declaring the decline of the West. He went on to spell out that the reason for this spectacular geopolitical about-face was the rise of the Beijing – Moscow (de facto) alliance that has caused a terminal shift on the world scene. Curiously, he also openly blamed the errors of the United States for the dire state of affairs pointing out that “not just the current administration” were to be blamed. No doubt, the foremost of these errors, Macron had in mind, was the alienation of Russia and pushing the country into the warm embrace of China. It is quite clear, that this is what they want to remedy, snatch the bear back from the dragon. Fortunately, that won’t happen. Good if there will be rapprochement and good if the West will try, but after all what Russia has learnt by now it will not sell out on China under any circumstances. I think Putin and the Russian powers that be have clearly opted for a multipolar world order. That is definitely not what Macron’s and Trump’s employers have in mind but let them try.

    Until Trump took office, the strategy of the US regime had been to pursue only Russia in its geopolitical ambitions, but by then it had dawned on them that Russia was invincible especially in the de facto alliance with China. In a sign of desperation, the empire then opened big time another front with China. Essentially going from bad to worse.

    The world order is being shaken like never before

    “The world order is being shaken like never before…”, that’s another quote from Macron. Obviously, it refers to the military and geopolitical strengths of the Sino-Russian alliance, but certainly also to the economic shifts as the West has lost – and will keep losing – its economic domination. This brings us back to Mark Carney of Bank of England and his unprecedented attack on the US dollar arguing that it was time to end its global reserve currency status. As one option Carney brought up that the major Western central banks would instead issue a digital cryptocurrency. That is to say, a NWO currency controlled by the central banks. That would effectively mean the replacement of the Federal Reserve cartel with a cartel of the Western central banks (the Fed obviously being a part of it). That’s yet one step further north from any kind of democratic control and a giant step towards world government.

    What could possibly have prompted such a radical US hegemony puncturing idea to be put forward? One reason obviously is that the Western economies really are in that extreme critical condition that more and more analysts caution about. (We shall look at the economic facts further down). There’s a very real possibility that we will be hit by a doomsday recession. What’s sure is that Carney’s bizarre speech could possibly not have occurred in a normal economic environment (any more than Macron’s admission that the Western hegemony is done with). According to Zerohedge, The Financial Times, the party organ of the globalist elite, admitted as much in its report on the Jackson Hole meeting. The central bankers “acknowledged they had reached a turning point in the way they viewed the global system. They cannot rely on the tools they used before the financial crisis to shape the economic environment, and the US can no longer be considered a predictable actor in economic or trade policy — even though there is no imminent replacement for the US dollar in sight.”

    There was an effective admission that the central bankers had run out of tricks to pull the economies out of the everything-bubble mess, not to mention the looming doomsday recession. According to FT, Carney went as far as flashing the war card saying: “past instances of very low rates have tended to coincide with high risk events such as wars, financial crises, and breaks in the monetary regime.” On the one hand this can be seen as an admission on how deeply tormented they are about the financial situation and what could happen when it comes crashing down. On the other hand, it can be seen as a sales pitch, “only we can fix it, trust us, give us a carte blanche.” Or more probably, both.

    Note from above Carney saying: “the US can no longer be considered a predictable actor in economic or trade policy.” Bank of England President here directly attacking President Trump.

    And just a couple of days later William Dudley an ex-president of New York Federal Reserve Bank (the most influential of the 12 federal reserve banks that comprise the Federal Reserve System) followed up on a direct attack on Trump. But as they say about spies, there are no ex-spies, and I would think the same applies for the global financial elite. And yes indeed, Dudley is a card carrying member of the Council of Foreign Relations. Dudley had penned an op-ed for Bloomberg titled “The Fed Shouldn’t Enable Donald Trump,” where he openly lobbies for the Fed to deliberately damage the economy in order to neutralize the policies (namely trade wars) of the sitting president and prevent his reelection chances by willfully ruining the economy.

    One thing is for sure, the elite is desperate and in serious disarray. Very probable that the elite is split, too. It seems as if there were two globalist factions competing with each other and wanting to follow vastly different strategies. One faction supports Trump and the other is against him. Possibly, one that wants to do things with force and another that wants to gain by stealth. That could be Pentagon and the military-industrial complex vs. the financial elite, who also owns the media. My argument does not hinge on the veracity of those division lines, but that some rupture exists among the elites must be taken for granted, otherwise Trump would have been ousted by now with all that pressure on him.

    To summarize this introduction.

    The Western world is in turmoil: the previous overwhelming geopolitical domination is gone and over with; military solutions against the main adversaries – China and Russia – are off the books; hybrid wars against them have failed; China and Russia are economically stronger than ever, too strong for the adversary; and to boot the domestic Western economies are in extraordinary bad shape, risking a depression of epic proportions.

    *  *  *

    Further down in this report, I will look at the one aspect of the question I am best equipped to handle, namely the economy. I will outline just in how bad shape the Western debt-fueled casino economies are. Having that as the background, I will then show how surprisingly strong the Russian economy is, at least in comparison with the Western gambling nations. Most importantly, Russia is virtually debtless, and that’s really the clue to survival in this extraordinary economic environment. In addition to the solid finances, Russia has other things going for it, too, as we will see below. I will not provide comparative data on China. One reason for that is, that China is not an economic risk. China does not have the debt problem that it is frequently touted in Western press to have. China, as the world’s number one export country, would of course take a hit in a serious global crisis, but that would not kill the economy. Although, China is the biggest exporter, there has been a shift from export-led growth towards domestic investment and consumption. The share of exports of goods and services in the country’s GDP was by 2018 down to 19.5%, half of the 2006 peak of 36%. On the contrary, the Chinese economy would stay vivid and therefore also help to sustain Russia’s exports.

    I may add as one more piece of background, that it is my firm belief that the approaching economic disaster has long been evident to the central bankers and the globalist elite decision makers. Most likely the game plan was to establish the absolute world hegemony – which they not long ago thought was within early reach – and then after that deal with the debts as they saw fit as democratic dissent would not matter a bit anymore by then. That’s why they felt confident in building up the asset bubbles to carry them over to the final solution. Reminds me about a story told about Moscow’s so-called Khrushchyovka tenement buildings. These are low-cost three- to five-storied houses built quickly and cheap during the Khrushchev era to address the dire housing shortages of the 1960s. According to the story, the planners knew they would serve only for a few decades, but that would not matter all that much because by that time there would be Communism and everything would be perfect anyway. No Communism materialized, but presently the Moscow government under Mayor Sobyanin has initiated a program to tear them all down and erect new buildings where flats with title will be given for free to house the 1.5 million present residents of those buildings slated for replacement. – Well, that’s sort of Communism, isn’t it? – This kind of wishful thinking must have kept the globalist elite going, too. Unfortunately for the dreamers, though, their plans hit a snag in form of Russia and China.

    Central bank fueled asset bubbles

    Russia is low in debt, but you can’t say the same about the US and other Western nations. And that debt really is what got the world in the present mess and brought it teetering on the brink of financial collapse. Since the late 80s, the US central bank, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan developed an addiction to cure any downward tick on Wall Street with easy credit, eventually requiring after every downturn ever bigger central bank liquidity injections to keep the stock indices on a growth curve. Greenspan was experimenting with a policy aimed at creating a “wealth effect” aka “trickle-down.” The idea being that Wall Street bankers and big corporations be stuffed with all the free money they can swallow for the purpose of keeping stock and bond prices high. The theoretical frame told that doing so something would eventually trickle down to the real economy, and everybody would live happily ever after. After stocks and bonds, Greenspan’s wealth effect policy was addressed to inflate home prices and all real estate with that. That was the road that eventually led to the 2008 subprime loan crisis, which took down Lehman Brothers and then all of Wall Street and the whole global economy.

    But Wall Street recovered soon, because Greenspan’s successor Ben Bernanke had set forth to blow up an even bigger asset bubble. And the Europeans followed suit. The Fed fueled the market frenzy with creating money out of thin air (aka quantitative easing) in favor of governments, banks and corporations to the tune of $3.5 trillion in the decade following the 2008 collapse.

    The European Central Bank has done the same for Europe in volumes more than 2.5 trillion euro to date. All the other Western central banks joined the gambling by flooding the markets with fiat money at same levels relatively speaking.

    But anyway this astronomic leverage and the humongous budget deficits of the Western countries didn’t get the real economy anywhere. They have blown up asset bubbles of phantasmagorical proportions with preciously little trickle-down. Since the pre-crash peak in October 2007, the broadest US stock index (Wilshire 5000) has gained 95% (on top of covering the nearly 60% crash from in between). In the same 12-year period industrial production (manufacturing, mining, energy, utilities) has grown only 5% combined over all those years. Deduct – the in itself lossmaking – shale oil and gas and there is barely no growth left in the 12 years. In fact, the US manufacturing sector was in June still 1.6% below the pre-crisis peak in December 2007. So we have a 5% gain in the most important part of the real economy vs. 95% in stock market gambling. The absurdity of the stock market growth is further evidenced by the gap between growth of real final sales and stock valuations since 2007 peak. Since then, the former has grown on an average 1.6% per year, while the stock market has delivered annualized growth at levels of 15%. Total industrial production share of the GDP in the US has sunk to 18%. (For comparison, the figure for Russia was 32% and growing.)

    Trickle-down, anyone?

    It would be false to claim there has not been any trickle-down at all. Millions of people have kept their jobs because of it. But at the same time they have had their real wages squeezed and the overwhelming majority have seen their standards of living drop. Only massive loads of consumer credits and ultra-cheap mortgages have kept up an illusion of superficial prosperity among the middle classes. This debt-fueled prosperity and it’s cursory result, the artificial real estate asset bubble will prove a wolf in sheep’s clothing when the everything-bubble bursts.

    There’s been another form of trickle-down, too, a much more real and actually beneficial one. By creating the debt-fueled illusion of prosperity, the Western central banks have actually subsidized China, Russia and all of the emerging world as they have flushed their export goods on the global markets where the Western nations have picked it all up on borrowed money. Thanks for that, though. At the same time, that has driven production costs up in the West with the consequence that their own industries have been priced out.

    The humongous borrowings fail to produce GDP growth

    Every year since the last bout of the crisis in 2008, growth of debt in the national economies of each Western country has far exceeded the growth of economic output measured as GDP. Below chart shows just how bad it has been in the US.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The debt and GDP growth curves started to diverge in the late 70s, but from 2000 debt has spiraled out of control delivering preciously little incremental GDP. Deduct the wasteful debt and wasteful spending and there would be no growth whatsoever.

    Not only has there been no real GDP growth but even the nominal growth has to a crucial extent been provided for by means of the enormous government borrowings. We see from below table that that in each year from 2008 to 2017 even the nominal GDP growth has been less than the growth of government debt, with 2015 and 2015 as the only exceptions when they were on par.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In the peak crisis years 2008 and 2009, debt growth was a staggering 5.7 and 6.3 times that of GDP growth.

    The debt game has been equally miserable all over the West, perhaps with the only exception of Germany, who has wisely refrained from participating, even when egged on by liberal economists calling Germany’s more prudent policy unfair to the gambling nations. Below chart shows how much more the Western governments have borrowed than produced economic growth. The chart covers years 2004 to 2013, but the trend has been the same ever since. GDP growth has been vastly less than the growth of the colossal debtberg.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Note Russia there as the shining exception.

    Below chart ranks countries according to their debt burden relative to GDP. And again you see how debtless Russia is compared with the squandering nations.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These charts concerned only government debt, when we add private debt to it, the picture is doubly worse. From the point of view of a national economy it really doesn’t matter in which form the excess debt expands, public or private. In fact, on an average in the West the situation with household debt is equally dire. Below chart tells you just how bad. And again note Russia as the one shining exception.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And it’s no better with corporations, which have throughout the last decade been enjoying mindboggling levels of central bank largesse in form of virtually unlimited interest-free financing. For example, compared to earnings, US bond issuers are about 50% more leveraged now than in 2007.

    Finally, there is the black hole containing trillions and trillions of bankers derivative risks. Deutsche Bank – which was recently placed in emergency care – alone is said to have 49 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives. These risks alone could take down the whole global financial system.

    First no real interest, then on to negative yields

    One of the many deadly side effects of the central bankers’ practice on gambling with the national economies is that they first eliminated real interest rates (pushed rates below inflation) and then doubled down on the destruction of sound economic principles by cooking up a system with negative yielding bonds (bonds which yield below zero). By now $30 trillion of the $60 trillion US bond market yield below inflation (no real interest) and nearly $17 trillion worth of bonds are in negative yield territory. That’s mostly made up by sovereign debt of Japan and European governments (12 at the moment) but recently the mass of negative yielding corporate bonds has also doubled to $1.2 trillion. Half of the $5 trillion worth of European government bonds sport a negative yield as well as 20% of European investment grade corporate bonds.

    Inflation risk

    Normally, this kind of excess liquidity artificially put on the market (aka money printing) would have led to high inflation if not hyperinflation. Several factors have helped to keep prices in check. First, it needs to be pointed out, though, that inflation is actually a lot higher than what the government reports. This has been pretty convincingly proven in the case of the United States. Official statistics may not see it, but people sure feel it.

    Secondly, the asset price bubbles in real estate and financial markets in fact represent inflation, it’s just not officially recorded as such. As it is only the 10% (and increasingly, the 1%) who get the money, they spend it on the stuff that counts for them, stocks and real estate. Keeping their loot offshore also helps to dampen inflation at home. The squeeze on the middle classes and stagnating wages, is sadly an important factor in keeping inflation down. Ordinary people just can’t afford to buy.

    One should also note, that resulting from the illusionary debt-fueled prosperity and its effect on keeping the local Western currencies artificially high, there has actually been an inflation in wages and production costs, but only in relative terms in comparison with the emerging world. This in turn has led to further offshoring of manufacturing jobs.

    A crucial factor, which in the crazy money printing environment has kept consumer goods from hyperinflating has been imports from the emerging Asia and especially China. Huge growth of the Chinese manufacturing industry coupled with massive influx of cheap labor from the rural countryside into the cities enabled China for a couple of decades to constantly increase its exports to the US and Europe and these countries to keep prices down. (Including by domestic industries having to lower prices in competition). With the Trump trade wars and dramatically increasing protectionism, this will change. And it could get very ugly.

    Finally, there is an important consideration that few if anyone seem to understand. That is the fact that the US and other Western countries have been able to print the stupendous amounts of money while keeping rates down and without the currency values crashing only because they enjoy local currency monopolies in their respective territories. The USD has of course been enjoying a global monopoly, but that is fast fading. All the other factors mentioned above (and several other ones), have enabled to prop up and prolong these currency monopolies, but there is a limit to everything. In the coming recession, I would expect some of the lesser currencies to lose their monopoly trust and that would shatter the position of the bigger currencies USD and Euro and force them to raise interest rates. I have earlier written more in detail about this in a report titled How the Dollar and Euro Monopolies Destroyed the Real Market Economy. https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/dollar-euro-monopolies-destroyed-market-economy/

    The below chart suggests that the Western countries are already on the way to lose their respective currency monopolies. The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) now have a combined GDP (measured in PPP, which is the only correct way to measure the relative size of national economies) larger than not only the G7 countries, but the US and Eurozone economies combined.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At its foundation in 1973, the G7 countries had a combined GDP PPP of 50% of the world economy, by today it is down to 30%. In the same time the nominal GDP share of world economy has crashed from 80% to 40%. The currency monopolies came with the economic superiority, it is therefore only natural that with the economic domination goes the currency domination, too. If we haven’t reached the tipping point yet, then that will happen within 5 to 10 years.

    In summary, everything else unchanged, the risk of inflation picking up with just a few percentage points could have the entire Western financial systems coming crashing down due to the pressure on interest rates growing. The Fed and the ECB are continuously speaking about their inflation targets and how they want to pump the markets with more liquidity to raise inflation. There could yet be a big surprise in store for them. Interest rates as such could also be the primary trigger (even without inflation first rising), as nations would have to protect their currencies and attract financing for their colossal debtbergs.

    Must add as a P.S. that the incipient flight to gold might well be one of the trigger events for those currencies to lose their monopolies. (Gold price is up 20% since May).

    Deleveraging will come

    These massive borrowings have delivered nothing of tangible value. Now, when the party is nearly over all there is left are the debt bubbles that have hit the roof. The real values of all the assets below bear no relation to the money that went into inflating the balloons. What’s left is economic hardship for 80% of the people, a crumbling infrastructure and simmering social tensions.

    The debt saturation point has been reached, therefore this time it will be different, the central bankers have lost their magic wand and won’t be able to renew the debt binge and extend it with one more decade. Instead, there will be a day of reckoning. Governments and corporations will have to put their act together and let the market weed out the failed entities. Those who cannot carry the debt, will have to shed it. There will be bloodbath with defaults, bankruptcies and massive unemployment. – Perhaps a revolution here and there. – There will be no choice, deleveraging must happen.

    Now, whether this system will come crashing down or just slowly die as it trundles downhill will not matter all that much. It will eventually die either way. Most people would prefer the slow motion option, but only with the crash would a cure come. Whatever, it has become increasingly difficult to stave off the crash and this time around, the financial markets would take the real economy down with them big time.

    The impressive figures on Russia

    The question then is, who would be left standing? Naturally, those who are less leveraged. Now, scroll back to have a new look at the above charts on government and household debt. Find the position of Russia there? That’s right. Russia is the country with – by far – the least debt, both public and private. Having after 2014 following sanctions been cut off from the Western debt orgy, even Russian corporations are shielded against a possible Western debt apocalypse.

    In a global recession, no country is safe, but Russia looks to have quite a lot going for it in terms of economic advantages. Russia’s national balance sheet is next to none with by far the lowest debt of all major countries. All economic actors, the government, corporations and households are economically solid and minimally leveraged. Not only is the government virtually debtless, but it has again replenished its spectacular forex and sovereign wealth fund reserves. On top of that comes a hefty budget surplus. – Yes, you heard that right, surplus. In a time when all Western countries are in a chronic fight against deficits, you rarely even hear the term budget surplus. And more, Russia runs the world’s third biggest trade surplus. Add to that the current account surplus, and there’s the hat trick in form of your classic triple surpluses. Russia has a lot more going for it, too, as we will see.

    Let’s look at Russia’s present financial health report.

    Thanks to import substitution (domestic production instead of imports to neutralize sanctions) Russia’s industrial production rose 2.6% year-on-year in June. (USA +1.1%, UK +0.8%, Japan -2.4%, Germany -5.9%). Above, we mentioned that US industrial production was up with as little as a cumulative 5% since 2008 to date. In the same period Russia’s industry grew 18% notwithstanding the hardships of sanctions and sharp drop in oil price. In fact, since 2014 when the sanctions were first imposed, Russia’s industry has grown 12%.

    Russia’s merchandise trade surplus for the first half of 2019 was $93 billion, ranking third in the world after China and Germany and before South Korea. Imports were down by 3%, the other side of the coin of growing domestic manufacturing. Even when exports also were slightly down, lower imports will keep the surplus on track to reach levels near $200 billion for the full year, just under last year’s record $212 billion.

    Q1 current account surplus clocked in at $33 billion, up 10% over the year.

    In this connection, it might be helpful to remind that Russia’s economy is nowhere near as dependent on fossil fuel extraction as it is habitually believed in the West. In fact, oil and gas only account for 10% of Russia’s GDP according to World Bank statistics. (In 2017, total natural resources share of GDP was 10.7%, but that includes minerals and forest, too).

    We also need to point out that Russia has an enormous strength by way of being the world’s most self-sufficient major country. Russia has the by far lowest level of imports relative to GDP of all countries, as evidenced by below table. It shows that Russia’s imports as a share of GDP was as low as 7.2%, while the corresponding level for Western European countries was between 30 to 40%. The extraordinary low levels of imports in a global comparison obviously signifies that Russia produces domestically a much higher share of all that it consumes (and invests), this in turn means that the economy is superbly diversified contrary to the claims of most so-called Russia experts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Despite initial scares, inflation has remained low even when the VAT rate was from the new year raised from 18% to 20%. The rolling 12-month inflation runs at 4.6% but with the declining trend the full year inflation is expected to hit the central bank’s target 4%.

    The job market continues strong with record low unemployment levels, while the job participation rate has not deteriorated (so no tricks here). The July reading of 4.6% translates to 3.4 million unemployed, which is low for a country with a population of 146 million. The strength of the labor market was underscored by an increase of real salaries by 3.5% by July. This while disposable income otherwise has remained subdued.

    Whereas the US is combating persistent budget deficits (latest reading, a deficit of 4.5% of GDP) – likewise the EU countries – Russia mustered a huge budget surplus equal to 3.4% of the GDP by July this year.

    Russia’s foreign exchange and gold reserves have also done a spectacular comeback reaching $520 billion.

    The Russia sovereign wealth fund surged in July to reach a value equal to 7.2% of GDP.

    Despite the wholesome macroeconomic environment and impressive figures, Russia’s GDP growth has been less than 1% so far this year (year-on-year 0.6% in Q1 and 0.9% in Q2). However, by the looks of it the fundamental economy seems to be growing and modernizing, while the drag on the growth comes from depressed household consumption. What’s more important, though, is that while Russia’s growth is hovering around the 1%, so is that of all of the Western world. (Accuse me of whataboutism if you will, but these things need to be put in perspective). Q2 growth in the Eurozone was 1.1%, with Germany even about to slide into recession. UK clocked in at 1.2% and Japan at 0.4%. (All figures, year-on-year). The US showed only 2% (revised down 28 August) even when fueled by a mountainous budget deficit set to reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year and despite all that easy money the Fed keeps pumping out. Only China remained firmly in growth territory with 6.2%.

    But, the real conundrum is, how can Russia produce the same GDP as all the Western countries with their seemingly limitless injections of give-away money? How is it possible that all those trillions and trillions that the Western central bankers have thrown on the economy do not produce any real incremental economic output?

    The big disadvantage Russia has compared with the Western countries is the exorbitant real interest rate that the central bank maintains. The steering rate is presently 7.25%, with inflation predicted to be 4%, that translates into a primary real interest of 3.25%. Compare that with the negative real interest – and even negative yields – of competitor countries. As, the Russian central bank has failed to create a real banking sector which would lend according to international standards to the country’s businesses, the ones that are lucky to get a loan at all would look to pay interest at the level of 15% of more (save the largest corporations). The Governor of the Russian Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina does not see this as a problem, though. She has said that instead she would pin her hopes on improving the countries investment climate (sic!). (She calls for improvement of corporate governance, development of human capital, and all kinds of nice things. That would sure do it.)

    Just this week, Putin called a high profile meeting with Nabiullina, the minister for economic development Maxim Oreshkin, and the finance minister Anton Sulanov, to express his deep concern with the sluggish GDP growth and stagnating income. No doubt, that the depressed income is not only a drag on the economy but on the president’s popularity. There is only one quick fix for it. The government and the CBR must ditch their overzealous austerity programs. It’s good that Russia is not over leveraged with debt, but certainly some debt would be in order to finance the infrastructure and other national strategic development programs instead of ripping it off people’s backs. Free the funds for raising pensions and public service salaries instead. And most importantly, Nabiullina must lower the rates and not run real interests in excess of 3% when the rest of the developed world is in negative territory. There is no other quick remedy for raising people’s income. That’s Putin’s choice. Hope somebody tells that to him.

    In conclusion, we are not saying that Russia would not be hurt by the coming recession, we merely express our confidence that Russia is among the world’s countries best placed to cope with it.

  • Walmart's Creepy Robots Are Here

    Walmart is unleashing their creepy robots throughout 350 stores this year – most of which will roam the aisles and look for items that are either out of stock or out of place, after which a human will be alerted to remedy the issue, according to Fast Company

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Another robot, the ‘Auto-C’ self-driving floor scrubber, will navigate the store to as it laughs in binary at the human job it just took. 

    “What we think is very valuable to us is we have a life-sized laboratory where hopefully millions of people will be seeing our robot,” said Sarjourn Skaff – CTO and cofounder of Bossa Nova, which makes the company’s new shelf scanners. “It’s a very valuable lab for researchers to experiment with human-robot interaction concepts. The scale allows you to get to the truth faster.”

    The rest of the article details how Skaff and team experimented with various ideas in order to make robot-human interactions more smooth – such as trying out ‘turn signals’ and brake lights. They found that trying to replicate traffic signals and other road-related customs were a total dud. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “We expected the turn signals to just work,” said Skaff. “It was a big surprise that actually the answer is no. People had a hard time transcribing an experience from the road to one that’s indoors.”

    However, it was an apt comparison to make in another way. The last time that humans had to readjust to having machines in their space was when the automobile infiltrated the roads at the turn of the century. And back when cars were first coexisting with humans, their designers hadn’t yet found a common interaction language. There were no turn signals or even brake lights. It’s a remarkable echo of what’s happening now with robots being introduced in public spaces.

    Dan Albert, a car historian and author of the new book Are We There Yet?, points out that well into the 1950s, people still put their hands out the window to signal which direction they planned to turn. Other cars were equipped with a little flag called a “trafficator” that popped out from the side of the vehicle to indicate left or right. Brake lights weren’t always what we’re familiar with today, either; even the use of red, yellow, and green in traffic lights wasn’t a foregone conclusion. “All those things are very random,” Albert says. “Every engineer thinks, I’ll do it this way.”

    Eventually, Bossa Nova settled on a ‘rotating ring of light’ – which Skaff says the company is still testing as an indication of direction.  

  • Dershowitz: The Dangerous Stalinism Of The "Woke" Hard-Left

    Authored by Alan Dershowitz via The Gatestone Institute,

    Civil liberties are in greater danger today from the intolerant hard-left than from the bigoted hard-right. This may seem counterintuitive: There has been far more violence — mass shootings in malls, synagogues and other soft targets — from extremists who identify more with the hard-right than with the hard-left. But the influence of the hard-left on our future leaders is far more pervasive, insidious and dangerous than the influence of the hard-right.

    People on the “woke” hard-left seem so self-righteous about their monopoly over Truth (with a capital T) that many of them see no reason to allow dissenting, politically incorrect, views to be expressed. Such incorrect views, they claim, make them feel “unsafe.” They can feel safe only if views they share are allowed to be expressed. Feeling unsafe is the new trigger word for demanding censorship.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A “woke” rally in Washington. We must always remember that it is not only the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. It is also the road to tyranny. Photo: Wikipedia.

    No university student has the right to be safe from uncomfortable ideas, only from physical threats, and any student who claims to be in physical fear of politically incorrect ideas does not belong at a university. The most extreme example of this distortion of the role of higher education took place at my own university when a distinguished dean of a Harvard residential college was fired from his deanship because some “woke” students claimed to feel unsafe in his presence because he was representing, as a defense lawyer, a man accused of rape.

    We often forget that the concept of “political correctness” originated in the Stalinist Soviet Union, where Truth — political, artistic, religious — was determined by the central committee of the Communist Party and any deviation was regarded as unacceptable. To be sure, there is a vast difference between how Stalin treated political incorrectness and how the “woke” generation treats it. Stalin murdered those who deviated from his Truth, while “wokers” generally shun and discredit, though there has been occasional violence from elements of the hard-left toward those who deviate from their Truth. But both produce a similar result: less dissent, less reliance on the marketplace of ideas and more self-censorship.

    For many “wokers,” freedom of speech is nothing more than a weapon of the privileged used to subjugate the unprivileged. It a bourgeois concept that emanates from an anachronistic white, male constitution that is irrelevant to the contemporary world. Free speech for me — the underprivileged — but not for thee — the privileged. That is what the “wokers” want. Affirmative action for speech!

    The other dangerous similarity between the Stalinists and the “wokers” is that both disdain due process for those they deem guilty of political incorrectness or other crimes and sins. They reject any presumption of innocence or requirement that the accuser bear the burden of proof. These bourgeois concepts are based on the recognition of human fallibility and uncertainty. For Stalinist and “wokers,” there is no uncertainty or fallibility. If they believe someone is guilty, he must be. Why do we need a cumbersome process for determining guilt? The identities of the accuser and accused are enough. Privileged white men are guilty perpetrators. Intersectional minorities are innocent victims. Who needs to know more? Any process, regardless of its fairness, favors the privileged over the unprivileged.

    When I was in college in the 1950s, it was the McCarthyite right that was censoring and denying due process. It was the liberal left that was defending free speech, dissent and due process. But for some on the left, this stance was self-serving, because it was people on the extreme left who were being denied these protections. Now that it is conservatives who are being censored and denied due process on campuses around the country, many on the left have remained silent. Civil liberties for me, but not for thee.

    That is why I make the controversial claim that today the “woke” hard-left is more dangerous to civil liberties than the right. To be sure there are hard right extremists who would use — and have used — violence to silence those with whom they disagree. They are indeed dangerous. But they have far less influence on our future leaders than their counterparts on the hard-left. They are not teaching our college age children and grandchildren. They are marginalized academically, politically and in the media. The opposite is true of hard-left Stalinists. Many have no idea who Stalin even was, but they are emulating his disdain for free speech and due process in the interests of achieving the unrealizable utopia they both sought. They also have in common the attitude that noble ends justify ignoble means.

    It is precisely because the ends sought by the “wokers” are often noble — racial and gender equality, a fairer distribution of wealth, protection of the environment, a women’s right to choose, gay marriage — that liberals find it harder to condemn them for their intolerance toward civil liberties. But we must always remember that it is not only the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. It is also the road to tyranny.

  • The Real "Helicopter Money": Since 2009, China Has Created $21 Trillion Of New Money, More Than Double The US

    Back in the days of the Fed’s QE, much of thinking analyst world (the non-thinking segment would merely accept everything that the Fed did without question, after all their livelihood depended on it), was focused on how massive, and shocking, the Fed’s direct intervention in capital markets had become. And while that was certainly true, what we showed back in November 2013 in “Chart Of The Day: How China’s Stunning $15 Trillion In New Liquidity Blew Bernanke’s QE Out Of The Water” is that whereas the Fed had injected some $2.5 trillion in liquidity in the US banking system, China had blown the US central bank out of the water, with no less than $15 trillion in increases to Chinese bank assets, all at the behest of a juggernaut of new credit creation – be it new yuan loans, shadow debt, corporate bonds, or any other form of debt that makes up China’s broad Total Social Financing aggregate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now, almost six years later, others are starting to figure out what we meant, and in an Op-Ed in the FT, Arthur Budaghyan, chief EM strategist at BCA Research writes about this all important topic of China’s “helicopter” money – which far more than the Fed, ECB and BOJ – has kept the world from sliding into a depression, and yet is blowing the world’s biggest asset bubble. 

    Budaghyan picks up where we left off, and notes that over the past decade, Chinese banks have been on a credit and money creation binge, and have created RMB144Tn ($21Tn) of new money since 2009, more than twice the amount of money supply created in the US, the eurozone and Japan combined over the same period. In total, China’s money supply stands at Rmb192tn, equivalent to $28 TRILLION. Why does this matter? Because Chine money’s supply is the size of broad money supply in the US and the eurozone put together, yet China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds that of the US.

    This, as the BCA analyst explains, is a major problem.

    Below we repost his latest FT Op-Ed, which explains why – as we said in the 2019 year ahead post  – we remain confident that the spark for the next global financial crisis will be in China.

    * * *

    China’s ‘helicopter money’ is blowing up a bubble, authored by Arthur Budaghyan is chief emerging market strategist at BCA Research, and first published in the FT.

    The escalation of the trade conflict between the US and China has raised the likelihood of greater stimulus by Beijing to prop up the economy. While China’s excessive debt isn’t news, investors must wake up to the reality of “helicopter money” — enormous money creation by Chinese banks “out of thin air”.

    While this sugar rush may provide short and medium-term cover for investors, the long-term effects will exacerbate China’s credit bubble. China, like any nation, faces constraints on frequent and large stimulus, and its vast and still rapidly expanding money supply will produce growing devaluation pressures on the renminbi.

    When a bubble emerges we are often told that this bubble is different. Many economists justify China’s credit and money bubble and continuing stimulus by pointing to the nation’s high savings rate. But this narrative is false. At its root is the idea that banks are channelling or intermediating deposits into loans. This is not how banks operate.

    When a bank expands its balance sheet, it simultaneously creates an asset (say, a loan) and a liability (a deposit, or money supply). No one needs to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends.

    In all economies, neither the amount of deposits nor the money supply hinge on national or household savings. When households and companies save, they do not alter the money supply.

    Banks also create deposits/money out of thin air when they buy securities from non-banks. As banks in China buy more than 80 per cent of government bonds, fiscal stimulus also leads to substantial money creation. In short, when banks engage in too much credit origination — as they have done in China — they generate a money bubble.

    Over the past 10 years, Chinese banks have been on a credit and money creation binge. They have created Rmb144tn ($21tn) of new money since 2009, more than twice the amount of money supply created in the US, the eurozone and Japan combined over the same period. In total, China’s money supply stands at Rmb192tn, equivalent to $28tn. It equals the size of broad money supply in the US and the eurozone put together, yet China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds that of the US.

    In a market-based economy constraints are in place, such as the scrutiny of bank shareholders and regulators, which prevent this sort of excess. In a socialist system, such constraints do not exist. Apparently, the Chinese banking system still operates in the latter.

    There are clear downsides. Helicopter money discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. Slowing productivity and strong money growth ultimately lead to rising inflation — the dynamics inherent to socialist systems.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Air show in Tianjin, China shows off China’s helicopters. Getty Images.

    In the long run, more stimulus in China will entail more money creation and will heighten devaluation pressures on the renminbi. As we all know, when the supply of something surges, its price typically drops. In this case, the drop will take the form of currency devaluation.

    As it stands, China’s money bubble is like a sword of Damocles over the nation’s exchange rate. Chinese households and businesses have become reluctant to hold this ballooning amount of local currency. Continuous helicopter money will increase their desire to diversify their renminbi deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is no sufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. China’s current account surplus has almost vanished.

    As to the central bank’s foreign exchange reserves, at $3tn they are less than a ninth of the amount of renminbi deposits and cash in circulation. It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future.

    If China chooses the path of unrelenting stimulus, investors should recognise the long-term negative outlook for the renminbi. Continuous stimulus will beef up investment returns in local currency terms, but currency depreciation will substantially erode returns in US dollars or euros in the long run.

    The investment implications go beyond Chinese markets. Market volatility over the past few months as the talk of stimulus picked up has given us a peek into the future. As the renminbi has depreciated by 12 per cent since early 2018, the pain has reverberated across Asian and other emerging markets. The MSCI Asia and MSCI EM equities indices have each fallen 24 per cent in dollar terms since their peak in January 2018. Long-term pressures could play out even more dramatically.

    Fortunately, Chinese authorities recognise these issues. Yet they face an immense task of stabilising growth while containing credit and money expansion. This will be hard to achieve in an economy that has become addicted to credit creation.

  • America's Billionaires Congealing Around Warren And Buttigieg

    Authored by Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org,

    The Democratic Presidential candidates who have been the most backed by billionaires have not been doing well in the polling thus far, and this fact greatly disturbs the billionaires. They know that the Democratic nominee will be chosen in the final round of primaries, and they have always wanted Pete Buttigieg to be in that final round. Therefore, they have backed him more than any of the other candidates. But what worries them now is that his opponent in that round might turn out to be Bernie Sanders, whom they all consider to be their nemesis.

    They want to avoid this outcome, at all costs. And they might have found a way to do it: Elizabeth Warren. Here is how, and why:

    Among the top three in the polling — Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren — only Biden is among the top five in the number of billionaires who have backed him, and each of the other four candidates scores higher than Biden does in the number of billionaire backers. Furthermore, Biden is sinking in the polls. Consequently, Democratic Party billionaires are increasingly worrying that their Party might end up nominating for the Presidency someone whom they won’t support. That person would be Sanders. And the Democratic National Committee — which relies heavily upon its billionaire backers in order to be able to win elections (just as the Republican National Committee relies upon Republican billionaire backers in order to win) — is terrified by this possibility (alienating its Party’s crucial moneybags).

    The saving grace for these billionaires (and for the DNC) increasingly seems likely to be Senator Warren’s candidacy, which draws support away from Sanders, and therefore gives Buttigieg a chance ultimately to win the nomination.

    As of August 30th, the most-comprehensive website reporting on the latest polling information and trendlines concerning the Democratic Party presidential primary contests, https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/, reports that more registered Democrats are considering whether to vote for Warren (50%) than for any of the other candidates, including #2 Biden (48%), and #3 Sanders (38%). The percentages shown there as currently intending to vote for each one of those are 27% Biden, 18% Warren, and 16% Sanders. Buttigieg is currently only at 5% who are intending. The “intending” trendlines are downward for all of the candidates except Warren, whose trendline is steadily upward ever since May and is trending to surpass Biden at around the time when the primaries actually start in February 2020. So: right now, Warren clearly seems to be the likeliest winner of the Democratic Party’s nomination. The likeliest possibility to block that would be for Sanders to reduce his loss of progressive voters to Warren, and for Warren to start trending downward while Sanders trends upward; so, that’s what the billionaires would want to prevent from happening.

    On August 27th, the top website for Democratic Party activists, Political Wire, headlined “Warren Overtakes Biden as Most Favorable Candidate”, and reported that not only does Warren now edge out both Biden and Sanders in net favorability rating, and top the entire field of candidates in that extremely important measure, but Warren is overwhelmingly the most frequently mentioned second choice of Democratic Party primary voters, which means that not only would the voters who intend to vote for her in the primary be delighted if she were to become the Democratic nominee — this outcome would also likeliest produce the most-unified Party going into the general election. This, in turn, would mean that Democratic Party billionaires, instead of Republican Party billionaires, would almost certainly control the country after 2020 — the country would be controlled by people such as Thomas Steyer and Donald Sussman, instead of by people such as Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer. It would be a different ‘democracy’, but not really much different; it would be like the difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama — it would be different in rhetoric and bumper-stickers, but very similar in actual policies. (For examples: whereas Bush invaded and destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama invaded and destroyed Libya and Syria; and, all the while, both of them supported the Sauds and Israel; and, moreover, both of them supported Wall Street, though Obama tongue-lashed them, which Bush didn’t.) So: though the rhetoric is sometimes different, the basic policies aren’t. The policies of Republican billionaires and of Democratic billionaires are basically similar.

    As of just a few weeks ago, the Democratic Party’s five top U.S. Presidential candidates, in terms of whom had been backed the most strongly by America’s billionaires, were, in order from the top: Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennett, and Joe Biden. Warren was 12th down from Buttigieg’s #1 position, in support from the billionaires. Sanders was at the very bottom — zero billionaires backing him (he was the only one of the 17 reporting candidates who had no billionaire backer).

    The Democratic Party’s billionaires are just crazy about Buttigieg, but the question right now is whom will they choose to be running against him during the decisive final round of the primaries? Would they rather it be Sanders? Or instead Warren?

    They definitely prefer Warren. Her recent soaring poll-numbers are raising her support, from them, so strongly that the neoconservative-neoliberal (i.e., pro-billionaire) David Bradley’s The Atlantic magazine headlined on August 26th, “Elizabeth Warren Manages to Woo the Democratic Establishment”. This magazine reported (to use my language, not theirs) that the rats from the sinking ship Joe Biden have begun to jump onboard the U.S.S. Elizabeth Warren’s rising ship, which might already be tied even-steven with the other two leading ships, of Biden and of Sanders. Since Sanders is the only American Presidential candidate whom no billionaire supports, there are strong indications that Warren is drawing some of them away from Biden. This could turn the nominating contest into, ultimately, Buttigieg versus Warren (both of whom are acceptable to billionaires), instead of into Buttigieg versus Sanders (which would pose the threat to them of producing a Sanders Presidency). There is little reason to think that Buttigieg will decline to the #2 position in billionaires’ support; but, if this contest turns into Sanders v. Buttigieg, instead of into Warren v. Buttigieg, then Democratic Party billionaires not only would pour even more money into Buttigieg’s campaign against Sanders, but they would likely end up donating to the Republican Presidential nominee in 2020 if Sanders ends up beating Buttigieg (as polls indicate he almost certainly would). By contrast, if this nominating contest ends up being between Warren v. Buttigieg, then the Party’s billionaires wouldn’t likely switch to supporting the Republican Presidential nominee — they’d continue donating to the Democratic Party, regardless of which of those two candidates wins the nomination, in order to defeat Trump (or whomever the Republican nominee turns out to be), and take the control of the country away from Republican billionaires (as it now is).

    Therefore, David Bradley’s propaganda organs are turned on, really hot, by Lizzie. For some typical examples, at Bradley’s biggest-circulation one, The Atlantic, its recent stories gushing about her have been headlined: “Elizabeth Warren Had Charisma, and Then She Ran for President”, and “Elizabeth Warren’s Big Night”, and “The Activist Left Already Knows Who It Wants for President”. For example: the last-mentioned of those articles was about “Netroots Nation, a conference that’s been around since the early 2000s,” which “is run by the liberal political blog Daily Kos.” Here’s what it hides: Daily Kos was founded and owned by the CIA asset and El Salvadorian aristocrat Markos Moulitsas, a ‘former’ Republican far-right person, who set up his website in 2002 and suddenly specialized in fooling progressive Democrats to endorse whomever the billionaire-run Democratic National Committee wants them to support. Unlike David Bradley’s ‘moderate’-Democrat rags, Moulitsas’s ‘progressive’-Democrat rag, Daily Kos, targets to make suckers of Democrats who might vote in the primaries for people that the billionaires actually fear — and that’s now especially Sanders — in order to turn them instead toward favoring the ‘mainstream’, ‘more electable’, Democratic Party candidates (such as Biden, Buttigieg, and Harris — not David Bradley’s darling as Buttigieg’s stalking horse, Warren). In 2016, that ‘mainstream’ was Hillary Clinton (whom the DNC had rigged the primaries to ‘win’ against Sanders), but more recently it was Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg; and, now, this ‘mainstream’ is starting to include (from the billionaires’ standpoint) Elizabeth Warren. That’s because Warren is vastly more preferred by billionaires than is Sanders, and so they want the Party’s progressives to choose her, instead of Sanders, so that the final Democratic Presidential contest will be between Warren versus the billionaires’ actual favorite, which is Buttigieg. If they can’t get him, at least they can get her, the Party’s billionaires clearly now are hoping.

    On April 19th, Jonathan Martin headlined in the New York Times“‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum”, and he opened:

    “When Leah Daughtry, a former Democratic Party official, addressed a closed-door gathering of about 100 wealthy liberal donors in San Francisco last month, all it took was a review of the 2020 primary rules to throw a scare in them. … “I think I freaked them out,” Ms. Daughtry recalled with a chuckle, an assessment that was confirmed by three other attendees. They are hardly alone. … But stopping Mr. Sanders … could prove difficult for Democrats.

    Martin went on to say:

    His strength on the left gives him a real prospect of winning the Democratic nomination and could make him competitive for the presidency if his economic justice message resonates in the Midwest as much as Mr. Trump’s appeals to hard-edge nationalism did in 2016. And for many Sanders supporters, the anxieties of establishment Democrats are not a concern.

    That prospect is spooking establishment-aligned Democrats. …

    David Brock, the liberal organizer [founder of the Media Matters anti-progressive Democratic Party website against Republicans], … said he has had discussions with other operatives about an anti-Sanders campaign and believes it should commence “sooner rather than later.” …

    Howard Wolfson [here’s the wiki on him], who spent months immersed in Democratic polling and focus groups on behalf of former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, had a blunt message for Sanders skeptics: “People underestimate the possibility of him becoming the nominee at their own peril.” …

    The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz [the billionaire former Vice Chairman of Lockheed Martin]. …

    [Rufus] Gifford [former President Barack Obama’s 2012 finance director, who] … has gone public in recent days with his dismay over major Democratic fund-raisers remaining on the sidelines, said of Mr. Sanders, “I feel like everything we are doing is playing into his hands.”

    But the peril of rallying the party’s elite donor class against a candidate whose entire public life has been organized around confronting concentrated wealth is self-evident: Mr. Sanders would gleefully seize on any Stop Bernie effort.

    “You can see him reading the headlines now,” Mr. Brock mused: “‘Rich people don’t like me.’”

    So: the rise of Elizabeth Warren gives the billionaires a ‘progressive’ candidate who might either win the nomination or else at least split progressive voters during the primaries (between Sanders and Warren) and thus give the nomination to Buttigieg, who is their first choice (especially since both Biden and Harris have been faltering so badly of late).

    This explains the gushings for Warren, at such neocon rags as The Atlantic, The New RepublicNew Yorker, and Mother Jones. It’s being done in order to set up the final round, so as for its outcome to be acceptable to the billionaires who fund the Democratic Party. Her record in the U.S. Senate is consistently in support of U.S. invasions, coups, and sanctions against countries that have never invaded nor even threatened to invade the U.S., such as Venezuela, Palestine, Syria, and Iran; she’s 100% a neocon (just like G.W. Bush, Obama and Trump were/are); and, to billionaires, that is even more important than her policy-record regarding Wall Street is, because the Military Industrial Complex, which she represents, is even more important to enforcing and spreading the U.S. megacorporate empire than the investment-firms are. So, whereas they would be able to deal with Warren, they wouldn’t be able to deal with Sanders, whose policy-record is remarkably progressive in all respects, and not only on domestic U.S. matters. Whereas the public pay attention virtually only to domestic matters, billionaires care even more about foreign than about domestic affairs — and this fact — more than anything else — makes Sanders utterly unacceptable to them.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Under a President Warren, America’s string of invasions, coups, and economic blockades (sanctions) would continue; but, under a President Sanders, all of that wasted money would be spent instead on improving the lives of the American people, rather than on destroying the lives of the residents in those foreign lands so as to conquer those lands in the name of advancing ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’ there and of ‘defending America’ against ‘enemies’ who never even have threatened us.

    This con is the reality that both the Democratic and the Republican sides of The Establishment (the collective operation of all billionaires and their ‘news’-media and think tanks, etc.) constantly hide from the public. And that is why, for example, America went from invading Iraq on the basis of lies in 2003, to invading Libya on the basis of lies in 2011, and Syria on the basis of lies in 2013-, and maybe Venezuela and Iran on the basis of lies after the upcoming Presidential ‘election’.

    * * *

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • "This Is The Latest Thing That Is Keeping Us Up At Night": BMO

    For equity markets, August was the most violent month of 2019, with the S&P tumbling 2.6% or more on at least three occasions, the same as the number of instances when the Dow plunged almost 1000 points – the worst since Q4 of 2018 when the S&P briefly entered a bear market – only to rebound furiously after Mnuchin’s infamous Christmas Eve phone call. Worse, in August the number of days when the S&P moved up or down by more than 1% was the highest since the February 2018 inverse VIX ETN implosion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet despite all the vomit-inducing day-to-day surges and drops, anyone who took a month-long vacation would hardly believe what had happened: from the first day of the month, to the last, shares had one of their smallest monthly moves of the year: down just 1.8% on the S&P 500, only July had a smaller monthly amplitude.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Additionally, there were twenty-two August trading days, of which 10 down, 12 up. And continuing the symmetry, the vol index that on certain days surged as much as 50% higher than where they started settled back to where they began.

    Yet while the daily August gyrations were one rollercoaster too much for most of the human traders still trading this “market” for a living or hobby, September is shaping up even worse, not least of all because September is traditionally the most volatile month. There is also a barrage of newsflow and geopolitical events – not to mention another rate cut by the Fed (which is priced in with 100%+ probability by the market) that ensure non-stop daily drama and even more market volatility than experienced in August.

    It all starts with the week ahead, when as BMO’s Ian Lyngen writes, top tier data will once again be on offer for a market that, frankly, doesn’t seem compelled by such passé details. While the trade war has provided the bulk of the trading direction throughout August, in the coming week the emphasis will return to gauging exactly where the real domestic economy stands in terms of growth and inflation. As Lyngen previews, “between ISM, NFP, AHE, and UNR there will be plenty to decipher (or at least unabbreviate).”

    Meanwhile, as the September FOMC meeting approaches, the conversation will again return to what may well be the most important question of all: how many additional quarter-point cuts will comprise this ‘fine tuning’ effort; one, two, or possibly more? Needless to say, yet BMO does so anyway, “the most significant Fed event-risk this autumn will be communications surrounding the most likely path of  policy rates.”

    Of course, among everything else, investors will be seeking clarity whether 2019 will mirror the 1990s (75 bp of aggregate rate cuts) as per the “mid-cycle adjustment”, or if the fallout from the trade war has done more damage to the global economy and therefore warrants even greater accommodation, and is indeed just the start of an easing cycle (even as trade war is set to send prices of imported goods sharply higher, potentially unleashing stagflation).

    According to BMO, it isn’t difficult to envision a scenario in which the Committee updates the economic projections and dot-plot to reflect 75 bp in total and a period of policy stability to assess how much benefit the effort delivers; relying on the classic lagged impact logic. In a world in which the greatest “uncertainty” wasn’t continuing to expand, we’d expect this to be the path of least resistance, Lynger writes. After all, “the US economy appears to be on solid footing and inflation, while still low, is heading in the correct direction”. Alas, as the rates strategist admits, “we’re left in an environment of twitter and state-owned media dictating US rates.”

    Which brings us to the punchline, namely that the ever-expanding list of worries keeping BMO up at night now includes an attempt by the Fed to moderate expectations for easing beyond 1.63% (i.e. two additional quarter-point cuts).”  Needless to say, the market – which is pricing in almost 5 rate cuts by Dec 2020, will not be happy by any unexpected Fed hawkishness.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As such, no matter what happens in September, the balance of the year will be an important litmus test for the market’s understanding of the Fed’s reaction function to developments impacting the global growth outlook rather than the domestic realities. In this context, BMO maintains that “the Fed has become the defacto central bank to the world, even if reluctantly.”

    However, that doesn’t necessarily imply Powell won’t at least attempt to push back and by crafting a ‘wait and see’ or ‘data dependent’ message into year-end the Fed would be putting the onus elsewhere to combat the risk of a global recession. Furthermore, Powell needs a market trigger to give the market the outcome it desires, namely 6 rate cuts by Dec 2021.

    So what happens if Powell follows Dudley’s suggestion, and balks at more rate cuts than what he telegraphed. Fire and brimstone come to mind.

    In the event it’s 75 bp (total) and done, the BMO rates analysts claim that the reaction of the longer-end of the curve will be particularly telling as to investors’ perception of the risks of an actual US recession in 2020. A bearish resteepening will be a vote of confidence for Fed credibility and would be predicated on the domestic data continuing to reflect tight labor conditions and inflation that’s trending higher.

    This isn’t as off-consensus as it might initially appear, despite the chorus of ‘race to zero’ calls which abound. Should this come to pass, 10-year yields with a 2-handle will be an intuitive target. To a large extent, this risk supports a focus on the interim data even as the market retains a pavlovian response to @realDonaldTrump.

    By induction, the worst case scenario would be if the petulant market meets the Committee’s efforts at easing restraint by an even deeper inversion of the yield curve, presumably in a bullish outright move for 10s and 30s. This would be immediately read as another “policy error” reaction, and is the outcome which troubles BMO the most “insofar as it would effectively lock the Fed into even lower policy rates and exacerbate the global race to zero rates.” This, as Lyngen concludes, is a very long way of saying that “Trump can only trump data so long.”

  • Lula Admits, BRICS Was Created As A Tool Of Attack Against The US Dollar

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    In a wide-ranging, two-hour-plus, exclusive interview from a prison room in Curitiba in southern Brazil, former Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva re-emerged for the first time, after more than 500 days in jail, and sent a clear message to the world.

    Amid the 24/7 media frenzy of scripted sound bites and “fake news”, it’s virtually impossible to find a present or former head of state anywhere, in a conversation with journalists, willing to speak deep from his soul, to comment on all current political developments and relish telling stories about the corridors of power. And all that while still in prison.

    The first part of this mini-series focused on the Amazon. Here, we will focus on Brazil’s relationship with BRICS and Beijing. BRICS is the grouping of major emerging economies – Brazil, Russia, India and China – that formed in 2006 and then included South Africa in their annual meetings from 2010.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    My first question to Lula was about BRICS and the current geopolitical chessboard, with the US facing a Russia-China strategic partnership. As president, from 2003 to 2010, Lula was instrumental in formatting and expanding the influence of BRICS – in sharp contrast with Brazil’s current President, Jair Bolsonaro, who appears to be convinced that China is a threat.

    Lula stressed that Brazil should have been getting closer to China in a mirror process of what occurred between Russia and China:

    “When there was a BRICS summit here in Ceará state in Brazil, I told comrade Dilma [Rousseff, the former president] that we should organize a pact like the Russia-China pact. A huge pact giving the Chinese part of what they wanted, which was Brazil’s capacity to produce food and energy and also the capacity to have access to technological knowledge. Brazil needed a lot of infrastructure. We needed high-speed rail, many things. But in the end that did not happen.”

    Lula defined his top priorities as he supported the creation of BRICS: economic autonomy, and uniting a group of nations capable of helping what the Washington consensus describes as LDCs – least developed countries.

    He emphasized:

    BRICS was not created to be an instrument of defense, but to be an instrument of attack. So we could create our own currency to become independent from the US dollar in our trade relations; to create a development bank, which we did – but it is still too timid – to create something strong capable of helping the development of the poorest parts of the world.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Former Brazilian leader Lula speaks from a room in a prison in southern Brazil. Photo: Editora Brasil 247

    Lula made an explicit reference to the United States’ fears about a new currency:

    “This was the logic behind BRICS, to do something different and not copy anybody. The US was very much afraid when I discussed a new currency and Obama called me, telling me, ‘Are you trying to create a new currency, a new euro?’ I said, ‘No, I’m just trying to get rid of the US dollar. I’m just trying not to be dependent.’”

    One can imagine how this went down in Washington.

    Obama may have been trying to warn Lula that the US ‘Deep State’ would never allow BRICS to invest in a currency or basket of currencies to bypass the US dollar. Later on, Vladimir Putin and Erdogan would warn President Dilma – before she was impeached – that Brazil would be mercilessly targeted. In the end, the leadership of the Workers’ Party was caught totally unprepared by a conjunction of sophisticated hybrid-war techniques.

    One of the largest economies in the world was taken over by hardcore neoliberals, practically without any struggle. Lula confirmed it in the interview, saying: “We should look at where we got it wrong.”

    Lula also hit a note of personal disappointment. He expected much more from BRICS.

    “I imagined a more aggressive BRICS, more proactive and more creative. ‘The Soviet empire has already fallen; let’s create a democratic empire.’ I think we made some advances, but we advanced slowly. BRICS should be much stronger by now.”

    Lula, Obama and China

    It’s easy to imagine how what has followed went down in Beijing. That explains to a great extent the immense respect Lula enjoys among the Chinese leadership. And it’s also relevant to the current global debate about what’s happening in the Amazon. Let just Lula tell the story in his own, inimitable, Garcia Marquez-tinged way.

    “One thing that the Chinese must remember, a lot of people were angry in Brazil when I recognized China as a market economy. Many of my friends were against it. But I said, ‘No, I want the Chinese at the negotiating table, not outside. Is there any discord? Put them inside the WTO, let’s legalize everything.’ I know that [Chinese President] Hu Jintao was much pleased.

    “Another thing we did with China was at the COP-15 [Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] in Copenhagen in 2009. Let me tell you something: I arrived at COP-15 and there was a list of people requesting audiences with me – Angela Merkel, Sarkozy, Gordon Brown; Obama had already called twice – and I didn’t know why I was important. What did they all want? They all wanted us to agree, at COP-15, that China was the prime polluting evil on earth. Sarkozy came to talk to me with a cinematographic assembly line, there were 30 cameras, a real show: Lula accusing China. Then I had a series of meetings and I told them all, ‘Look, I know China is polluting. But who is going to pay for the historical pollution you perpetrated before China polluted? Where is the history commission to analyze English industrialization?’’

    “Then something fantastic happened. An agreement was not in sight, I wanted Sarkozy to talk to Ahmadinejad – later I’ll tell you this thing about Iran [he did, later in the interview]. Ahmadinejad did not go to our dinner, so there was no meeting. But then, we were discussing, discussing, and I told Celso [Amorim, Brazil’s Foreign Minister], ‘Look,  Celso, there’s a problem, this meeting will end without an agreement, and they are going to blame Brazil, China, India, Russia. We need to find a solution.’ Then I proposed that Celso call the Chinese and set up a parallel meeting. That was between Brazil, China, India and perhaps South Africa. Russia, I think, was not there. And in this meeting, imagine our surprise when Hillary Clinton finds out about it and tries to get inside the meeting. The Chinese didn’t let her. All these Chinese, so nervous behind the door, and then comes Obama. Obama wanted to get in and the Chinese didn’t let him. China was being represented by Jiabao [Wen Jiabao, the prime minister].

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lula and US President Barack Obama, on left, attend a meeting with Chinese and other leaders in Copenhagen in December 2009 at the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference. AFP / Jewel Samad

    “Then we let Obama in, Obama said, ‘I’m gonna sit down beside my friend Lula so I won’t be attacked here.’ So he sat by my side and started to talk about the agreement, and we said there is no agreement. And then there was this Chinese, a negotiator, he was so angry at Obama, he was standing up, speaking in Mandarin, nobody understood anything, we asked for a translation, Jiabao did not allow it, but the impression, by his gesticulation, was that the Chinese was hurling all sorts of names at Obama, he talked aggressively, pointing his finger, and Obama said, ‘He is angry.’ The Brazilian ambassador, who said she understood a little bit of Mandarin – she said he used some pretty heavy words.

    “The concrete fact is that in this meeting we amassed a great deal of credibility, because we refused to blame the Chinese. I remember a plenary session where Sarkozy, Obama and myself were scheduled to speak. I was the last speaker. When I arrived at the plenary there was nothing, not a thing written on a piece of paper. I told one of my aides, please go out, prepare a few talking points for me, and when he left the room they called me to speak; they had inverted the schedule. I was very nervous. But that day I made a good speech. It got a standing ovation. I don’t know what kind of nonsense I said [laughs]. Then Obama started speaking. He didn’t have anything to say. So there was this mounting rumor in the plenary: He ended up making a speech that no one noticed. And then with Sarkozy, the same thing.

    “What I had spoken about was the role of Brazil in the environmental question. I’ll get someone from the Workers’ Party to find this speech for you. The new trend in Brazil is to try to compare policies between myself and Bolsonaro. You cannot accept his line that NGOs are setting fire to the Amazon. Those burning the Amazon are his voters, businessmen, people with very bad blood, people who want to kill indigenous tribes, people who want to kill the poor.

  • China Crypto Miners Wiped Out By Flood; Bitcoin Hash Rate Hits ATHs

    Last week, a devastating rainstorm in China’s Sichuan province triggered mudslides, forcing local hydropower plants and cryptocurrency miners to halt operations, reported CoinDesk.

    Torrential rains flooded some parts of Sichuan’s mountainous Aba prefecture last Monday, with mudslides seen across 17 counties in the area, according to local government posts on Weibo. 

    One of the worst-hit areas was Wenchuan county, China Daily reported. The flooding knocked out local power stations and severely damaged communications infrastructure in the region. 

    Several major cryptocurrency mining facilities in Wenchuan were destroyed, with the Twitter account Poolin posting footage of the destruction. 

    A local mining farm based in Sichuan, China was DEVASTATED by the recent heavy rainfall in the region, video attached 1/2 pic.twitter.com/CvdEAUeq3x

    — Poolin (@officialpoolin) August 21, 2019

    The mining pool operator said rainstorms led to dangerously high levels of water in local reservoirs used by local hydropower plants, which forced several power stations to reduce energy generation. This, in return, knocked out energy for miners. 

    Red Li, the co-founder of 8BTC, also posted a video of the mining destruction. Li said: “Some mining facilities were wiped out by a flood in Sichuan yesterday.”

    Some mining facilities were wiped out by flood in Sichuan yesterday. pic.twitter.com/lZ12tapVga

    — Red Li (@redtheminer) August 21, 2019

    At the moment, it’s still unclear how many bitcoin miners were taken offline last week. 

    Low-priced hydroelectricity in Wenchuan county has attracted bitcoin miners in recent years, which some miners, as shown in the videos above, set up facilities next to flood-prone areas. 

    Bitcoin mining data from Aug. 19 to 21 [period of the flooding] showed a slight move down in the hash rate but nothing that warranted a red flag. It appears the hash rate of the blockchain was unfazed with a bunch of miners getting wiped out in China. One could say the network was resilient.

    Late last year, we reported how the hash rate plunged -35% from Oct. to Dec. Now the hash rate is setting new record highs. 

    Bitcoin’s hash rate continued to break previous records throughout summer, hitting a whopping 76 TH/s last Sunday. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bitcoin investor Max Keiser tweeted earlier this month: “Price follows hash rate and hash rate chart continues its 9 yr bull market. #Bitcoin.” 

    Price follows hashrate and hashrate chart continues its 9 yr bull market. #Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/Rh49V9gaJw

    — Max Keiser, tweet poet. (@maxkeiser) August 8, 2018

    The argument is that the higher the Bitcoin hash rate, the more secure the network, and the higher the confidence of market participants, which would result in increased demand for the coins. 

    Therefore, Keiser argues Bitcoin could soon be a catch-up trade to network fundamentals.

  • YouTube Says It's "More Important Than Ever" To Be Open Platform – One Day After Massive Banning Spree

    Authored by Chris Menahan via ActivistPost.com,

    CEO Susan Wojcicki said Tuesday that it’s “more important than ever” for YouTube to remain an “open platform” just one day after going on a massive banning spree targeting right-wingers for so-called “hate speech.”

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

    Amazingly, this is not satire.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From Vox, “YouTube’s CEO says it’s ‘more important than ever’ to let people upload anything they want”:

    Can the world’s largest video company continue to let its 2 billion users upload anything they want, whenever they want?

    Yes, says the woman who runs that company: In a letter addressed to creators on YouTube, CEO Susan Wojcicki says the platform is committed to remaining open because she thinks the upside of that approach very much outweighs the downside.

    This isn’t a new idea, and it’s one that Wojcicki, along with people who run other giant tech platforms, say in private all the time. But Wojcicki is saying it again, today, as critics are increasingly questioning if it’s a philosophy that works for tech companies at a global scale. […]

    “I believe preserving an open platform is more important than ever,” Wojcicki writes in a quarterly note aimed at YouTube’s most ardent users, who upload videos onto the site for fun and profit. While that note is usually dedicated to celebrating YouTube’s wide swath of creators, this one spends most of its time defending the idea that YouTube will continue to keep its doors open to anyone who wants to post just about anything on the site.

    We’re reaching levels of propaganda never before thought possible.

    *  *  *

    It’s absolutely appalling that the vast majority of Americans are fine with censorship and force being used against other human beings as long as their view is the only one that gets attention. YouTube is definitely lying and pushing propaganda. It is not an “open platform” if people can be banned for saying things the establishment doesn’t like.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 31st August 2019

  • Think Trump Is Hitler? Go To Dachau

    Authored by Peter van Buren via The American Conservative,

    You won’t find any shallow hashtags at the former concentration camp, just quiet, powerful reality…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Right now, someone in the media is finding another excuse to proclaim that Trump is Hitler, America is Germany 1933, and detention centers on the southern border are concentration camps.

    Recently I went to Dachau, just outside of Munich, to see a real concentration camp.

    The first thing you notice is the irony. The people who, in too loud voices, mill around the station entrance asking “Is this the train to Dachau?” and then the conductor’s announcement calling out the name as if it were just another stop. The mediocre station has a McDonald’s. The bus stop sign for the shuttle you need to take has “Concentration Camp” written in English. Everyone around you is on vacation, dressed for it and chattering like it. You arrive at a visitor’s center, and there’s a rush for the toilets and the snack bar. Which way to the camp, Dad? Can we see the crematorium? Can we?

    A hundred steps outside the snack bar, the world changes. The road turns gray even though the light playing through the poplars is out of a postcard. They’ve changed the entrance location from a few years ago so that you now enter through the former SS barracks and come to the gate. It really says Arbeit Macht Frei (“Work Will Set You Free”) on the iron bars and you walk through just like they did. The gate only swings one way; you will leave today, but it wasn’t originally designed that way and you can tell. There may be a hundred people with you but it is completely silent as you enter.

    It is too small. You see the administrative buildings to the right, the reconstructed prisoner barracks to the left, the assembly ground in front of you. You see the fences and walls on all four sides, walkable in a few minutes at an easy pace on a gorgeous day. It is too small to have held all those people, too small for all that happened, too small to be the symbol of Nazi power it was then. You expect something more substantial, with the distant site lines obscured, like at Disney World, where tricks of the eye make things seem grander.

    It is too familiar. It takes only a few minutes to get your bearings. You’ve seen photos before, and there are many posted, populating the place with buildings and people once here and forever gone. It is unlike, say, an art museum on the scale of the Met or the Uffizi, where, after hours of circling corridors, you have no idea where you’ve been. You know Dachau.

    The museum unfolds in the order that new prisoners were processed. The early days of National Socialism are explained where the inmates were once assigned numbers. The seizure of power by Hitler is documented in the room where people were stripped and deloused (subtlety is missing when the backdrop is Nazism). And you exit into the campgrounds awkwardly after reading about their liberation by the 45th Infantry Division.

    You think, after all that reading and those museum exhibits (and it is a thorough education, much more than an Instagram collection of artifacts and, oh look, a real prisoner’s uniform, honey!), you understand something. But not yet. You have really just arrived, and in front of you is Dachau itself, the ground, the air—the same ground they saw and air they breathed—and you have a choice. Many visitors turn back towards the snack bar, falsely satiated after an hour, thinking they’ve seen Dachau and anxiously trying to remember when the shuttle bus runs back to the station.

    If you wait for them to leave, you can see Dachau.

    Most of the place is empty, acres of crushed stone with flat markers showing where the now-missing barracks were. The trees lining the central road bisecting the camp are old. They were here when Dachau was working. You can match up an individual tree from a 1942 photo with the one in front of you and touch it. The sun is warm; it’s a beautiful late summer afternoon with those wonderful tickles of early fall all around. A day to be alive, grandpa would have called it. There must have been days just like this one in 1942.

    There is some minor archaeological excavation work going on. An archaeologist stands over a hole about three feet deep and explains that he’s looking for evidence of the original fence line, the border of the camp before it was expanded in 1937. He’s found some wooden post fragments and some barbed wire. So the bottom of that hole is 1937, I ask? Yes, he says, the dirt and stones piled here haven’t seen sunlight since then. I ask if I can take one of the stones with me as a keepsake, and he explains that is not allowed, even as he looks away just long enough. Doing the right thing is hard enough elsewhere, never mind in Dachau.

    A sign states simply that the area in front of you is where the barracks used for medical experiments on live humans once stood. Another denotes the punishment barracks, where the SS concocted even darker methods of retribution. You see where the bodies were stacked like cordwood but you know that wood is strong and straight and the images you are recreating show corpses floppy and tangled in their piles. Now you are seeing Dachau, here in the deeper waters.

    Dachau does not believe in your tears. This is not a sentimental place. It is not clean. A universe of victims died here but there is no acknowledgement of victimhood, or raising of awareness, or giving of voice, or trafficking in of shallow hashtags. Dachau is here to declare what happened and charge you with doing something on the scale and with the accuracy that are required.

    See, by coming here, it is now handed to you, that obligation. Hitler and his Dachau did not emerge from an election that frowned on a favored candidate. Following World War I, Germany was purposefully humiliated and saddled with war reparations that were not payable. An economic crisis unrolled. Inflation drove the nation to starvation. With no history of democracy, Germany was willed into a republic as unprepared as two virgins in an arranged marriage. Both across the border and at home, powerful communist forces threatened. Hungry people weren’t tricked into a strongman because of Facebook or some Electoral College fluke; they demanded one.

    Within three months of taking office, Hitler gave himself the right to amend the constitution, ended representative government, created special political courts, made criticism of the government a capital crime, and established Dachau. Two months after that, Jews were fired from government positions, political parties and unions were prohibited, opponents were murdered, and books were burned. There was no slippery slope. It was not incremental; it was inevitable.

    There is obviously more to this story than a travelogue about an interesting day trip out to Dachau by train from nearby Munich. To say that Trump is Hitler, America is Germany in 1933, and a grimy detention facility is a concentration camp means you have never been to Dachau.

    The presentation at Dachau is very un-2019, where everyone vies for adopted victimhood and chosen trauma. Dachau is cold because only its facts matter.

    Tweets childishly mocking political opponents and regulations preventing a small number of self-declared trans people from joining the Army have nothing to do with Dachau. To cite 2019 border facilities or exaggerate the historical impact of a march in Charlottesville is to turn Dachau relative, the dial jiggered to magnify some other event. It makes people numb; it dumbs down discussion; it is cheap, inaccurate, and exploitative. It demands mighty outrage from a partial set of facts. Both butterflies and elephants have legs, but no one should claim a butterfly is an elephant.

    Propagandists have always used ignorance to manipulate. Yet while CNN works to convince viewers that silver mylar blankets instead of comfy quilts for migrants means there are concentration camps in America, Dachau reminds us that physicians here dissected human beings alive as part of medical experiments. Just as is taught in beginning writing courses, truth comes from showing, not just telling. For those who call Trump a Nazi, there is Dachau to visit. For the record.

  • Americans Spent Nearly $150 Billion On Illegal Drugs Last Year

    The U.S. opioid crisis has been making headlines again this week after pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson was fined $572 for fuelling the epidemic in Oklahoma in a historic ruling.

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, last year, drug overdoses claimed more than 68,000 American lives and 47,000 of those deaths involved an opioid. Even though heroin, prescription opioids and synthetic opioids like fentanyl are receiving most of the attention, deaths from other drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine are increasing.

    A new report from the RAND Corporation has shed light on just how many people use illicit drugs across America as well as how much they pay for them.

    Infographic: Americans Spent Nearly $150 Billion On Illegal Drugs In 2016 | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    In 2016 alone, people in the U.S. spent an estimated $146 billion on cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine. Adding RAND’s figures together from 2006 to 2016 would mean total spending on illegal drugs over the course of the decade was nearly $1.5 trillion.

    Out of all four drugs in 2016, users spent the most on illicit marijuana – $52 billion.

    The market for the illegal green stuff is around the size of the cocaine and methamphetamine markets combined. Heroin has the second highest financial outlay ($43 billon) followed by methamphetamine ($27 billion) and cocaine ($24 billion).

  • What Is Justice For McCabe?

    Authored by Andrew McCarthy via NationalReview.com,

    The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency… even as he sues the Justice Department…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act. So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction. It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.

    In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow. Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.

    While Clinton’s mishandling of classified information got all the attention, it was just the tip of the felony iceberg. Thousands of the 33,000 emails she withheld and undertook to “bleach bit” into oblivion related to State Department business. It is a felony to misappropriate even a single government record. The destruction of the emails, moreover, occurred after a House Committee investigating the Benghazi massacre issued subpoenas and preservation directives to Clinton’s State Department and Clinton herself. If Andrew Weissmann and the rest of the Mueller probe pit-bulls had half as solid an obstruction case against Donald Trump, the president would by now have been impeached, removed, and indicted.

    And that dichotomy is the point, isn’t it?

    In the Obama Justice Department — as extended by the Mueller investigation, staffed by Obama Justice Department officials and other Clinton-friendly Democrats — justice was dispensed with a partisan eye. If you were Hillary Clinton, you skated. If you were Donald Trump, they were determined to dig until they found something — and, even when they failed to make a case, the digging never stopped . . . it just shifted to Capitol Hill.

    No one knows the skewed lay of the land better than Andrew McCabe.

    The FBI’s former deputy director is in the Justice Department’s crosshairs. His lawyers are reportedly pleading with top officials not to indict him for lying to FBI agents who were probing a leak of investigative information, orchestrated by none other than McCabe.

    McCabe is feeling the heat because the evidence that he made false statements is daunting. So daunting, in fact, that even he concedes he did not tell the truth to investigators. Listen carefully to what he says about the case — there being no shortage of public commentary on it from the newly minted CNN analyst. He never “deliberately misled anyone,” he insists. Sure, he grudgingly admits, some of his statements “were not fully accurate,” or perhaps were “misunderstood” by his interrogators. But “at worst,” you see, “I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted.”

    Uh-huh.

    Seems to me that General Michael Flynn “may well have been confused and distracted,” too. After all, it was on Flynn’s insanely busy first full day on the job as the new president’s national-security adviser that McCabe and Comey dispatched two agents — Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka — to brace him for an interview.

    As our Rich Lowry recounts, Comey later bragged to an audience of like-minded anti-Trumpers at the 92nd Street Y that he knew this was a breach of protocol. Because seeking to interview a member of the president’s staff in a criminal investigation is a big deal, the Bureau is supposed to go through the attorney general, who alerts the White House counsel. That ensures that the administration is aware of the situation, and that the suspected staffer is advised of the reason for the interview and given an opportunity to consult with a lawyer.

    Of course, if protocol had been followed, McCabe would not have been able to have Flynn grilled without preparation and without counsel. That put Flynn in a very different posture from Hillary Clinton.

    She got every courtesy. The FBI not only scheduled her interview well in advance; before she showed up, before they asked her a single question, they had already finished drafting Comey’s statement exonerating her. Not just that. Clinton was permitted to bring along — among her phalanx of lawyers — her State Department aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, key witnesses who had gotten immunity from prosecution. (In a real investigation, they’d have been considered subjects, not witnesses.) Allowing witnesses to sit in as lawyers was not just a violation of Justice Department practice (to say nothing of common sense). Federal criminal law prohibits former officials from lobbying the government on behalf of another person in a matter in which the former official was heavily involved while working for the government.

    Recall that when he decided against an indictment of Clinton, Comey famously pronounced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge her. Even though Clinton’s conduct technically transgressed the law, the then-director rationalized that he could find no prior Espionage Act prosecution for gross negligence on facts analogous to Clinton’s case.

    Where exactly would we expect find analogous facts? Not much precedent about secretaries of state sedulously setting up non-government communications systems for years of correspondence involving thousands of classified communications. But let’s put this historical anomaly aside. Let’s even ignore that military officials have been prosecuted for less-egregious classified-information violations. Here’s the point: In giving Clinton a pass, Comey explained that “responsible” prosecutorial decisions “consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.”

    Okay . . . then how is it that General Flynn gets investigated and charged?

    Flynn, as a member of Trump’s transition team and incoming national-security adviser, had been consulting with the Russian ambassador, among other foreign counterparts. Context? There was nothing illegal or illegitimate about such communications. And even if it had been appropriate for the FBI and the Justice Department to inquire into the foreign policy of the incoming president elected by the American people, the Bureau did not need to interview Flynn. They had recordings of the conversations. What reason could there have been to question Flynn about them — without playing the recordings for him — except to lay the groundwork for a false-statements prosecution?

    Moreover, how have similar situations been handled in the past? In investigating Flynn, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI theorized that he might have violated the Logan Act, a dubious law that purports to criminalize foreign policy freelancing by private citizens. Despite being on the books for over two centuries, the Logan Act has never resulted in a successful prosecution. Not once. In fact, it has not even been used to indict anyone in the last 170 years. Indeed, but for its desuetude, the Logan Act would certainly have been held unconstitutional; because the Justice Department never invokes it, no one has had the opportunity to challenge it. Yet, the Logan Act was used to justify investigating Flynn — a transition official whose very job entailed consultation with foreign officials.

    As we noted a few days ago, the FBI and Mueller’s investigators prosecuted George Papadopoulos for lying about the date of a meeting. Though the lie was inconsequential to the probe, they made the then-28-year-old eat a felony charge. And while they could easily have had his lawyer surrender him for processing on the charge and quick release on bail, they instead choreographed an utterly unnecessary nighttime arrest that forced him to spend a night in jail.

    Suffice it to say that Paul Combetta did not get the Papadopoulos brass-knuckles treatment.

    Combetta was not prosecuted even though he brazenly lied to the FBI about the circumstances of his destruction of Clinton’s private emails. He was the key witness who had been in communication with Clinton confederates before and after his bleach-bit blitz through Clinton’s emails. In a normal case, prosecutors would charge him with obstruction and false statements to pressure him into cooperating. In the Clinton caper, though, he was given immunity . . . and duly clammed up.

    No false-statements charges against Combetta. No false-statements charges against Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, intimate Clinton aides who claimed not to know about Clinton’s private server while they worked for her at the State Department — even though emails show them involved in discussions about the server.

    In the Clinton investigation, if you were a lawyer, such as Mills and Samuelson, the Obama Justice Department said “pretty please” and gave you immunity — rather than a subpoena — to induce you to surrender private laptop computers containing classified Clinton emails. And then the Justice Department, in consultation with the Clinton camp’s lawyers, imposed restrictions on what the FBI could look at and what its agents could ask. After all, we wouldn’t want to imperil the attorney-client privilege, right?

    Well, at least as long as you were not a lawyer in the Trump-Russia investigation. If you were, as was Melissa Laurenza, an attorney who worked for Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, prosecutors and the FBI compelled you to testify about client communications. If you were Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the FBI executed search warrants at your home and office, and you were prosecuted. So was Alex van der Zwaan, an attorney who worked with Manafort and Gates in representing Ukrainian interests. He was induced to plead guilty to a false-statements charge in the Mueller probe.

    And needless to say, if you were Manafort, there was no act-of-production immunity for you. And no one asked “pretty please” for you to turn over evidence. Under the Mueller team’s direction, the FBI got search warrants allowing them to break into Manafort’s home before dawn and at gunpoint to seize documents. Of course, this seems like kid-gloves treatment compared to what was done to Manafort’s friend and fellow Trump adviser, Roger Stone. The S.W.A.T.-style raid on Stone’s home included helicopter surveillance, an amphibious team (apparently to guard against escape by sea), and so many FBI vehicles that the CNN crew that just happened to be on scene almost couldn’t find a parking space! Was that show of force really necessary for a 66-year-old man charged with nonviolent process crimes whom the court released on bail a few hours later?

    Mueller spent nearly two years trying to make an obstruction case against Trump for endeavoring to influence the Russia investigation. Congressional Democrats are still trying to breathe impeachment life into this effort. By contrast, the media-Democrat complex was unperturbed when Obama publicly announced in April 2016 that he did not think Clinton should be indicted. Far from accusing the 44th president of endeavoring to influence an investigation, the prosecutors and the press amplified Obama’s narrative that Clinton had not intended to harm the country — and dutifully looked the other way when the FBI airbrushed Obama’s name out of Comey’s Clinton exoneration speech (the president having knowingly communicated with Clinton through her unsecure server when she emailed him from a hostile foreign country).

    The goal was to make Clinton’s crimes disappear, while suspicions about Trump were was blazoned on the public consciousness. Even though the Trump-Russia probe was a counterintelligence investigation, then-director Comey went public about it in March 2017 congressional testimony.

    That was stunning. It is not enough to say that the Justice Department and the FBI customarily neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation, no matter how comparatively trivial. Counterintelligence investigations are classified. They are never spoken of. Yet, Comey both revealed the investigation and identified the Trump campaign as a subject, suspected of “coordinating” in Russia’s cyberespionage. For good measure, he gratuitously added that an assessment would be made about whether crimes had been committed. As any sensible person would have foreseen, the FBI director’s proclamation was taken by the media and the public as a signal that President Trump was the prime suspect in one of the most heinous crimes in American history.

    To say the least, a different tune was sung in the Clinton emails probe. There, Comey acceded to the instructions of Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, that he not publicly speak of it as an investigation. Just call it “a matter,” he was told. Funny thing about that: it sounded exactly like what the Clinton campaign was saying at the time.

    I don’t pretend to be a McCabe fan. Nevertheless, I have sympathy for him. The 2016 election will define his career, but it does not fairly reflect his long years of service defending the rule of law and American national security. If we could consider his case in a vacuum, and I had my druthers, I would not want to charge him. He was fired for cause in disgrace and is slated to lose at least some of his pension. These are significant penalties. I’d like to be able to say, “Enough is enough, no need to pile on with an indictment.”

    But there’s more to it than that. A lot more.

    For one thing, McCabe is suing the government for wrongful termination, arguing that he was fired due to a political vendetta carried on by President Trump. I certainly agree that the president should not have commented on McCabe’s case or status. As I’ve repeatedly argued, the president’s often-unhinged commentary makes investigations and prosecutions much more difficult to execute. It has already resulted in slap-on-the-wrist treatment for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, who should have received a stiff sentence.

    That said, though, it is an audacious strategy on McCabe’s part to (a) ask the Justice Department to exercise clemency by declining to charge an eminently prosecutable false-statements case against him, while (b) simultaneously hauling the Justice Department into court on an accusation of bad faith in a case in which McCabe leaked and then provided explanations that weren’t true. If I were the attorney general, my inclination would be to say, “If he’s going to make us go to war, let’s go to war on offense — indict him.”

    More significantly, we are now living in a law-enforcement world of McCabe’s making.

    Again, in a better world, I’d prefer to take account of the considerable positive side of McCabe’s ledger and what he’s already suffered, especially if he exhibited some contrition. That is, I’d ordinarily be open to declining prosecution. But then, how about the positive side of General Flynn’s ledger? And why, if it would be overkill to charge McCabe was it not overkill to charge Papadopoulos? Why do Clinton, Mills, Abedin, and Combetta get a pass in a criminal investigation triggered by actual crimes, but Flynn, Papadopoulos, van der Zwaan, and Stone get hammered in an investigation predicated by no crime — just a fever dream of Trump-Russia cyberespionage conspiracy?

    FBI and Justice Department officials keep telling us they grasp that there must be one standard of justice applicable to everyone, not a two-tiered system. So, here’s the question: If Andrew McCabe’s name were Michael Flynn, how much mercy could he expect from, say, Andrew Weissmann?

  • Now Could Be The Time To Sell Your Classic Car Before The Downturn

    Have you ever thought about thinning out your classic car collection? Now could be the time before the antique car market rolls over.

    Hagerty Price Guide, the premier collector car value guide, shows that in the last four years, 1960s American cars, blue-chip cars, British cars, Ferraris, German collectibles, and Muscle cars have seen their prices stagnate at record highs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    Prices have been flat, depressed, and unlikely to go higher ahead of the next recession. A possible correction in the classic car market could unfold into the early 2020s.

    However, affordable classic cars, around the $20,000 price range, bucked the trend with prices moving higher.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The overall vintage car market is beginning to show signs of fatigue. Results from the Monterey Car Week earlier this month, an important bellwether for the state of the classic car market, had one of its worst auctions in 8 years.

    Hagerty reported $245 million in sales during the two-day auction from Aug. 15 to 17. It represented a 34% drop from 2018’s results, which makes it the worst auction since 2011.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The average selling price plummeted by 36.7% to $319,610; the median sale price plunged 22.7% to $24,200; the sell-through rate (percentage of vehicles that sell) fell to 58% from 62%.

    “Whether it’s threat of recession, broad economic volatility or too many cars crammed into too few hours, there’s no denying this year’s Monterey Auction Week results were depressed when you compare the results to recent years,” Hagerty’s Jonathan Klinger said.

    This isn’t the first time Monterey’s sales have crashed. Sales plunged 72% from 2000 to 2002 and fell 14% between 2008 and 2009, according to Hagerty.

    Klinger said recessions and credit bubble burstings fueled those drops.

    “This year seems to be more anticipatory and reflective of broader market jitters,” Klinger said.

    The downturn isn’t limited to just Monterey – it’s a broad-based cyclical downshift in the entire classic car market, except for cars priced under $20k. So now looks like the best time to thin out the collection before the next recession strikes.

  • What Will China Do With The Hong Kong Protests?

    Authored by Lawrence Franklin via The Gatestone Institute,

    Protests in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (SAR) — which began in early June with demonstrators denouncing a proposed law to permit the extradition of SAR residents to the mainland to be tried in Chinese Communist courts — have entered their 12th week and show no signs of abating. If anything, they are becoming increasingly strident, with calls for the resignation of Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s administration, among other broadening demands . The unfolding events present the Communist Party leadership in Beijing with a serious dilemma: to quell the protests with military force or wait until they die down.

    According to a recent analysis in Bloomberg:

    “In theory, [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] could quickly do away with Hong Kong’s autonomy and activate the city’s garrison overnight. But the likelihood of mobilizing troops remains low and the fallout from doing so — for both China and Xi personally — is potentially much higher than dealing with the political and economic repercussions of the protests, not least because he’s already engaged in a damaging trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump.”

    The Hong Kong protests reportedly were a topic of debate at this year’s annual meeting of current and former Communist Chinese leaders, which was held in Beidaihe in early August. The discussions likely included possible courses of action that the Xi government could take, such as encouraging Hong Kong’s business community to call for an end to the demonstrations, for the purpose of restoring economic stability by reversing recent negative trends in retail sales, tourist-generated income and nervousness among foreign investors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pictured: Riot police detain a pro-democracy protester on August 24, 2019 in Hong Kong. (Photo by Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)

    Beijing is currently exercising some version of this option, but by depicting protesters in a poor light — accusing them of being “terrorists” manipulated by “foreign forces” bent on harming China — and warning them to stop “playing with fire.”

    China’s state media accused the demonstrators of conducting a “color revolution.” The name reflects Beijing’s sensitivity to how many of the former satellites of the USSR successfully seceded from the Soviet Empire, employing different colors of the rainbow as a symbol of their revolutionary intent.

    Beijing also attempted to discredit the protesters through hundreds of fake accounts on social media. To their credit, Facebook and Twitter discontinued the Chinese government’s access to those accounts.

    A more forceful option that the Xi government may decide to pursue involves the infiltration of Hong Kong’s local police force with the People’s Liberation Army Garrison. Beijing cannot count on the loyalty of the Hong Kong police force, many of whose members are close relatives of the protesters.

    Moreover, the Hong Kong police have proven unable to control, much less terminate, the protests. Acknowledging this reality, Carrie Lam could request the intervention of the People’s Armed Police (PAP), a paramilitary force stationed in the nearby town of Shenzen in mainland China’s Guangdong Province.

    It may be, however, that Lam, a Catholic, would be loath to make such a request — formally — as a heavy-handed Chinese intervention could endanger the independence of Hong Kong’s economic, political and religious institutions.

    Alternatively, the People’s Republic of China Liaison Office might bypass Lam’s local administration and order the deployment of the PAP, China’s most effective arm against domestic strife. If this option is exercised, Hong Kong would be completely bypassed by the Chinese Defense Ministry.

    Any move by Beijing aggressively to suppress the people of Hong Kong’s demand for the full implementation of their democratic rights would further hobble foreign investment, thereby seriously eroding the economic blueprint of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. A military solution would render meaningless Xi’s flowery rhetoric of a “win-win” international system, and reveal it as part of its scheme to fulfill its global hegemonic ambitions. Mainland and archipelago Southeast Asian nations would likely seek alternatives to Chinese regional leadership. One such alternative might be a U.S. Indo-Pacific community of nations.

    In addition, any crackdown on the protesters in Hong Kong would likely dissuade Taiwan, and likely everyone else, from considering support for Beijing’s “one country, two systems” policy to solve the island’s standoff with the mainland’s People’s Republic.

    China’s ruling Communist Party might decide , therefore, that an armed suppression of the Hong Kong demonstrations would be too costly, economically, politically and in terms of public relations. If so, the Xi administration may decide, instead, to tamp down the spiraling crisis, by ordering Lam to meet with protest leaders and agree to shelve extradition legislation and to establish a commission to investigate local police brutality — both original demands of the protestors.

    Although such a maneuver could benefit Xi’s reputation internationally, his rivals within the Communist Party might criticize him for what they would consider to be acts of weakness and capitulation to the protesters, possibly encouraging what Xi might consider the greatest threat: opposition from his own 1.5 billion people on the mainland, who might also secretly be wishing for more freedom in their lives. China is a totalitarian power that cannot brook any source of independent thinking. Fearing that the Hong Kong protests could prove contagious, Beijing is more likely to crush, rather than cede, to the protesters.

    Xi may assess that any opprobrium endured by Beijing if it used force against the protesters would dissipate, just as it did 30 years ago when former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping ordered the 1989 massacre of student protesters in Tiananmen Square.

    As China continues ostensibly to weigh its options, then, any optimism on the part of the protesters and the West appears to be premature.

    The real “elephant in the room” not being addressed, however, is what the Hong Kong protests are really about: 2047, when Hong Kong is supposed to be handed over to China without any “one country, two systems” protection. What then?

  • "It Scares Me To Death": Coding Errors In Sex Robots Make Them Prone To Violence And Strangling Humans

    He’s the whistleblower that the future deserves and that the future needs: one expert is sounding the alarm on sex robots, according to The Daily Star.

    Oh, and his name happens to be Brick Dollbanger (Yes, it’s his real name. Yes, we checked several sources). Dollbanger, a doll collector, has said that “violent repercussions” are possible if the sex robot industry isn’t regulated properly. He says that one simple “coding error” could turn sex robots against their owners. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “It scares me to death, it’s a machine and it’s always going to be a machine,” Dollbanger said. He has close ties to doll manufacturers Realbotix and Abyss. 

    He continued, describing in horrifying detail, his vision for the future of the sex robot industry: 

    “If you’ve watched the movies, Ex-Machina, because I honestly believe synthetics are going to look very similar to that movie. It’s not going to be something you can hit with a pipe and it’s going to fall apart.”

    He continued: “I’ve always said, when a synthetic can support itself, that synthetic is going to be much stronger than a normal human. It’s going to be more durable, instead of having bones it’s going to have high impact, plastic or aluminium frame, it’s going to be very strong, and it won’t get tired, it won’t stop unless it runs out of an energy supply.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Which, we guess, could be a positive or a negative, depending on how you look at it…

    Dollbanger continued: “Unless you can stop it with some kind of projectile, like a gun or something like that, if this thing got out of control it could do some serious damage. One line of bad code, as simple as that, one line of bad code. If you make one mistake and you have a line of bad code in there and it hits this line of bad code, depending on what it’s doing or where it’s at or numerous other instances, it could just decide this is what it’s supposed to do.”

    He continued laying out his vision of a sex filled robot utopia: “…put it this way, it can put its arm around your neck and just stop you from breathing, and you wouldn’t be able to get away from it, something as simple as that, a simple hug could be a constriction that could literally compress your chest and airway and stop you breathing.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We wrote back in June that regulating the sex robot industry would be the next big challenge for the government. 

    We asked the question of how the US Consumer Product Safety Commission should regulate the hazards associated with these robots. We noted that existing products weren’t well regulated and that this could be cause for concern given the obvious – and excrutiatingly painful – ways they could be harmful to their users.

    What if parts of a robot are manufactured with lead paint or a toxin? And what if the robot, with the mechanical strength of five human beings accidentally crushes a human’s finger – or a human’s other parts?

  • What Percentage Of U.S. Workers Are Union Members?

    Authored by Zach Hrynowski of Gallup.com

    As Americans prepare to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Labor Day on Monday, Gallup’s latest measurement on labor union membership finds that 10% of full- and part-time U.S. workers belong to a union. This marks the second year in a row of the lowest level of union membership in over 15 years: from 2003 to 2017, union workers made up an average of 13% of the American workforce.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    • Over one-third of government employees (37%) belong to a union, versus 6% of all private sector employees.

    • Workers in the South are the least likely of any U.S. region to report being part of a union, with 5% saying they belong to a union. That contrasts with 15% and 14% of workers in the East and West, respectively. In the Midwest — where organized labor and right-to-work laws have been the subject of intense political debate in recent years — 10% of workers say they are union members.

    • 14% of workers reporting an annual household income of $100,000 or more are members of a union, compared with 3% of those in households earning less than $40,000 per year.

    • Employed Americans aged 35 to 54 (13%) are more than twice as likely as those aged 18 to 34 (6%) to be members of organized labor.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  • Taxi Medallion Debt Catches A Bid After Prices Plunge 90% Over Last Decade

    After years of taxi medallion prices plunging, leading to a slew of taxi driver suicides that we have documented exhaustively, taxi medallion debt (secured by medallions) has finally caught a bid from an unlikely buyer, according to Bloomberg.

    For midwest money manager O’Brien-Staley, the disaster that is the New York City taxi industry appears opportunistic. They have acquired hundreds of medallion loans secured by more than 400 medallions from Signature Bank, according to regulatory filings and interviews. This represents about 3% of the over 13,000 medallions that are in use or in storage in New York City.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lenders like Signature and Capital One have suffered increasing losses on medallion loans as Uber and Lyft have both up-ended the industry. This has also led many cab drivers, who once banked on their medallions for retirement, to severe financial distress.

    Meanwhile, regulators are investigating predatory lending within the medallion industry and prices for a medallion have fallen to as low as $110,000 from about $1 million at the start of the decade. Banks that haven’t refinanced their loans and don’t want to compromise with borrowers may see selling to private equity and hedge funds as an opportunity, also.

    Matthew Daus, an attorney at Windels Marx who formerly served as commissioner of New York’s taxi and limousine bureau said:

    “There are other players resurfacing. Some banks may cut their losses once and for all.”

    A spokesperson for Signature confirmed that the company made a bulk sale of performing loans to O-Brien-Staley earlier this year, representing more than 400 medallions. Signature’s financials disclosed about $46.4 million in loans tied to medallions and $4.6 million in repossessed medallions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    O-Brein-Staley’s website says that it specializes in “unloved” credits and the firm has about $1.3 billion in assets under management.

    It is now one of the largest lenders against medallions.

    Andrew Murstein, president of Medallion Financial Corp., which originates and services taxi loans, concluded: “It is another positive sign for the industry that another fund with a successful track record believes that medallions are a good investment.” 

  • A Climate Alarmist Sued A Skeptic For Defamation… And Lost

    Authored by Onar Am via LibertyNation.com,

    The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit by celebrity climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann against global warming skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Mann must pay the full legal costs to the defendant. The ruling is explosive because it means that Ball’s claim that Mann was a scientific fraudster is now supported by the court.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Background

    In 1999, Mann published a 1000-year-long global temperature reconstruction from tree rings that severely undercut the then-accepted knowledge of climate. IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report acknowledged that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than today and that a significant cooling called the Little Ice Age followed and lasted until the end of the 19th century.

    Mann’s reconstruction demolished that view and replaced our climate history with something that looks like a hockey stick: For 900 years, the temperature was a slightly falling straight line and then, during the period of human activity, rapid warming in the 20th century.

    Climate catastrophists immediately seized on this persuasive graph and made Mann the poster boy of the IPCC, which was now thoroughly controlled by radical greens appointed by leftist politicians.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Wegman Graph

    There was only one problem with the graph: It was junk science. Future university courses in statistics will undoubtedly teach the hockey stick as a classic case of faulty methodology. In layman terms: Mann was using a statistical technique that cherry-picked the data needed to make the hockey stick shape.

    In 2006, Congress commissioned three statisticians led by Dr. Edward Wegman to produce the so-called Wegman report on the controversy. The report proved that the technique Mann used could create any desired outcome and demonstrated this fact by creating the shape of the global temperature data from 1995.

    If Mann had produced this graph in a graduate thesis in statistics, he would have flunked.

    Hiding The Decline

    Canadian engineer Stephen McIntyre spent several years after the publication of the hockey stick graph trying to prove that it was faulty. He ultimately prevailed – but, during this debacle, Mann engaged in what many have described as intellectually dishonest or even fraudulent behavior. He refused to release the full data and source files that he used in his infamous 1999 publication.

    In 2011, Tim Ball summarized this by stating that Michael Mann “belonged in a pen, not in Penn University.” This statement was the basis for Mann’s defamation lawsuit.

    Ball defended his remark by saying that if Mann released his data, it would prove that he was a fraudster. Nine years of delay tactics later, the court dismissed the case because Mann refused to release the data that could prove his honesty.

    While this technically is not a victory for Ball, it is hard to imagine a legitimate reason for a tax-funded scientist to refuse to release the data upon which the global climate disaster narrative largely rests.

    Dubious Science

    Under normal circumstances, Mann’s career would have been lying in a pool of utter disgrace long ago. Instead, he is still one of the leading scientists in the climate catastrophe mafia. His colleagues had to defend him because if they ever were to admit that the hockey stick graph is junk science, it would discredit the IPCC and the entire field of paleoclimatology that hailed Mann’s result.

    They have doubled down and used political pull and a friendly media to the scandal. So far, they have succeeded, but for every year, the gap between the climate models and reality is widening. At some point, nothing can hide the shaky ground upon which the climate hysteria stands.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 30th August 2019

  • Diamond Crisis: De Beers Sales Crash 44% As Demand Plummets

    The Financial Times states that De Beers’, the world’s largest diamond miner, has seen a collapse in sales this month, as the entire industry is on the brink of a downturn amid weaker consumer demand and the proliferation of lab-grown stones.

    De Beers said Wednesday that it sold just $280 million of diamonds this month, compared with $503 million in the same period a year ago, which represents a 44% drop. The miner’s sales so far this year are down $1 billion from the same time in 2018.

    “The current malaise in the market is due to oversupply,” said Paul Zimnisky, an analyst in New York, who said diamond buyers had too much inventory.

    Declining demand from the world’s two largest diamond-consuming countries, the US and China, has fuelled uncertainties for the overall industry. Along with macroeconomic risks about a structural decline of the global economy and an out of control trade war between the US and China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Diamond buyers have become disappointed with the cost of rough diamonds sold by De Beers this year as spot prices for polished diamonds have fallen on a YoY basis.

    “Clients are waiting for polished demand to pick up and are trying to buy as little as possible,” David Harari, co-founder of diamond trading platform Bluedax, said in a newsletter. “

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The secondary market shows no demand for goods, and items traded are being sold without a profit and even at a loss.”

    Shares in Signet, the world’s largest retailer of diamond jewelry, have crashed 60% this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Zimnisky noted the rapid increase of lab-grown diamonds, which are chemically grown in a lab, are also “taking a very precious piece of the mined industry’s modest growth.”

    As a result of the oversupplied market, De Beers has so far slashed production with a target of 31 million carats this year compared with 35.3 million lin 2018.

    While diamonds maybe forever, diamond demand from consumers isn’t – and that demand tends to collapse ahead of (and during) recessions.

  • Boris Johnson's Deviously Clever Brexit Strategy Unfolds

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    The Remainers are huffing and puffing this morning, but it will be to no avail. Johnston’s strategy is nearly foolproof.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Corbyn Vows to ‘Politically Stop’ No Deal

    The Guardian Live Blog reports Jeremy Corbyn Says He Will Try to ‘Politically Stop’ Prorogation with Legislation. He cant buts let’s look at some comments.

    Opposition leaders have demanded that Boris Johnson either reverse his decision to suspend Parliament or put it to a Commons vote. The leaders of Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Independent Group for Change and the Greens, “condemn the undemocratic actions of Boris Johnson following his suspension of Parliament until 14 October.”

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

    My Reply: So What?

    Lord Young quit as a government whip in the Lords over Boris Johnson’s decision, saying it “risks undermining the fundamental role of parliament” in his resignation letter.

    My Reply: Excellent News

    Johnson will appoint a whip who will obey his wishes. Should the Commons pull any legislative tricks that require the House of Lords, expect a filibuster.

    The Labour leader has said parliament will “legislate rapidly” on Tuesday, when it resumes, to prevent Boris Johnson from suspending parliament and stop a no-deal Brexit.

    My Reply: Not Legally Binding

    A petition calling on the government not to prorogue parliament has already been signed by more than 1.4 million people. The petition is growing even faster than the petition to revoke article 50, which eventually had 6m signatures.

    My Reply: Not Legally Binding

    Accusations

    Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, has claimed the Speaker, John Bercow, was being unconstitutional by criticising the suspension of parliament. Bercow described Johnson’s move to prorogue parliament as a “constitutional outrage”. But Rees-Mogg claimed it was Bercow who was acting outside the constitution by making such comments.

    Rees-Mogg is correct. There is nothing unconstitutional about the move. Proroguing is frequent. Only the timing is unusual.

    “It was simply wrong and deeply irresponsible of him [Bercow] to say that. The Queen had no discretion over this. There is no precedent for the Queen refusing a request by her prime minister under these circumstances. This is a straightforward decision by the prime minister giving formal advice to the sovereign, which a constitutional monarch is obliged to follow. Lord O’Donnell is saying things that are damaging to the constitution and wrong.”

    Rees-Moog commented: “The law of the land is that we leave the European Union, and parliament voted for that on the back of a referendum where 17.4 million people voted to leave. That’s not railroading. That’s delivering a proper constitutional settlement.”

    Coup

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

    Call to Hang Johnson

    The Shadow (opposition) Chancellor, John McDonnell, labeled Johnson a “dictator”.

    Other want to hang him.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Tweet has been deleted.

    Acceptance

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

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

    Both Tweets sounds like acceptance.

    Polls

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

    Common Sense from Eurointelligence

    Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have a strategy – and nobody else does. The prorogation plan is devious – or clever depending on your views. It tells us that this government will stop at nothing to frustrate the Remainers in the parliament, so long as it is legal.

    The decision to prorogue parliament in the way they did dramatically reduces the options for the Remain supporters. There is now no time for legislation to force the government to extend Brexit. There is a little more than a week after the parliament convenes next week, and there will be a couple of weeks after the Queen’s Speech October 14.

    Can this be stopped legally? Not really. It is not the prime minister who has prorogued the parliament. It was the Queen, who has her own legal counsel.

    Perhaps the most interesting news story yesterday – amid a torrent of noisy outrage – was a story in Die Welt according to which Germany and the EU – for the first time – now actually believe that a no-deal Brexit is possible. We have been pointing out for the last three years that Germans in particular did not believe that Brexit would happen. The German media have been obsessed with the second referendum campaign and reported on little else. It also has been the overwhelming experience of the EU that the other side always blinks first. What yesterday’s decision did was to make it absolutely clear to the EU that the UK parliament won’t stop a no-deal Brexit.

    There is no way the House of Commons and the Lords will finalize an anti-Brexit law before parliament breaks up. They would have to re-table the legislation in mid-October. But at that time Johnson and EU leaders would be in last-minute negotiations. If the talks succeed, parliament will get a last-minute take-it-or-leave-it vote.

    There is still one option left for Remainers to pursue, but it is very risky. They could hold a vote of no confidence when they come back next week. If they win, the fixed-term parliaments act sets out a definitive procedure. The House of Commons has two weeks to secure a majority in support of another prime minister – a technical government as the Italians would call it. But this is unlikely as the opposition is hopelessly divided on this point. If that effort fails, the Commons would be suspended for new elections. But, crucially, it is the government that sets the date for them. Number Ten said yesterday that the date for elections would be November 1-5, that is after a no-deal Brexit. In other words, a no-confidence motion could actually trigger a no-deal Brexit, as the Commons would have deprived themselves of the opportunity to ratify a withdrawal agreement.

    This is why the timing of the prorogation is so clever – no doubt the work of Cummings.

    The political reality is that the anti-Brexit campaign has committed one strategic blunder after another, and failed to attract enough support. They lost two general elections, one European election and one referendum. The ferocity of their reaction is best explained as a sudden realisation that they lost. They did not see this coming.

    Eurointelligence supports the opinion I offered yesterday.

    “The only possible way to stop this now is a successful motion of no confidence followed by the agreement of an alternate government.”

    Even then, Cummings noted that Johnson would refuse to resign. The law is unclear on what would happen.

    Brilliant Plan

    I did not understand why Johnson (Cummings) would have picked October 14 for a Queen’s speech. It is clear today.

    • Now that the EU finally understands No Deal is on the table and Parliament cannot stop it, there is a chance for Johnson to actually work out a deal.

    • Should there be a successful motion of no confidence, it would trigger no deal, taking away the arguably small chance the EU might come to its senses and work out a deal.

    • Such a deal might be a trade arrangement in return for the UK paying the Brexit bill and other cooperative efforts, but the backstop has to go.

    • Also, and as I have pointed pointed out before, any Tory who voted against Johnson would immediately be outed from the party and lose their seat in the next election.

    Congrats to Boris Johnson for a brilliant plan.

    Happy Halloween.

  • To Combat China, Pentagon Races To Develop Rare Earth Mineral Plants In Australia 

    A shooting war between the U.S. and China seems far-fetched at the moment, but could be plausible once the Pentagon reduces its rare earth mineral exposure on the Asian country and sets up new processing facilities in Australia.

    Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters Monday that she held meetings with Australian counterparts about “whether or not we could work with Australia to stand up a facility that would take care of our DoD needs, but a variety of other international needs as well.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Lord’s meeting comes after a series of threats made by the Chinese to block rare earth mineral exports to the U.S., about 17 minerals in total, mostly used in fifth-generation fighter jets, M1 Abrams tank armor, radars, lasers, and engines.

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

    What irks Washington and the neocon warmongers in the White House is that China controls 80% of the global processing capacity of rare earth minerals.

    “We’re concerned about any fragility in the supply chain and especially where an adversary controls the supply,” Lord told reporters at a Washington event on Monday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    She said the Pentagon is reviewing several options to partner on rare earth projects, adding “one of the highest potential avenues is to work with Australia.”

    An Australian Defence spokeswoman told Reuters that discussions with the U.S. on rare earth minerals started in 2018 were continuing:

    “Continuity and guarantee of supply of rare earths and critical minerals is vital to a range of sectors, including defense. Cooperation with international partners is integral to this effort,” the spokeswoman said.

    To derisk and decrease reliance on China, the Pentagon also held talks with Canada and countries within Africa to develop rare earth reserves.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Pentagon emphasized this threat with the October 2018 review of the defense-industrial base and its complex supply chains around the world:

    “China represents a significant and growing risk to the supply of materials [rare earth minerals] and technologies deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national security; a challenge shared by key allies such as Germany and Australia,” the report read.

    Last month, President Trump directed the Pentagon to develop new ways in acquiring magnets made from rare earth minerals, suggesting that reliance on China or other countries could one-day result in declining stockpiles.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And when the Pentagon can fully source its rare earth minerals from Australia, which would ultimately reduce its China exposure to zero, that will be the moment when war planners in Washington might feel comfortable in waging a shooting war against China in the South China Sea.

    Securing supply chains of the most critical materials necessary for warfare are the first steps in preparing for conflict. The countdown has begun.

  • Billionaires, Bezos, And The Real Big Brother

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Jeff Bezos is the owner of The Washington Post, which leads America’s news-media in their almost 100 percent support and promotion of neoconservatism, American imperialism and wars. This includes sanctions, coups, and military invasions against countries that America’s billionaires want to control but don’t yet control — such as Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Russia, Libya, and China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    These are aggressive wars against countries which have never aggressed against the United States. They are not, at all, defensive, but the exact opposite. It’s not necessarily endless war (even Hitler hadn’t planned that), but war until the entire planet has come under the control of the U.S. Government, a government that is itself controlled by America’s billionaires, the funders of neoconservatism and imperialism — in both major American political parties, think tanks, newspapers, TV networks, etcetera.

    Bezos has been a crucial part of neoconservatism, ever since, at the June 6-9 2013 Bilderberg meeting, he arranged with Donald Graham, the Washington Post’s owner, to buy that newspaper, for $250 million. Bezos had already negotiated, in March of that same year, with the neoconservative CIA Director, John Brennan, for a  $600 million ten-year cloud computing contract that transformed Amazon corporation, from being a reliable money-loser, into a reliably profitable firm.

    That caused Bezos’s net worth to soar even more (and at a sharper rate of rising) than it had been doing while it had been losing money. He became the most influential salesman not only for books, but for the CIA, and for such mega-corporations as Lockheed Martin. Imperialism has supercharged his wealth, but it didn’t alone cause it. Bezos might be the most ferociously gifted business-person on the planet.

    Some of America’s billionaires don’t care about international conquest as much as he does, but all of them at least accept neoconservatism; none of them, for example, establishes and donates large sums to, anti-imperialistic organizations; none of America’s billionaires is determined to end the reign of neoconservatism, nor even to help the fight to end it, or at least to end its grip over the U.S. government. None. Not even a single one of them does.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Plutocrat Bezos at the Pentagon with then Defense Secretary Ash Carter, May 2016. (Wikimedia Commons)

    But many of them establish and donate large sums to neoconservative organizations, or run neocon organs such as The Washington Post.  That’s the way billionaires are, at least in the United States. All of them are imperialists. They sponsor it; they promote it and hire people who do, and demote or get rid of people who don’t. Expanding an empire is extremely profitable for its aristocrats, and always has been, even before the Roman Empire.

    Bezos wants to privatize everything around the world that can become privatized, such as education, highways, health care, and pensions. The more that billionaires control those things, the less that everyone else does; and preventing control by the public helps to protect billionaires against democracy that would increase their taxes and government regulations that would reduce their profits by increasing their corporations’ expenses. So, billionaires control the government in order to increase their takings from the public.

    With the help of the war promotion of  The Washington Post, Bezos is one of the world’s top personal sellers to the U.S. military-industrial complex. He controls and is the biggest investor in Amazon corporation, whose Web Services division supplies all cloud-computing services to the Pentagon, CIA and NSA. (He’s leading the charge in the most advanced facial recognition technology too.)

    In April there was a headline, “CIA Considering Cloud Contract Worth ‘Tens of Billions’,” which contract could soar Bezos’s personal wealth even higher into the stratosphere, especially if he wins all of it (as he previously did).

    He also globally dominates, and is constantly increasing his control over the promotion and sale of books and films, because his Amazon is the world’s largest retailer (and now also one of the largest publishers, producers and distributors.) That, too, can have a huge impact upon politics and government, indirectly, by promoting the most neocon works helping to shape intellectual discourse (and voters’ votes) in the country.

    Bezos is crushing millions of retailers by his unmatched brilliance at controlling one market after another as Amazon or as an essential middleman for — and often even a controller of — Amazon’s retail competitors.

    He is a strong believer in “the free market”, which he has mastered perhaps better than anyone. This means that Bezos supports the unencumbered ability of billionaires, by means of their money, to control and eventually absorb all who are less powerful than they.

    Because he is so enormously gifted himself at amassing wealth, he has thus-far been able to rise to the global top, as being one of the world’s most powerful individuals. The wealthiest of all is King Salman— the owner of Saudi Arabia, whose Aramco (the world’s largest oil company) is, alone, worth over a trillion dollars. (Forbes and Bloomberg exclude monarchs from their wealth-rankings.)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Donald Trump touches lighted globe with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi King Salman at the opening of Saudi Arabia’s Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology on May 21, 2017. (Photo from Saudi TV)

    In fact, Bloomberg is even so fraudulent about it as to have headlined on Aug. 10, “The 25 wealthiest dynasties on the planet control $1.4 trillion” and violated their tradition by including on their list one monarch, King Salman, whom they ranked at #4 as owning only $100 million, a ludicrously low ‘estimate’, which brazenly excluded not just Aramco but any of the net worth of Saudi Arabia.

    Bloomberg didn’t even try to justify their wacky methodology, but merely presumed the gullibility of their readers for its acceptance. That King, therefore, is at least seven times as rich as Bezos is. He might possibly be as powerful as Bezos is. The supreme heir is lots wealthier even than the supreme self-made billionaire or “entrepreneur” is.

    Certainly, both men are among the giants who bestride the world in our era. And both men are libertarians — champions of the belief that property rights (of which, billionaires have so much) are the basis of all rights, and so they believe that the wealthiest people possess the most rights of all, and that the poorest people have the least, and that all persons whose net worths are negative (having more debts than assets) possess no rights except what richer people might donate to or otherwise grant to them, out of kindness or otherwise (such as familial connections).

    This — privatization of everything — is what libertarianism is: a person’s worth is his or her “net worth” — nothing else. That belief is pure libertarianism. It’s a belief that many if not most billionaires hold. Billionaires are imperialistic because they seek to maximize the freedom of the super-rich, regardless of whether this means increasing their takings from, or ultimately impoverishing, everyone who isn’t super-rich. They have a coherent ideology. It’s based on wealth. The public instead believes in myths that billionaires enable to be promulgated.

    Like any billionaire, Bezos hires and retains employees and other agents who do what he/she wants them to do. This is their direct power. But billionaires also possess enormous indirect power by means of their interdependencies upon one-another, as each large corporation is contractually involved with other corporations, especially with large ones such as they; and, so, whatever power any particular billionaire possesses is actually a shared power, along with the others. (An example was the deal Bezos made with Graham.)

    Collectively, they network together, even with ones they might never even have met personally, but only through their representatives, and even with their own major economic competitors. This is collective power which billionaires possess in addition to their individual power as hirers of employees and other agents.

    Whereas Winston Smith, in the prophetic allegorical novel 1984, asked his superior and torturer O’Brien, “Does Big Brother exist?”

    “‘Of course he exists. The Party exists. Big Brother is the embodiment of the Party.’

    ‘Does he exist in the same way as I exist?’

    ‘You do not exist,’ said O’Brien.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Big Brother poster illustrating George Orwell’s novel about modern propaganda, 1984.

    This collective power is embodied by Bezos as well as any billionaire does.  A few of the others may embody it too, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Charles Koch, Sergey Brin, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros,  and Jack Dorsey.  They compete against each other, and therefore have different priorities for the U.S. government; but, all of them agree much more than they disagree in regards to what the Government “should” do (especially that the U.S. military should be expanded — at taxpayer’s expense, of course, not their own).

    Basically, Big Brother, in the real world is remarkably coherent and unified – far more so than the public is – and this is one of the reasons why they control Government, bypassingthe public.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here is how all of this plays out, in terms of what Bezos’s agents have been doing: 

    • His Amazon pays low to no federal taxes because the Federal Government has written the tax-laws to encourage companies to do the types of things that Bezos has always wanted Amazon to do.

    • The U.S. government consequently encourages mega-corporations through taxes and regulations to crush small firms by making it harder for them to grow. That somewhat locks-in the existing aristocracy to be less self-made (as Bezos himself was, but his children won’t be).

    • Elected politicians overwhelmingly support this because most of their campaign funds were donated by super-rich individuals and their employees and other agents. It’s a self-reinforcing system. Super-wealth controls the government, which (along with the super-wealthy and their corporations) controls the public, which reduces economic opportunity for them. The end-result is institutionally reinforced extreme wealth-inequality, becoming more extreme all the time.

    The billionaires are the real Big Brothers. And Bezos is the biggest of them all.

  • US Lobster Exports To China Crash 80%

Today’s News 29th August 2019

  • 29% Of London Homeowners Are Panic Selling Homes Ahead Of Brexit Deadline 

    The pound sterling has lost nearly 10% of its value in the last 120 days, as a no-deal Brexit has become more likely. The Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index, also called the FTSE 100 Index, has fallen into a bear market in the same period. Fear is spreading across the United Kingdom, also affecting the real estate market.

    Nested, a London-based “data-driven” real estate firm, is reporting 29% of London homeowners are slashing their asking prices ahead of Brexit’s Oct. 31 deadline, reported Property Reporter.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The new report shows over £2 billion ($2.43 billion) of price cuts have so far occurred in the London Metropolitan Region ahead of the deadline.

    About 11% of the listings in London (12,078) have seen at least £37,800 ($46,166) cut from the initial list price. Top areas of where the most substantial price discounts are being observed are in Westminster Kensington & Chelsea, Wandsworth, Camden, and Tower Hamlets.

    Another 18% of homes listed in the London area have seen price drops of at least 10% ahead of the Oct. 31 deadline.

    Jamie Salisbury, a property expert at Nested, said:

    Amid this endless uncertainty and gloom there are great opportunities out there for buyers if they’re bold enough to seize them. This is particularly true for homeowners who are trading up, presenting an opportunity to buy a new home that might otherwise have been out of reach.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Brexit fears, along with an economy that is one step away from a recession, have sent real estate markets into turmoil this year.

    Inner London home sales plunged to 2009 levels this summer: 

    “In Inner London, sales volume has plunged by 50% from the mid-range prevailing in the three years from mid-2013 to mid-2016. And it’s down about 65% from the peak in sales volume before the Financial Crisis. These numbers are very volatile from month to month. So, to smoothen out some of the sharp month-to-month ups and downs, I used a three-month moving average. At 2,057 transactions, sales volume has now fallen to levels not seen since the depth of the Financial Crisis in June 2009,” noted Wolf Richter of Wolf Street.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The overall trajectory of UK home prices is down:

    “Overall UK home prices, after also peaking in August 2018, have inched down since then. On a year-over-year, they eked out a 1.2% gain in May, weighted down by the decline in the London housing market. May showed the lowest home price inflation, along with February, since January 2013 (by comparison, the UK’s consumer price inflation rose 1.9% through June),” Richter said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And with the Oct. 31 deadline fast approaching – British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is gung-ho on leaving the EU with a deal, but that it is “do or die,” that he would be willing to leave without a deal so long as it means leaving on the deadline. With the political uncertainty surrounding Brexit and an economy that is stumbling into a recession, it now makes sense why people are racing to sell their homes, even if that means deep price cuts, because the next economic downturn has already arrived.

  • Europe: "Mediterranean Taxis" For People-Smugglers

    Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

    • The captain’s refusal to accept Spain’s offer [to dock in Spain rather than Italy] fueled suspicion about the financial and political motivations behind the migrant rescues — including efforts by Open Arms and other NGOs to promote open borders by discrediting Salvini’s hardline immigration policies.

    • “We are facing the umpteenth mockery of the Spanish Open Arms, which for days has been wandering around the Mediterranean for the sole purpose of gathering as many people as possible to bring them always and only to Italy. In all this time they already could have gone back and forth to a Spanish port three times. These NGOs are only political. They are using the immigrants against our country. I will not give up.” — Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini.

    • “Open Arms does not rescue shipwrecked people. If it did, it would take them to the nearest port. What it does is use immigrants as an extortion tool against countries that choose to defend their sovereignty. These fake humanitarian organizations, in the name of solidarity, exploit the good will of many people. But their work is promoted by those who want to destroy the borders of Europe, and only benefits human traffickers.” — Santiago Abascal, leader of the Spanish party Vox.

    • The [Ipsos] poll also found that a majority of Italians (56%) believe that the NGOs involved in rescuing migrants are motivated by money; only 22% believe they are motivated by humanitarianism.

    • The data indicates that most of the migrants who arrived in Italy during the first six months of 2019 are economic migrants, not refugees fleeing warzones.

    • “It is quite clear that when the organized networks that control migrants from Libya throw people into the sea in vessels that lack even the slightest navigability conditions to safely transport them to European ports, what they are doing is deliberately placing them into the legal status of shipwrecked persons. These are not shipwrecks caused by maritime accidents, as contemplated by international law, they are ‘shipwrecks of convenience.'” — José María Ruiz Soroa, distinguished professor of maritime law at the University of the Basque Country.

    Italian authorities have seized a Spanish migrant rescue ship after a three-week standoff between the Italian government and the Spanish charity operating the vessel.

    Interior Minister Matteo Salvini had refused to allow the Open Arms rescue ship, carrying more than 80 mostly African migrants, to dock in Italy. The refusal was in line with his crackdown on migrant smuggling that has effectively closed Italian ports to migrant rescue boats since June 2018.

    Salvini has accused European non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of coordinating with people-smuggling mafias to pick up migrants off the coast of Libya and transport them to Italian ports.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Italian officials have referred to the charity rescue boats as “Mediterranean taxis” for people-smugglers.

    Sicilian prosecutor Luigi Patronaggio on August 20 ordered the Open Arms, anchored one kilometer off Italy’s southernmost island of Lampedusa, to dock in Sicily so that its passengers could disembark. He made the decision, in opposition to Salvini, after more than a dozen migrants jumped overboard and tried to swim to shore. Subsequent video footage showed that Open Arms staged the jumps to manipulate public opinion.

    The Open Arms, operated by a Spanish NGO of the same name, had picked up 147 migrants off the coast of Libya on August 1. The Italian government allowed those in need of medical attention and all unaccompanied children to disembark on August 17. Five EU countries — Spain, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal — agreed to take in the rest, although details of the understanding have yet to be finalized.

    On August 18, the Spanish government announced that the Open Arms would be allowed to dock at the Spanish port of Algeciras in Cádiz, and at Mahón in Menorca in the Balearic Islands. The captain of the Open Arms, however, rejected the offer. He argued that it was “impossible” to attempt the four- to six-day journey given the conditions on board: “We cannot endanger the security and physical integrity of the migrants and crew. We need to dock now.”

    The captain’s refusal to accept Spain’s offer fueled suspicion about the financial and political motivations behind the migrant rescues — including efforts by Open Arms and other NGOs to promote open borders by discrediting Salvini’s hardline immigration policies.

    “We are facing the umpteenth mockery of the Spanish Open Arms, which for days has been wandering around the Mediterranean for the sole purpose of gathering as many people as possible to bring them always and only to Italy,” Salvini tweeted.

    “In all this time they already could have gone back and forth to a Spanish port three times. These NGOs are only political. They are using the immigrants against our country. I will not give up.”

    Spain’s acting Deputy Prime Minister Carmen Calvo expressed bafflement at Open Arms. In an interview with Spanish radio Cadena SER, she noted that the ship could easily have docked in Tunisia or Malta but refused to do so:

    “We do not understand the position of Open Arms. We have offered all types of support: medical attention, supplies. We understand the situation is critical because of the uncertainty and desperation, but once you tell them they have a safe port, the migrants know they are going to arrive, and anybody can understand that there is no problem.”

    On August 20, the Spanish government dispatched a warship, the Audaz, from the Rota naval base to pick up the migrants and take them to the Spanish island of Mallorca. The round-trip voyage, however, was estimated to take at least a week and Patronaggio acted after reports that some migrants were suicidal.

    The Italian government later impounded the Open Arms after the Italian Coast Guard, in an inspection, found “serious security anomalies.” The Italian Ministry of Transport said that the ship would not be allowed to leave Sicily until the problems were remedied.

    Italian Transportation Minister Danilo Toninelli called on the Spanish government to crack down on the activities of the Open Arms by de-registering the vessel and removing its Spanish flag. “I hope that Spain answers our appeal and commits to stopping Open Arms in the future with the means, and in the ways, it deems right,” he said. A de-flagged ship would legally be unable to continue picking up migrants.

    The Spanish government, facing growing criticism over its handling of the standoff, has since expressed a harder line against the Open Arms NGO. On August 21, Calvo told Cadena SER radio that the Open Arms did not have a permit to transport migrants and could be fined €900,000 ($1,000,000) for violating an express ban on sailing to the seas off Libya: “Open Arms does not have a permit to rescue, as the captain of the ship knows. This is a state ruled by law. We are all subject to the law.”

    In the past, however, the Spanish government has worked closely with Open Arms. In August 2018, the NGO announced that it had reached an agreement with the government to coordinate migrant rescues in the Strait of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea. That same month, Spanish Development Minister José Luis Ábalos heaped praise on Open Arms for rescuing “tens of thousands of people since 2015.” It remains unclear if the NGO is receiving money from the government for its activities.

    The Spanish anti-immigration party Vox filed a lawsuit against Open Arms and called for the arrest of the ship’s captain, Óscar Camps. “Disguising its activities as ‘rescue work,’ this ‘NGO’ is an accomplice to the people-smuggling of international mafia networks,” Vox leader Santiago Abascal tweeted, adding:

    “Open Arms does not rescue shipwrecked people. If it did, it would take them to the nearest port. What it does is use immigrants as an extortion tool against countries that choose to defend their sovereignty.

    “These fake humanitarian organizations, in the name of solidarity, exploit the good will of many people. Their work, however, is promoted by those who want to destroy the borders of Europe, and only benefits human traffickers.

    “For all these reasons, we will act firmly and forcefully against any NGO, government, association or group that intends to continue promoting illegal, massive immigration and subject us to the interests of international human trafficking mafias.

    “This unlawful and criminal activity endangers our welfare state, our sovereignty, the safety of Spaniards and even the lives they claim to rescue. They will have to answer to the courts sooner rather than later.”

    European charity vessels have repeatedly attempted — with varying degrees of success — to bring migrants rescued at sea to Italian ports:

    • December 22, 2018. The Spanish ship Open Arms, carrying 311 migrants rescued off the coast of Libya, sailed to the Spanish port of Algeciras after the vessel was refused entry by Italy and Malta. “Italian ports are CLOSED,” Salvini tweeted. “The human traffickers and their accomplices know that our ports are closed, STOP!” he added.

    • March 19, 2019. The Italian-flagged charity ship Mare Jonio was impoundedafter it docked at a port in Lampedusa and dropped off 49 migrants picked up in waters off Libya. “The ship of the anarchist squats has been seized, excellent,” Salvini said. “In Italy there is now a government that defends borders and makes laws respected, above all by the people traffickers. Those who do wrong will pay.” Earlier he had said that the migrants would not be allowed to enter Italy: “They can be treated, dressed and fed. We can give them any kind of comfort, but they will not set foot in Italy.”

    • May 10, 2019. The Mare Jonio was again impounded after it docked at a port in Lampedusa and dropped off 30 migrants rescued off the coast of Libya.

    • June 29, 2019. Italian authorities arrested the 31-year-old German captain of the Dutch-flagged Sea-Watch 3, operated by German charity Sea-Watch, after she illegally docked the vessel carrying 40 migrants at Lampedusa. Salvini tweeted: “Outlaw arrested. Pirate ship seized. Big fine on foreign NGO. Migrants all redistributed in other European countries. Mission completed.” An Italian judge subsequently released her on the grounds that she had been acting to save lives. The decision angered Salvini, who said it would encourage other charity vessels to defy the docking ban.

    • July 6, 2019. The Italian-flagged charity vessel Alex, in defiance of Salvini, brought 41 shipwrecked migrants into port in Lampedusa. Salvini tweeted: “To break the law, these jackals put the lives of immigrants on board at risk. Will they also go unpunished? In a serious country, arrests and seizure of the vessel would be immediate: what will the judges do this time???”

    Meanwhile, the Norwegian-flagged Ocean Viking, operated by two French charities, was allowed to dock in Malta late on August 23 after being refused entry into Italy. The ship, carrying 356 migrants, had been sailing between Sicily and Lampedusa for two weeks while waiting for permission to dock in Italy. The migrants will be relocated to France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania.

    In an essay published by the Spanish newspaper El Mundo on August 24, José María Ruiz Soroa, a distinguished professor of maritime law at the University of the Basque Country, explained that European NGOs are manipulating gaps between national laws, which restrict migration, and international law, which require helping shipwrecked persons, in order to deliver illegal immigrants to the EU.

    Ruiz Soroa wrote that NGOs are abusing international maritime laws (mainly the International Convention on Salvage and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue) which require ship captains to rescue shipwrecked persons they find at sea and deliver them to a safe place or port. He noted that “safe ports” as defined by those laws would allow NGOs to return shipwrecked persons to Libya, but the NGOs insist on transporting them to Europe:

    “It is quite clear that when the organized networks that control migrants from Libya throw people into the sea in vessels that lack even the slightest navigability conditions to safely transport them to European ports, what they are doing is deliberately placing them into the legal status of shipwrecked persons. These are not shipwrecks caused by maritime accidents, as contemplated by international law, they are ‘shipwrecks of convenience.’ No matter how much migrants do it out of desperation, they formally become shipwrecked to obtain that legal status, and once rescued, they are allowed to enter Europe by bypassing the ban on illegal immigration.

    “In the final analysis, what we are witnessing in Mediterranean waters is one of the most obvious cases of legal fraud imaginable: intentionally creating the appearance of a factual event regulated in a certain way in a special law… to escape the inexorable application of the general law that really corresponds to that underlying factual situation; which is one of emigration and that is prohibitive. Bypass one law based on another. The Civil Code, and common sense, say that such a trick is illegal.

    “Does this mean that the castaways found (pursued by?) by the Open Arms should have been abandoned to their fate? Obviously not. Human life is well above such consideration, and the fake shipwrecked persons of the Open Arms should be helped…. This situation of widespread legal fraud, however, is that the affected states intervene to stop and prevent the actions of private individuals, enthusiasts and well-intentioned do-gooders who only aggravate the problem. The rescues become a state matter when relevant public interest aspects are at stake, as it is with the environment, and as it should be in the case of illegal immigration.

    “The Spanish government intervened months ago: The Open Arms was prohibited from rescuing shipwrecked people in Libyan waters. The ban was not made on a whim but on the well-founded suspicion that the presence of the Open Arms in those waters would encourage potential migrants to endanger themselves in the hope of being rescued. The shipowners, however, violated the ban when they decided on their own that the law can be broken when a suffering humanity is placed on the other side of the scale of justice….

    “There will be shipwrecked people of convenience (and some will die for it) as long as they have a confirmed hope that there will be rescuers waiting for them out there. It is an unsustainable deadly loop that must be cut somewhere.”

    A recent Ipsos poll published by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera foundthat a majority of Italians support Salvini’s hard line on immigration: 59% said that they agree with his decision to close Italian ports to migrant rescue ships; 71% said that other European countries should do more to share the burden. The poll also found that a majority of Italians (56%) believe that the NGOs involved in rescuing migrants are motivated by money; only 22% believe they are motivated by humanitarianism.

    Since Salvini announced his hardline immigration policies in June 2018, the number of migrant arrivals to Italy — as well as the number of dead and missing — has significantly decreased. The number of arrivals by sea fell from 119,369 in 2017 to 23,370 in 2018, a drop of 80%, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. During that same period, the number of dead and missing fell from 2,873 to 1,311, a decline of more than 50%.

    A similar trend has continued in 2019: 2,800 migrants arrived in Italy by sea between January and June of 2019, compared to 16,600 during the same six-month period in 2018 and 83,800 in 2017, according to the UNHCR.

    Of those who arrived in Italy by sea in 2019, 600 (21%) were from Tunisia; 400 (14%) were from Pakistan; 300 (10%) were from Algeria; 300 (10%) were from Iraq; 200 (7%) were from Ivory Coast; 200 (7%) were from Bangladesh; 100 (3.5%) were from Sudan; 100 (3.5%) were from Iran; 100 (3.5%) were from Morocco; and 50 (1.7%) were from Egypt, according to the UNHCR.

    The data indicates that most of the migrants who arrived in Italy during the first six months of 2019 are economic migrants, not refugees fleeing warzones.

  • Lebanese Army Opens Fire On Multiple Israeli Drones At Southern Border

    Gunfire has erupted over southern Lebanon amid soaring tensions after Lebanon accused Israel of launching aggression tantamount to “a declaration of war” – in the words of President Michel Aoun, in reference to the twin Israeli drone attack on Hezbollah offices in south Beirut the past weekend. 

    Specifically on Wednesday the Lebanese army is reported to have opened fire on up to three “Israeli reconnaissance drones” for violating the country’s airspace, according to the official National News Agency. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    An Israeli Hermes 450 drone photographed along the Gaza border in 2018, via AFP.

    Reuters also reports that troops initially opened fire on the unmanned vehicles with M16 assault rifles, forcing the drones to return to Israeli airspace. 

    The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) appear to have confirmed the incident, but didn’t specify whether the drones violated Lebanese airspace. 

    “Gunfire was heard from Lebanese territory toward the area where IDF drones were flying. The drones completed their mission, and no damage was caused,” the Israeli army said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Lebanese Air Force (LAF) mentioned three UAVs appearing near the village of Adaisseh, as well as in the vicinity of Kafr Kila, near the border with Israel. “The army confronted it and fired at it, forcing it to retreat,” the LAF said in a statement.

    Some Arab regional media actually claimed one or more of the drones were destroyed by the gunfire, but it remains unclear.

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

    There are significant fears that Lebanon and Israel could be barreling toward a major conflict similar to the 2006 war, also after on Sunday a separate Israeli drone strike (following the south Beirut incident) reached deep into Lebanon, killing a PFLP-GC leader in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley (a Palestinian paramilitary group). 

    Both the national army and Hezbollah have vowed to shoot down any unauthorized aircraft in violation of Lebanese airspace, despite Israel over the past couple years violating it frequently to conduct air raids on targets in Syria.

  • Whitehead Exposes The American Gulag: Brick by Brick, Our Prison Walls Get More Oppressive By The Day

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “The exile of prisoners to a distant place, where they can ‘pay their debt to society,’ make themselves useful, and not contaminate others with their ideas or their criminal acts, is a practice as old as civilization itself. The rulers of ancient Rome and Greece sent their dissidents off to distant colonies. Socrates chose death over the torment of exile from Athens. The poet Ovid was exiled to a fetid port on the Black Sea.”

    – Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History

    This is how freedom dies.

    This is how you condition a populace to life as prisoners in a police state: by brainwashing them into believing they are free so that they will march in lockstep with the state and be incapable of recognizing the prison walls that surround them.

    Face the facts: we are no longer free.

    We in the American Police State may enjoy the illusion of freedom, but that is all it is: an elaborate deception, rooted in denial and delusion, that hides the grasping, greedy, power-hungry, megalomaniacal force that lurks beneath the surface.

    Brick by brick, the prison walls being erected around us by the government and its corporate partners-in-crime grow more oppressive and more pervasive by the day.

    Brick by brick, we are finding there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

    Brick by brick, we are being walled in, locked down and locked up.

    That’s the curious thing about walls: they not only keep those on the outside from getting in, they also keep those on the inside from getting out.

    Consider, if you will, some of the “bricks” in the police state’s wall that serve to imprison the citizenry: Red flag gun laws that strip citizens of their rights based on the flimsiest of pretexts concocted by self-serving politicians. Overcriminalization resulting in jail time for nonviolent offenses such as feeding stray cats and buying foreign honey. Military training drills—showy exercises in armed intimidation—and live action “role playing” between soldiers and “freedom fighters” staged in small rural communities throughout the country. Profit-driven speed and red light cameras that do little for safety while padding the pockets of government agencies. Overt surveillance that turns citizens into suspects.

    Police-run facial recognition software that mistakenly labels law-abiding citizens as criminals. Punitive programs that strip citizens of their passports and right to travel over unpaid taxes. Government agents that view segments of the populace as “subhuman” and treat them accordingly. A social credit system (similar to China’s) that rewards behavior deemed “acceptable” and punishes behavior the government and its corporate allies find offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

    These are just a small sampling of the oppressive measures used by the government to control and constrict the American people.

    What these despotic tactics add up to is an authoritarian prison in every sense of the word.

    Granted this prison may not appear as overtly bleak as the soul-destroying gulags described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his masterpiece The Gulag Archipelago, but that’s just a matter of aesthetics.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Strip away the surface embellishments and you’ll find the core is no less sinister than that of the gulags of the Cold War-era Soviet Union.

    Those gulags, according to historian Anne Applebaum, used as a form of “administrative exile—which required no trial and no sentencing procedure—was an ideal punishment not only for troublemakers as such, but also for political opponents of the regime.”

    The word “gulag” refers to a labor or concentration camp where prisoners (oftentimes political prisoners or so-called “enemies of the state,” real or imagined) were imprisoned as punishment for their crimes against the state. As Applebaum explains:

    Over time, the word “Gulag” has also come to signify not only the administration of the concentration camps but also the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps. Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself, the set of procedures that prisoners once called the “meat-grinder”: the arrests, the interrogations, the transport in unheated cattle cars, the forced labor, the destruction of families, the years spent in exile, the early and unnecessary deaths.

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was such a political prisoner.

    For the crime of daring to criticize Stalin in a private letter to a school friend, Solzhenitsyn was arrested and sentenced to eight years in exile in a labor camp.

    That was before psychiatry paved the way for totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union to declare dissidents mentally ill and consign political prisoners to prisons disguised as psychiatric hospitals, where they could be isolated from the rest of society, their ideas discredited, and subjected to electric shocks, drugs and various medical procedures to break them physically and mentally.

    In addition to declaring political dissidents mentally unsound, government officials in the Cold War-era Soviet Union also made use of an administrative process for dealing with individuals who were considered a bad influence on others or troublemakers. Author George Kennan describes a process in which:

    The obnoxious person may not be guilty of any crime . . . but if, in the opinion of the local authorities, his presence in a particular place is “prejudicial to public order” or “incompatible with public tranquility,” he may be arrested without warrant, may be held from two weeks to two years in prison, and may then be removed by force to any other place within the limits of the empire and there be put under police surveillance for a period of from one to ten years.

    Warrantless seizures, surveillance, indefinite detention, isolation, exile… sound familiar?

    It should.

    The age-old practice by which despotic regimes eliminate their critics or potential adversaries by making them disappear—or forcing them to flee—or exiling them literally or figuratively or virtually from their fellow citizens—is happening with increasing frequency in America.

    We saw it happen with Julian Assange. With Edward Snowden. With Bradley Manning.

    They, too, were exiled for daring to challenge the powers-that-be.

    It happened to 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub, who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys.

    Raub’s case exposed the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

    Now, through the use of red flag lawsbehavioral threat assessments, and pre-crime policing prevention programs, the government is laying the groundwork that would allow it to weaponize the label of mental illness as a means of exiling those whistleblowers, dissidents and freedom fighters who refuse to march in lockstep with its dictates.

    That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) its critics is diabolically brilliant. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these individuals are declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights.

    These developments are merely the realization of various U.S. government initiatives dating back to 2009, including one dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

    Coupled with the report on “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” issued by the Department of Homeland Security (curiously enough, a Soviet term), which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics bode ill for anyone seen as opposing the government. Although these initiatives caused an initial uproar when announced in 2009, they were quickly subsumed by the ever-shifting cacophony of the news media and its ten-day cycles.

    Yet while the American public may have forgotten about the government’s plans to identify and disable anyone deemed a potential “threat,” the government has put its plan into action.

    Thus, what began as a blueprint under the Bush administration has become an operation manual under the Obama and Trump administrations to exile those who are challenging the government’s authority.

    An important point to consider, however, is that the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is locking up individuals trained in military warfare who are voicing feelings of discontent.

    Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention.

    For instance, the Justice Department launched a pilot program aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

    One tactic being used to deal with so-called “mentally ill suspects who also happen to be trained in modern warfare” is through the use of civil commitment laws, found in all states and employed throughout American history to not only silence but cause dissidents to disappear.

    For example, in 2006, NSA officials attempted to label former employee Russ Tice, who was willing to testify in Congress about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program, as “mentally unbalanced” based upon two psychiatric evaluations ordered by his superiors.

    In 2009, NYPD Officer Adrian Schoolcraft had his home raided, and he was handcuffed to a gurney and taken into emergency custody for an alleged psychiatric episode. It was later discovered by way of an internal investigation that his superiors were retaliating against him for reporting police misconduct. Schoolcraft spent six days in the mental facility, and as a further indignity, was presented with a bill for $7,185 upon his release.

    In 2012, it was Virginia’s civil commitment law that was used to justify arresting and detaining Marine Brandon Raub—a 9/11 truther—in a psychiatric ward based on posts he had made on his Facebook page that were critical of the government.

    Incredibly, in Virginia alone, over 20,000 people annually are forced into psychiatric wards by way of so-called Emergency Custody Orders and civil commitment procedures.

    Each state has its own set of civil, or involuntary, commitment laws. These laws are extensions of two legal principlesparens patriae Parens patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”), which allows the government to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest, and police power, which requires a state to protect the interests of its citizens.

    The fusion of these two principles, coupled with a shift towards a dangerousness standard, has resulted in a Nanny State mindset carried out with the militant force of the Police State.

    The problem, of course, is that the diagnosis of mental illness, while a legitimate concern for some Americans, has over time become a convenient means by which the government and its corporate partners can penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors.

    In fact, in recent years, we have witnessed the pathologizing of individuals who resist authority as suffering from oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), defined as “a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” Under such a definition, every activist of note throughout our history—from Mahatma Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr.—could be classified as suffering from an ODD mental disorder.

    Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced, declared unfit for society, labelled dangerous or extremist, or turned into outcasts and exiled.

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

    Where the problem arises, of course, is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

    Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

    This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

    This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

    This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

    This is the same government that has, along with its corporate counterparts (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.), made it abundantly clear at all levels (whether it be the FBI, NSA, local police, school personnel, etc.) that they want no one challenging their authority.

    This is a government that pays lip service to the nation’s freedom principles while working overtime to shred the Constitution.

    Yes, this is a prison alright.

    Thus, for those who take to the streets to constitutionally express their opinions and beliefs, rows of riot police, clad in jackboots, military vests, and helmets, holding batons, stun guns, assault rifles, and sometimes even grenade launchers, are there to keep them in line.

    For those who take to social media to express their opinions and beliefs, squadrons of AI censors are there to shadowban them and keep them in line.

    As for that wall President Trump keeps promising to build, it’s already being built, one tyranny at a time, transforming our constitutional republic into a carceral state.

    Yet be warned: in a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.

    In a carceral state—a.k.a. a prison state or a police state—there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite.

    With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, “we the people”—the prisoners of the American police state—are being pushed that much further into a corner, our backs against the prison wall.

    This concept of a carceral state in which we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis is the only way I can begin to comprehend, let alone articulate, the irrational, surreal, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass state of affairs that is being imposed upon us in America today.

    As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we who pretend we are free are no different from those who spend their lives behind bars.

    You see, by gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.

    Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract (a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants. We are now only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth—in terms of profit and resale value—to our “owners.”

    Under the new terms of this revised, one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and “we the prisoners” have none.

  • BP Is The Latest Major Oil Company To Shutter Operations In Alaska

    Yet another major oil company has backed away from one of the frontier oil discoveries of the late 20th century that not only cushioned them from OPEC, but helped them learn to drill in some of the most difficult areas of the globe.

    After six decades, BP has officially exited Alaska with the sale of its business there for $5.6 billion to Hilcorp Energy, according to Bloomberg. The deal makes Hilcorp the second largest producer in the state behind ConocoPhillips. The deal includes BP’s stake in Prudhoe Bay, which is the largest producing oil field in U.S. history. It also includes BP’s Alaskan pipelines.

    Alaska, meanwhile, is receding into a second tier oil province as a result of field depletion, cost-cutting and the rise of shale. The state’s oil output has slumped from its peak in the 1980s, as discoveries have dried up and major producers seek to produce crude elsewhere, most recently from shale in Texas.

    Hilcorp and ConocoPhillips are two of the few big remaining oil companies still interested in investing fresh capital in Alaska.

    Oswald Clint, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein Ltd. said:

    “The divestment prov[es] that no asset is sacred even if it is 60 years old and synonymous with the company. We see the transaction as a positive catalyst, which should help the shares recover lost ground this year.”

    The divestiture includes BP’s stake in the Trans-Alaskan pipeline system, which has been running below capacity for years as a result of declining oil production. Wood Mackenzie, Ltd. values the asses at a “slight premium” to the $5.6 billion purchase price, almost 1/3 of which will be paid subject to production over time. It’s a strategic move for BP, as the company looks to shift more towards shale basins and natural gas.

    Jason Gammel, an analyst at Jefferies LLC, said:

     “The Alaska transaction puts BP in a good position to reach its divestiture target. The transaction is expected to close in 2020 and the upfront cash would reduce BP’s gearing by 2 percentage points.”

    Meanwhile, Hilcorp has bought more than $6 billion of oil and gas assets over the last five years and produced about 108,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. The company in 2017 also acquired assets in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico for $3 billion and has holdings in both Alaska and Wyoming.

    Prudhoe Bay has produced about 13 billion barrels over its life and has another billion barrels of potential, according to BP.

    Biraj Borkhataria, an analyst at RBC Europe Ltd., said:

     “Our production estimates for Alaska upstream are declining by about 5% to 7% per annum. This deal highlights that it remains a buyers’ market for upstream assets, and big price tags require selling high-quality assets such as this one.”

    BP was one of the original partners in building the 800 mile Trans-Alaskan Pipeline system in 1977, which was designed specifically to bring oil from the North Slope to the port of Valdez on Alaska’s southern coast. It was one of the largest privately funded construction projects in history. BP holds a 49% stake in the pipeline, with ConocoPhillips, Exxon and Unocal Pipeline holding the rest

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Exxon could also soon be on the list to sell their Alaskan assets. The company is looking to raise $15 billion from sales globally by the end of 2021. Over the last few years, companies like Anadarko Petroleum, Pioneer Natural Resources, and Marathon Petroleum have all sold out of Alaska.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Alaska’s annual production peaked at 2 million barrels a day in 1988, the year before the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Last year, it averaged just 479,000 barrels a day.

    The US Interior Department is also preparing to sell drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) later this year. The refuge’s coastal plain is said to contain billions of barrels of oil, but tapping it was off-limits due to regulation for decades until 2017, when Congress ordered the government sell drilling rights there.

  • USSA Social Credit: US Denied Entry To Student Because Of Friend's Social Media Posts

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    A Harvard student has been denied entry to the United States because of what one of his friends posted on social media. Ismail Ajjawi reportedly had his visa canceled after hours of questioning at Boston’s airport by the USSA.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Silicon Valley is already hard at work manipulating behavior, taking on the role of anauthoritarian government, and attempting to punish people for not acting the way they see fit.

    The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this yearthat life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money.

    Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies.

    It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car after an Uber ride, the app invites you to rate the driver. What many passengers don’t know is that the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is “significantly below average,” Uber will ban you from the service.

    You can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you. You can also get banned for sending spam, threatening messages, trying to hack or reverse-engineer the WhatsApp app, or using the service with an unauthorized app.-Fast Company

    But it’s gone a step further. 

    The government is now rejecting entry to the country for foreigners based on their friends’ actions and social media posts.  This is the dystopian future George Orwell warned us about in his iconic book, 1984.

    Written 70 years ago, 1984 was Orwell’s chilling prophecy about the future. And while 1984, the year, has come and gone, his dystopian vision of a government that will do anything to control the narrative is timelier than ever.

    “We see what happened to the USSR is happening to the USSA. It’s breaking down. You cannot control a number of people, over 300 million, by a centralized government. It’s too big to operate. In the future we definitely see more secessionist  movements and even regional governments.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ajjawi’s friends posted “political points of view that oppose the United States,”  reported CNET. The U.S. government is obviously probing visa applicants’ social media profiles and punishing people for their friends’ opinions.

    Ajjawi, from Lebanon, didn’t actually do anything wrong.  He’s “guilty by association.”  The U.S. government is one of totalitarian control and wants ultimate power over everything, including your very thoughts and opinions.  This is a truly horrific time in human history. 

    Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesperson Michael McCarthy said in an emailed statement that he couldn’t offer specific details on Ajjawi’s case due to confidentiality clauses.

    “This individual was deemed inadmissible to the United States based on information discovered during the CBP inspection,” he wrote. Ajjawi, who got a scholarship to study in the U.S., returned home to Lebanon over the weekend. He and the university are working to resolve the matter before classes start next Tuesday.

    The establishment is working extra hard to make sure that their official narrative is the only acceptable line of thought.

  • Rep. Ilhan Omar Paid $230k To 'Political Consultant' She Had Affair With

    Maybe Representative Ilhan Omar is for separating families after all

    A mother from Washington DC is claiming that Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is on her second (or third, who knows at this point?) marriage stole her husband away from her, according to explosive new divorce papers reported on yesterday by the Post.

    Dr. Beth Mynett alleges that her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, revealed to her in April that he was having an affair with Rep. Omar and that he had even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the congresswoman before leaving his wife.

    Even better?

    Representative Omar paid Mynett and his E. Street Group consulting company approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.

    55-year-old Mynett, along with her 38-year-old husband, have a 13-year-old son together. Tim Mynett has worked for left-wing Democrats like Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison.

    The filing read:

     “The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Beth and Tim Mynett

    It continued:

    “Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her. Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage. Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him. It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation.”

    The Mynetts had previously lived together for six years before marrying in 2012.

    Omar was spotted with Mynett at a California restaurant in March. Mynett’s wife is seeking primary physical custody of their son in part because of her husband’s “extensive travel” with Omar, which the document claims is “not part of the job description”.

    The court papers state: 

    “Defendant’s more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than with his actual work commitments.”

    Beth Mynett stated, via the filing: “When he was home he was preoccupied and emotionally volatile.” At the same time, she has been handling “the vast majority of responsibilities related to [their son’s] school, medical care, and extracurricular activities.’’

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tim Mynett and Rep. Omar

    She also says she doesn’t trust her husband’s judgement with their son anymore after Tim Mynett took the child to meet Omar while Beth was out of town:

    “By way of example, days prior to Defendant’s devastating and shocking declaration of love for Rep. Omar and admission of their affair, he and Rep. Omar took the parties’ son to dinner to formally meet for the first time at the family’s favorite neighborhood restaurant while Plaintiff was out of town.”

    In the classiest of fashion, Rep. Omar apparently gave the son a gift during their meeting: “Rep. Omar gave the parties’ son a gift and the Defendant later brought her back inside the family’s home,” the filing says.  

    Beth Mynett argues that her husband “put his son in harm’s way by taking him out in public with Rep. Omar, who at that time had garnered a plethora of media attention along with death threats, one rising to the level of arresting the known would-be assassin that same week.”

    Mynett is seeking full control of the couple’s DC home, child support and legal fees. 

    Meanwhile, we have heard no comment from Omar’s current husband, Ahmed Hirsi. He currently works as a senior policy aide to a Minnesota city councilwoman. There’s been no word (yet) on whether or not those two are having an affair, but we’ll keep our eyes on the story, because hey, you never know.

  • The Places In America With The Highest And Lowest STD Rates

    Submitted by Priceonomics

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With drugs and treatment available that have lengthened the lifespan of HIV positive patients, you hear less about STDs in the news than you did decades ago when an HIV positive result was the equivalent of a death sentence. Because of the declining media coverage, you might be tempted to conclude that STDs aren’t as common as they used to be.

    You’d be wrong. According to the latest data from the CDC,  STDs have reached an all-time high in America and over 2 million new cases are reported each year. While STDs may have faded from the media and popular consciousness, they continue to inexorably rise in America.

    Along with Priceonomics customer AtHomeSTDKit.com, we analyzed this most recent STD data from the CDC in order to calculate what states had the highest and lowest overall STD rates. We also performed this state-level analysis for four major sexually transmitted diseases: Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, HIV and Syphilis.

    We found overall Alaska has the highest rate of STDs in the nation, while West Virginia has the lowest. This is primarily driven by Alaska’s very high Chlamydia rate (the most common STD among the four we looked at) and West Virginia’s low rate for that disease. Gonorrhea is most common in Mississippi, which is 10 times more common than in Vermont, the state with the lowest rate. By a considerable margin, syphilis is most common in Nevada where it is almost 30 times more common than in Wyoming, the state with the lowest syphilis rate. Wyoming also has the lowest new HIV infection rate while Georgia has the highest rate in the nation.

    ***

    Before diving into the results, it’s worth spending a moment on the data used for this analysis. We looked at two different data sets from the CDC in 2017, which is the most recent data available. First, for the diseases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis, we looked at the number of reports of new cases received by the CDC in that year. For HIV, we looked at the new diagnosis rate for the latest year 2017, as reported here by state. For all results, we look at the rate of cases per 100,000 people living in the state to calculate the “per-capita rate” of STDs in each location.

    To provide some context, just how prevalent are each of these STDs we are discussing? The chart shows the rate of new reports per 100,000 people in the United States:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Among these major STDs tracked by the CDC, chlamydia is by far the most common. Over 500 people out of 100,000 report a case of chlamydia each year. This is more than twice as much as the reported cases of gonorrhea, HIV, syphilis combined. With the exception of HIV, these diseases can be cured, but catching them early is critical for minimizing their damage.

    So which places in America have the highest and lowest rates of STDs? The chart below shows the newly reported cases per capita by state for all four of these diseases combined:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    STD rates vary considerably depending on where you are in America. Alaska, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest STD rates in the nation with over 1,000 people out of 100,000 reporting a new case each year. Put differently, that’s over 1% of the population.

    On the other hand, STD rates in West Virginia, and New Hampshire are the lowest in the nation. In these locations, the STD rates are nearly three times lower than in the states with the highest rates.

    What drives places like Alaska to have the highest STD rate in the nation and West Virginia to have the lowest one? Given that chlamydia is much more common than other diseases, it’s prevalence by state drives the overall averages. Below shows the chlamydia rate by state:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Alaska has the highest chlamydia rate in the nation with 800 new cases per capita each year. The problem is so severe in the state that the state health department recently issued a bulletin warning residents about the rising risk.  West Virginia has the lowest chlamydia rate in the nation, contributing to its ranking as the state with the lowest overall STD rate in the country.

    Next, let’s turn our attention to the second most common STD, gonorrhea:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As it turns out, the three states with the highest chlamydia rates also have the highest gonorrhea rates in America. Mississippi, Alaska and Louisiana top the nation when it comes to the rate of new gonorrhea, chlamydia, and overall STD infections. The gonorrhea infection rate is nearly 100 times higher in Mississippi than in Vermont, the state with the lowest rate.  Across the country, there is an enormous spread in the probability of gonorrhea infection depending on where you live.

    While HIV is much less common than chlamydia or gonorrhea, there is no cure. And while advances in medicine mean that HIV patients can live into their seventies, the life span of those with HIV is still much lower than those without the disease.

    Where are new HIV infections most common in America? The following chart shows the per capita rate by state:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Georgia has the highest new infection rate of HIV in the country, with 30 people per capita reporting the disease. Louisiana (a state that also ranks in the top three for chlamydia and gonorrhea) ranks second when it comes to HIV infections. The states where HIV infections are much less common are all states with mostly rural environments.

    Lastly, let’s examine the syphilis rate. Compared to the other three diseases we’ve looked at so far, syphilis is the least common. However, it can have very serious effects if not detected and treated early.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    By a considerable margin, Nevada has the highest syphilis rate in the United States. This is largely driven by Clark County (the home of Las Vegas) having the highest syphilis rate of all counties in the United States. Of the four disease we examined in this article, Louisiana was the only state that ranked in the top three of new infections for all of them.

    ***

    In the United States, there is an enormous variance in the prevalence of STDs by location. For some diseases an STD can be 100 times more likely in one state than another. Overall, places like Alaska, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest STD rates, while West Virginia, Vermont and New Hampshire have the lowest. Given that sexually transmitted diseases are by definition locally transmitted, perhaps it shouldn’t be too surprising that their prevalence is closely associated with geography.

  • Senator Calls For Probe Into Fed Independence After Bill Dudley Urges Fed To Overthrow Trump

    In the aftermath of the shocking Bill Dudley op-ed, which has “opened a staggering can of worms“, and prompted many to call the former NY Fed central banker “rogue”…

    … it was only a matter of time before someone called for an official inquiry into the “independence” of the Federal Reserve: the world’s most important central bank, the same one which Bernanke’s former advisor Andrew Levin said 3 years ago, “a lot of people would be stunned to know” the extent to which the Federal Reserve is privately owned.”

    And sure enough, on Wednesday afternoon, Republican Senator Thom Tillis called for the Senate Banking Committee to probe the Federal Reserve’s independence after Bill Dudley infamously suggested the upcoming presidential election “falls within the Fed’s purview”, hinting that it is ultimately the Fed – through its monetary policy – that picks the US president.

    Tillis, who is up for reelection next fall in swing state North Carolina, said he plans to ask the Banking Committee’s chairman, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), about convening a hearing “regarding Fed independence and the danger of this institution taking unprecedented and inappropriate steps to meddle in the presidential election.”

    Quoted by Politico, Tillis said “I am very disappointed that former Fed monetary Vice Chairman Bill Dudley is lobbying the Fed to use its authority as a political weapon against President Trump. The President is standing up for America against China after 30 years of our country and our workers being ripped off and there is now an effort to get the Fed to try to sabotage the President’s efforts.

    Dudley’s op-ed was supposedly the result of an increasingly hostile relationship between the US president and the world’s top central banker, which has culminated in a barrage of angry tweets by Trump slamming both Powell and the Fed for not easing more.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    More recently, Trump slammed Powell saying “The only problem we have is Jay Powell and the Fed. He’s like a golfer who can’t putt, has no touch. Big U.S. growth if he does the right thing, BIG CUT — but don’t count on him! So far he has called it wrong, and only let us down.”

    Of course, none of this tension between the president and Fed chair is new or unique, and for a far more colorful example of just how laughable the concept of Fed “independence” is, we go to the NYT with this brief but highly memorable anecdote from a meeting between President Lyndon B Johnson and Fed president William McChesney Martin

    … in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted cheap credit to finance the Vietnam War and his Great Society, summoned Fed chairman William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch. There, after asking other officials to leave the room, Johnson reportedly shoved Martin against the wall as he demanding that the Fed once again hold down interest rates.

    “I hope you have examined your conscience and you’re convinced you’re on the right track.” Lady Bird Johnson said to William McChesney Martin, on his arrival at the LBJ ranch.

    Martin caved, the Fed printed money, and inflation kept climbing until the early 1980s.

    Finally, while we doubt that anything will come out of the hearing on Fed “independence” as any actual discovery would reveal that the Fed was never actually independent (nor the ECB for that matter, which singlehandedly overthrew Sylvio Berlusconi in 2011 when it sent Italian bond yields soaring after it briefly stopped buying Italian debt), but an integral part of the US political apparatus (and privately owned to boot), we would like to repost this reaction to the original Dudley op-ed as it capture both the zeitgeist and what is coming next, perfectly:

    This is so arrogant, cynical, ironic and completely disingenuous that it can’t pass without comment.

    A $500B trade war does not tank the global economy. But a 10-year campaign to publicly bail out reckless private banks and insurance companies while blowing the largest most comprehensive debt bubble in history and then raising interest rates on $250T in global debt surely the hell will.

    I don’t care who is, has been or will be President, the Federal Reserve and ONLY the Federal Reserve should be blamed for the tepid economy of the last 10 years. A world full of zombie companies, mountains of productivity-crushing debt and disconnected stock markets that reward a tiny minority of the citizenry with bloated “gains.” All this while regular people live hand-to-mouth saddled with stagnant wages and, dare I say it, daily inflation eating at their incomes.

    For a Fed official to blame a paltry trade war for its own foolishness and THEN recommend the Fed purposely crush the economy with a deep recession in order to punish His Orangeness, is terrifying and nearly Soviet in its punitive childishness. Like all good technocrats, Mr. Dudley believes only his class of Brahmins may decide for you unwashed masses what is best. The Road to Hell and all that…

    What is coming should be pinned forever on the hubris, blindness and arrogance of the Fed. Naturally, regular people will be hurt the most.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 28th August 2019

  • After Trump Leaves France, Macron Warns World "Is Living The End Of Western Hegemony"

    Having skulked off stage following his joint press conference with President Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron took the opportunity to bash Trump and embrace Putin (presumably after getting permission from Angela Merkel).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “We are living the end of Western hegemony,” Macron told diplomats on Tuesday, pointing to the rise of Beijing and Moscow as signs of a shift on the world scene.

    “The world order is being shaken like never before…”

    “It’s being shaken because of errors made by the West in certain crises, but also by the choices made by the United States in the past few years – and not just by the current administration.”

    So a shot clearly aimed at Trump but we wonder if Macron realizes he is part of the “West” he describes as making errors?

    Macron then doubled down, warning that it would be a “strategic mistake” for Western nations not to change their attitude toward Moscow.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As RT notes, Macron’s rhetoric towards Moscow has somewhat softened in recent months…

    “Pushing Russia away from Europe is a profound strategic mistake.”

    “We’re either pushing Russia into isolation, which increases tensions, or to ally itself with other major powers like China, which would not be in our interest,” Macron said, calling for the “rethinking” of relations with Moscow.

    Otherwise, Europe will be stuck with “frozen conflicts” and will remain “a theater for strategic struggle between the US and Russia,” he stressed.

    These “choices” are impacting “the conflicts in the Middle and elsewhere, making it necessary to rethink military and diplomatic strategies,” Macron noted.

    Ironically, Macron’s Putin-pandering comments came after US President Trump was bashed by most of western media for daring to suggest inviting Putin to attend the G7 event next year, (which Trump will be hosting).

    Which is odd because journalists claimed one key G7 dinner was “ruined” over Trump’s insistence that Russia would be vital to discussions:

    During the seaside meal, French president Emmanuel Macron and European Council president Donald Tusk opposed Trump’s demands. A diplomat present told the publication that the evening was tense: “Most of the other leaders insisted on this being a family, a club, a community of liberal democracies and for that reason they said you cannot allow president Putin — who does not represent that — back in.”

    Apparently Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte, who formally announced his resignation early this week, was the only G7 leader present to back Trump’s proposal. 

    More ‘fake news’?

  • Turkey: "Death To Jews" Indictrination At Summer Camp

    Authored by Uzay Bulut via The Gatestone Institute,

    Turkey’s Jewish community is still reeling from the content of a video that went viral at the end of July. The video shows what appears to be a summer camp at which young children, with a group of burqa-clad women behind them, are being led in an anti-Semitic cheer in Turkish by a young girl or woman counselor.

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

    In the 39-second clip, when the girl says, “The Jews,” the women and children reply, “Death!”

    When she says, “Palestine,” they reply, “It will be saved.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When she calls out, “Hagia Sophia” — referring to the Byzantine cathedral-museum in Istanbul that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has announced will be turned into a mosque — they chant, “It will be opened.”

    A few days after the footage began to circulate, Garo Paylan, a Member of Parliament from the opposition Peoples’ Democratic Party, tweeted his outrage. He announced his intention to file a criminal complaint against the camp counselor and the organization behind her. Two days after posting the tweet, Paylan submitted the following parliamentary questions to Family, Labor and Social Services Minister Zehra Zümrüt Selçuk, Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu and Justice Minister Abdülhamit Gül:

    • Where and under whose care were the children in the film?

    • Were their parents or other family members present during the event?

    • Did the children who were instructed to shout “Death to the Jews” come together at that event as part of an organization?

    • Did the event take place with the knowledge of your ministry?

    • Will you launch an investigation into the organizers and the families of those children who abuse and encourage them to commit hate crimes?

    • Will you launch administrative investigations into the authorities that neglected to expose the event?

    • Will you put these children under the protection of your ministry?

    • What kind of precautions will your ministry take so that our children are not exposed to such abuses again?

    Paylan also asked the justice minister whether “those engaging in hate speech and hate crimes are punished effectively, or whether there is a climate of impunity concerning such crimes.”

    The ministers have yet to issue a response.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pictured: The Neve Shalom Synagogue in Istanbul, Turkey. (Image source: Tatiana Matlina/Wikimedia Commons)

    Meanwhile, Mois Gabay, a Jewish columnist based in Istanbul, told Gatestone that the anti-Semitism revealed in the video is the kind of incident that makes Turkey’s already dwindling Jewish community extremely worried about the future. Gabay, in his July 31 column in Turkey’s Jewish weekly, Şalom, wrote:

    “It is possible to give many more examples [of anti-Semitism in Turkey]… It appears that as long as penalties are not imposed… and the Holocaust and anti-Semitism are not included in school curricula, some people will continue playing ostrich, no matter how much we write about these issues. I do hope that the hatred and exclusion [of Jews] that is growing by the day, with new emerging groups, will come to an end here one day.”

    Şalom‘s editor-in-chief, İvo Molinas, in an interview with the Bianet News Agency on August 5, also bemoaned the anti-Semitic incitement exposed in the video:

    “There is a very intense anti-Semitism in the visual media and printed press, as well as on social media, in Turkey. But this video is the most major and most severe form of anti-Semitism. Very young children are indoctrinated in Jew-hatred and human-hatred without even knowing who Jews are. These children will grow up to be potential Jew-haters and this is the biggest danger. Penalties should be imposed for racism and hate crimes. Lawsuits should absolutely be filed against those who engage in racism and hate crimes and who direct children to these things. This is the short-term solution; but the long-term solution is education. We live in a country where an ethnic group is placed in the brains of very little children as enemies. And the saddest thing is that we are not able to do anything about it. As a society, we only complain, but cannot do anything else. It is so sad that neither political nor judicial attempts are being made to stop these things.”

  • China's New Hypersonic Missile Threatens Regional Stability, Analyst Warns

    Earlier this summer we reported how China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) published a video showing the Dong Feng hypersonic missile (“East Wind”), DF-17 for short, simulating an attack on enemy forces.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The DF-17 is designed to fly at hypersonic speeds and evade existing missile defense systems, such as America’s anti-ballistic missile defense system called: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).

    A source from CASIC told the South China Morning Post that “the DF-17 will be capable of delivering both nuclear and conventional payloads.” He refused to release his name due to the sensitivity of the topic.

    “There are now two institutions under CASIC that are competing to develop these advanced features,” the source added.

    The US intelligence community has warned about the regional instabilities that could develop when the DF-17 is deployed next year, or sometime in the early 2020s.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Adam Ni, a military researcher at Macquarie University in Sydney, said China’s nuclear deterrence in the Eastern Hemisphere could dramatically increase with the deployment of hypersonic missiles. It would allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to defend militarized islands in the South China Sea effectively.

    “But the race to develop hypersonic missiles such as DF-17 risks destabilizing the region since hypersonic weapons reduce the time of decision-making before landing to just a few minutes, forcing leaders to make consequential decisions within a very short period,” Ni said.

    The DF-17 is China’s first medium-range ballistic missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) as its payload.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    QQ.com speculated the HGV could be an aircraft carrier killer with a range of 1,533 miles, enough distance for Mainland China to guard its militarized islands in the South China Sea from American naval forces.

    Following half-dozen development tests between 2014-2016, the most recent test was at Jiuquan Space Launcher Center in Inner Mongolia in 2017.

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

    The Pentagon has recently sounded the alarm on the proliferation of hypersonic technological advances that are being made around the world [mainly in China and Russia]. 

    “Although hypersonic glide vehicles and missiles flying non-ballistic trajectories were first proposed as far back as World War II, technological advances are only now making these systems practicable,” Vice Admiral James Syring, director of the US Missile Defense Agency, said in June, during testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee.

    The DF-17 with an HGV payload (nuclear or conventional) could create a significant imbalance of power in the early 2020s that shifts Eastern Hemisphere power away from the US and towards China. 

  • Long Before Epstein: Sex Traffickers & Spy Agencies

    Authored by Elizabeth Vos via ConsortiumNews.com,

    The alleged use of sexual blackmail by spy agencies is hardly unique to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. Although the agencies involved as well as their alleged motivations and methods differ with each case, the crime of child trafficking with ties to intelligence agencies or those protected by them has been around for decades.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jeffrey Epstein’s compound in the Virgin Islands.

    Some cases include the 1950s -1970s Kincora scandal and the 1981 Peter Hayman affair, both in the U.K.; and the Finders’ cult and the Franklin scandal in the U.S. in the late 1980s. Just as these cases did not end in convictions, the pedophile and accused child-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein remained at arms’ length for years.

    “For almost two decades, for some nebulous reason, whether to do with ties to foreign intelligence, his billions of dollars, or his social connections, Epstein, whose alleged sexual sickness and horrific assaults on women without means or ability to protect themselves… remained untouchable,” journalist Vicky Ward wrote in The Daily Beast in July.

    The protection of sex traffickers by intelligence agencies is especially interesting in the wake of  Epstein’sdeath. Like others, Epstein had long been purported to have links with spy agencies. Such allegations documented by Whitney Webb in her multi-part series were recently published in Mintpress News.

    Webb states that Epstein was the current face of an extensive system of abuse with ties to both organized crime and intelligence interests. She told CNLive! that: “According to Nigel Rosser, a British journalist who wrote in the Evening Standard in 2001, Epstein apparently for much of the 1990s claimed that he used to work for the CIA.”

    Vicky Ward, who wrote on Epstein for Vanity Fair before his first arrest, and claimed the magazine killed one of her pieces after Epstein intervened with editor Graydon Carter, said in a Tweet that one of Epstein’s clients was Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who was pivotal in the Iran Contra scandal and was on the Mossad (the Israeli intelligence agency) payroll. This was also noted in a book “By Way of Deception” by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.

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

    The Times of Israel reported that Epstein was an “active business partner with former prime minister Ehud Barak” until 2015, adding: “Barak formed a limited partnership company in Israel in 2015, called Sum (E.B.) to invest in a high-tech startup…. A large part of the money used by Sum to buy the start-up stock was supplied by Epstein.” 

    Webb wrote he “was a long-time friend of Barak, who has long-standing and deep ties to Israel’s intelligence community.” On the board of their company sat Pinchas Bukhris, a former commander of the IDF cyber unit 8200.

    Epstein’s allegedly protected status was revealed by Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who gave Epstein an infamously lenient plea deal in 2007. Acosta, who was forced to resign as President Donald Trump’s labor secretary because of that deal,  reportedly said of the case: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Alexander Acosta: “Told to leave it alone.” (Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

    Kincora Boy’s Home

    Several cases in the unsavory history linking intelligence agencies and sex scandals put the allegations against Epstein in context. Among these was the U.K. Kincora Boy’s Home, where at least 29 boys were reported to have been targeted at the Belfast, Northern Ireland, facility from the mid-1950s until the late 1970s, until it was shut in 1980. It also involved the alleged protection of child sexual abusers at the home and among their clients.

    The Irish Times wrote that “destitute boys were systematically sodomised by members of Kincora staff and were supplied for abuse to prominent figures in unionist politics. The abusers – among them MPs, councillors, leading Orangemen and other influential individuals – became potentially important intelligence assets.”

    The Belfast Telegraph also quoted former Labour Party MP Ken Livingstone, who said: “MI5 weren’t just aware of child abuse at Kincora Boys’ Home – they were monitoring it. They were getting pictures of a judge in one case, politicians, a lot of the establishment of Northern Ireland going in and abusing these boys.”

    Three staff were eventually convicted of sexually abusing minors, which included the housemaster William McGrath, a loyalist “Orangeman” and allegedly an MI5 agent, according to the Belfast Telegraph in July 2014.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Kincora Boy’s Home. (YouTube)

    Although the U.K.’s Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry ultimately found  “no credible evidence” to support the allegations, two former U.K. intelligence officers maintained their claim of MI5’s involvement: Brian Gemmell says he alerted MI5 to the abuse at Kincora and was told to stop his investigation; and a former army intelligence officer, Colin Wallace, “consistently claimed that MI5, RUC special branch and military intelligence knew about the abuse at Kincora and used it to blackmail the pedophile ring to spy on hardline loyalists,” according to The Guardian.

    The Irish outlet, An Phoblachtwrote: “The systematic abuse of young boys in the Home and the part played by the British intelligence organisations to keep the scandal under wraps ensured that one side of the murky world of Unionist paramilitarism and its links to the crown forces was kept out of the public domain for years.”

    In the U.S., the New York State Select Committee On Crime in 1982  investigated nationwide networks of trafficking underage sex workers and producing child pornography. Dale Smith, a committee investigator, noted that call services using minors also profited from “sidelines,” besides the income from peddling prostitution.  Smith said they sold information “on the sexual proclivities of the clients to agents of foreign intelligence.” Presumably, this information could be used to blackmail those in positions of power. Smith added that one call service sold information to “British and Israeli intelligence.”

    The Hayman Affair

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ken Livingstone “MI5 monitored abuse at Kincora Boys’ Home. (World Economic Forum)

    Another U.K. scandal included allegations that Sir Peter Hayman,  a British diplomat and deputy director of MI6, was a member of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

    Police discovered that two of the roughly dozen pedophiles in his circle had been writing to each other about their interest in “the extreme sexual torture and murder of children,” according to the The Daily Mail.

    In 2015, The Guardian reported that former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had been “adamant that officials should not publicly name” Hayman, “even after she had been fully briefed on his activities….formerly secret papers released to the National Archives shows.”

    Still, Hayman was unmasked as a subscriber to PIE in 1981 by M.P. Geoffrey Dickens, who also reportedly raised the national security risk of Hayman’s proclivities, implying they were a potential source of blackmail sought by intelligence agencies.

    The British tabloid The Mirror reported that intelligence agencies, including the KGB and CIA, kept their own dossiers on U.K. establishment figures involved with PIE and the abuse of minors, to blackmail the targets in exchange for information.

    Hayman was never charged for his association with PIE: The U.K. attorney general at the time, Sir Michael Havers, defended the decision and denied claims that Heyman was given special treatment.

    Labour Party MP Barbara Castle allegedly gave a dossier she compiled on pedophiles in positions of power to U.K. journalist Don Hale in 1984 when he was editor of the Brury Messenger. Hale alleged that soon afterward, police from the “Special Branch, the division responsible for matters of national security,” raided his office and removed the Castle dossier. They then threatened him with a “D-notice,” which prevented him from publishing the story on the threat of up to 10 years in prison. 

    The Finders Cult

    Another group accused of trafficking children, which had links to intelligence agencies, was the “Finders” cult. In 1987, The Washington Post reported that two members were arrested in connection with the alleged abuse of six children. Investigators found materials in Madison County, Virginia, which they said linked to a “commune called the Finders.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Vauxhall Cross, London, headquarters of British Secret Intelligence Service. (Laurie Nevay, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    Besides nude photographs of children, a Customs Service memo written by special agent Ramon Martinez refers to files “relating to the activities of the organization in different parts of the world, including “London, Germany, the Bahamas, Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Africa, Costa Rica, and Europe.”

    Martinez’s memo notes that a Finders’ telex ordered the purchase of two children in Hong Kong. Another expressed interest in “bank secrecy situations.” The memo also documents high-tech transfers to the U.K., numerous properties under the Finders’ control, the group’s interest in terrorism, explosives, and the evasion of law enforcement.

    Martinez describes the swift end to his investigation. He wrote that on April 2, 1987, he arrived at the Metropolitan Police Department and was told that all the data was turned over to the State Department which, in turn, advised MPD that “all travel and use of passports by the holders was within the law and no action would be taken. Then he was told that the investigation into the Finders had become a CIA internal matter. The MPD report was classified, not available for review” and “No further action will be taken.”

    Martinez was not the only person with unanswered questions. The U.S.News & World Report wrote that N. Carolina Rep. Charlie Rose (Dem.), chair of the House Administration Committee, and Florida’s Rep. Tom Lewis (Rep.) asked “Could our own government have something to do with this Finders organization and turned their backs on these children? That’s what the evidence points to,” says Lewis, adding that “I can tell you that we’ve got a lot of people scrambling, and that wouldn’t be happening if there was nothing here.”

    The leniency shown by the State Department and the fact that the CIA would designate the investigation of the Finders group as “an internal matter” raises serious questions. What motive might have driven the CIA to associate with or protect a child abuse ring?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Harry S. Truman State Department building. (Paco8191, CC BY 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

    The Franklin Scandal

    The Franklin Scandal erupted in 1988, centering on a child-trafficking ring operating in Omaha, Nebraska, by Lawrence E. King Jr., a former vice chairman of the National Black Republican Council: It was alleged that children were provided to politicians in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, among other illegal activities.

    The late former state Sen. John Decamp alleged in his book “The Franklin Coverup” that a special committee of the Nebraska Legislature launched a probe to investigate the affair, which involved King being indicted for embezzling money from the Franklin Credit Union. The committee hired former Lincoln, Nebraska, police officer Jerry Lowe, whose reports  suggested that King was involved in “guns and money transfers to Nicaragua,” and was linked with the CIA.

    James Flanery, an investigative reporter at The World Herald who reported on the scandal,  told associates that King was “running guns and money into Nicaragua,” and that the CIA was heavily involved.”

    Like many scandals before and since, the Franklin case ended with no prosecution of the perpetrators. However, Paul Bonacci, one of the alleged victims, was indicted for perjury. He had alleged that he was sexually abused as a minor in Nebraska and around the country where he was flown by Lawrence King.

    In 1999, the Omaha World Herald reported Bonacci was awarded $1 million in damages due to his lawsuit against King and other alleged perpetrators. Decamp, who was Bonacci’s attorney, told the newspaper “Obviously, you don’t award $1 million if you don’t think he (Bonacci) was telling the truth.”

    Given the history of child trafficking rings that were allegedly connected with or enjoyed the protection of intelligence services, it is possible that similar claims about Jeffrey Epstein are something the authorities, though unlikely, should investigate.  

  • Israeli Drones Targeted 'Iranian Guided-Missile Technology' In Beirut: Report

    Perhaps entirely to be expected, there are some bizarre developments and claims coming out related to the weekend’s twin drone bombing of Hezbollah offices in south Beirut.

    First, a dubious Reuters story cites “two sources close to Hezbollah” to report the Shia paramilitary group is preparing a “calculated strike” against Israel in response to the drone attack. The claimed sources said a reaction “is being arranged in a way which wouldn’t lead to a war that neither Hezbollah nor Israel wants,” and added, “the direction now is for a calculated strike, but how matters develop, that’s another thing.”

    However, Hezbollah is notoriously very secretive and has had few, if any, legitimate leaks of its intentions in the entire history of the organization. Hezbollah members and operatives almost never even talk to journalists outside of the group’s official media wing, the recent claims of some western journalists to have “access” notwithstanding. And then there’s the extreme unlikelihood that the group would announce exactly a strategy of a “calculated” reprisal yet that doesn’t lead to war.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A new UK Times report alleges Israeli drone strike targeted Hezbollah missile components. 

    Another interesting development involves an explosive UK Times report alleging the Israelis were looking to destroy a vital Hezbollah missile component in the operation. According to the Tuesday report:

    A suspected Israeli drone attack on a Hezbollah site in southern Beirut targeted crates believed to contain machinery to mix high-grade propellant for precision guided missilesThe Times has learnt.

    The report of course relies on unnamed “Western intelligence sources” to say the targeted facility actually stored a high-end “industrial planetary mixer” — considered an essential component in high-grade precision missiles’ propellant.

    Some analysts online have pointed to photographs of one of the drone blasts which hit near a Hezbollah media building that appear to show crates catching fire, though it’s also highly dubious that such vital and secretive technology would be stored so brazenly out in the open in the center of a neighborhood. 

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

    There are reports suggesting the valuable crates could have been in the process of transport to a nearby airport, however.

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

    Israel has a history of justifying any and all of its missile strikes whether in Lebanon or Syria — even when the target is clearly a Syrian government building (as has been the case many times over the past few years) — by saying it was halting Iranian or Hezbollah rockets.

    With potential war on the horizon, and as Israel makes threats hearkening back to the lead-up of the 2006 war to retaliate for any Hezbollah counter-attack on “the whole Lebanese state,” every fresh claim should first be scrutinized as war propaganda meant to signal threats to “the enemy”.

  • LatAm Shockwaves Bring New Silk Road Into The Americas As Neo-Liberal Order Crumbles

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Over the past several years Latin America has become a strategic battleground which involves much more than merely “geopolitical power plays” between the USA vs China as many commentators are asserting. Of course this is not to say that there are no geopolitical battles occurring. The entire western sponsored regime change operation in Venezuela couldn’t be understood unless one realized that China and Russia see Venezuela as a strategic ally in the Americas and a future zone for Belt and Road projects which are sweeping across the world… but something more is happening.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Over the past three years, over 17 Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) nations have signed onto the new operating framework of the Belt and Road Initiative which extends far beyond the limited China-to-Europe corridor which many presumed it to be when it was announced in 2013. With its focus on long term planning and interconnectivity, China is already number one in vital infrastructure investments globally and while not number one in overall trade in the Americas, has now produced over six times more investment into Latin American energy infrastructure than the World Bank.

    This new paradigm has been a breath of fresh air for many nations of the south that have been gripped by Western drug money laundering, poverty, debt slavery and organized crime which has been kept in place by over four decades of IMF-World Bank dictates enforced by London/Harvard trained economists positioned as local governors over the bodies of nationalist leaders.

    In spite of the 17 nations on board the BRI, the big four powers (Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia) have not yet joined, which has been a frustrating obstacle for the greater vision of integrated infrastructure to blossom. However, in the past few weeks, even this has begun to change.

    Colombia and the BRI

    At a July 29-31 state visit to Beijing, Colombia’s President Iván Duque embraced a long term perspective with China (though not fully joining the BRI) when he spoke to 200 Chinese businessmen saying that China could help “transform Colombia into a food basket for the world” and that Colombia should be China’s “golden gate” into South America. He invited China to help with projects to develop infrastructure, education and science calling for “a Colombia-China initiative for the next 40 years”.

    The specific program to transform Colombia was outlined by Duque as a “productive corridor” connecting the Eastern High Plains with the Pacific Port of Buenaventura through transportation corridors across the Andes, and a Sea Motorway 2 connecting the Gulf of Uraba in the Caribbean and several oil fields. While only 8 million hectares of agricultural land are currently used, Colombia’s full potential of 24 hectares will become developed once this initiative is built.

    On the BRI itself, Duque said that it should be “the conceptual umbrella for this project to materialize”.

    As the infamous 1999 photograph of the President of the NYSC embracing Raul Reyes (FARC narco-terrorist leader) demonstrates, Wall Street and London financiers have literally kept Colombia under the clutches of narco-traffickers for decades, resulting in a culture of organized crime, terrorism, and impoverishment that only the BRI can solve. In the 21st century over two million Colombians have no access to electricity. With Colombia’s involvement in the BRI, every Andean nation in South America would be on board.

    A Sea Change for Argentina

    Since Mauricio Macri’s December 2015 victory, Argentina took a slide into insanity. At one time representing a powerful force of opposition to the international financiers and vulture funds under the Peronist government of the late Nestor Kirchner and his wife Christina, Argentina under Macri has once again become a bankers’ fiefdom which brought the nation slavishly back under the whip of the financial oligarchy. Under Macri, austerity became the new norm and payment of debts the new priority for Argentina, while the vast majority of large scale infrastructure projects begun by President Kirchner were cancelled or postponed.

    Somehow Macri was surprised that his monetarist strategies failed to win him the love of the people as unemployment continued to rise, and inflation topped 55% with no hope in sight.

    The effects of the population’s suffering under the IMF’s monetarist diktats resulted in a surprise August 12 pre-election vote which gave Macri’s opponent Alberto Fernandez 47% of the votes (compared to a mere 33% for sitting President). Although this was only a pre-election vote, Fernandez demonstrated that he will likely become the President in the November elections. What is also notable is that Fernandez (a former Chief of Staff to Nestor Kirchner) is partnered on the Front for All ticket with his Vice-Presidential running mate Christina Fernandez de Kirchner herself. Fernandez and Kirchner promise to re-organize the unpayable IMF debts and end the age of austerity. Of course, speculators showed their disapproval of this return to a national power by collapsing the Argentina peso by 15% on August 13 and threatening more punishment if the “populist Peronists” are elected.

    With Kirchner’s imminent return to power, many presume that the burgeoning golden age of China-Russian relations will blossom once more. Under Kirchner’s leadership a powerful “Argentina-China Integral Strategic Alliance” was formed along with 20 major treaties between the nations.

    Some of the projects begun under Kirchner which Macri wasn’t able to kill involve the $4.1 billion Patagonia Hydroelectric project where two dams are being built on the Santa Cruz River, and also the $8 billion plan to build two nuclear power plants (one Canadian CANDU and one Chinese design). The dam represents the first hydro project built in over a quarter century and even thought Argentina was the first Latin American country to go nuclear with the Atucha I plant in 1974, very little was permitted since then.

    Neo-Liberal Fractures in Brazil

    While the current right wing regime under Jair Bolsonaro has turned away from a friendly relationship with China on orders from Washington, Chinese-sponsored projects begun under Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff were not so easy to kill with Brazil still receiving the second highest investment of Chinese capital amounting to $54 billion. Some BRI-related projects underway currently involve the Ultra High Voltage electricity transport system under construction since 2011 by China’s State Grid subsidiary in Brazil. This incredible project also known as the Electricity Superhighway carries high voltage electricity with very little loss of power over 2000 km from the northern Belo Monte Dam to the impoverished and populated southeast providing cheap electricity to 22 million people.

    In agriculture, China imported 50 million tons of soybeans (80% of Brazil’s soy exports) and 560 tons of beef (40% of total) in 2018, and this is only expected to rise.

    The New Development Ban is also setting up operations in Brazil and will begin emitting funds outside of the control of the IMF/World Bank shortly and Brazil’s hosting of the 11th BRICS Summit on November 13 is sure to dovetail with Chinese and Russian investment strategies in the South. Under a re-organized financial system, such new institutions as the New Development Bank, the Silk Road Investment Fund, Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank would take on leading roles in providing long term productive credit for projects globally.

    When responding to Bolsonaro’s attacks on Kirchner and Fernandez of Argentina, Fernandez responded saying “with Brazil, we are going to get on splendidly. Brazil will always be our main partner. Bolsonaro is a passing phase in the life of Brazil- just as Macri is a passing phase in the life of Argentina”.

    A Word on Mexico

    Mexico gained a huge victory with the election of nationalist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in 2017 who has fought for a Mexico/Central America Development Plan since his election as an alternative to the current IMF/World Bank paradigm. This plan which is very much in harmony with the Belt and Road model involves southern Mexico and the “northern triangle” of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras which would see the construction of a cross Isthmus and North-South railroad system and ports along with a new electricity grid and agro industrial developments for all four nations.

    Although AMLO’s impulses favor joining the BRI, immense pressure has withheld this leap from occurring to this point.

    Green Depopulation or a New Growth Paradigm

    After Panama became the first Latin American nation to join the BRI in 2017, Uruguay followed suit, and was quickly joined by Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Chile, and Costa Rica. Caribbean nations on board involve Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, the Dominican Republic and Antigua-Barbuda.

    Western assets embedded in the LAC political structures are not only easy to identify due to their rejection of the BRI and embrace of Wall Street, but also for their blatant support of “green” energy strategies which seek to shut down carbon emitting oil, coal and even nuclear power.  An example of this hive was made evident by coalition of former energy secretaries of Argentina that wrote a memo calling for a scrapping of nuclear in preference to a total wind/solar strategy in obedience to the oligarchs that wrote COP21 and the Green New Deal. For any thinking citizen, this is merely another name for depopulation.

    Accurately capturing the principle of what is happening across South America and the world as a whole, Costa Rica’s ambassador to China recently said that China is “creating a new paradigm for development which may be as important perhaps as the Bretton Woods was after World War IIand that China is “calling upon the whole world to design together what the New Paradigm is going to be”.

  • Australia Warns Of 'Unprecedented' Threat Of Espionage From Migrant Spies

    Australia’s domestic intelligence agency has warned that foreign espionage has hit an all-time high in the country, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the report, intel officials say the public has no clue how large the threat is, or how easily migrants and refugees can be recruited as spies

    An Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) spokesperson said foreign interference and espionage was happening at an “unprecedented scale” but refused to detail tactics used to recruit refugees and migrants.

    “The security threat comes from the actions and intent of the small number of individuals who seek to do Australia harm,” the spokesperson said.

    The ASIO warning comes after the ABC uncovered a secret recording of an alleged Rwandan spy, filmed in a Gold Coast car park late last year.

     

    The man can be heard explaining how the Rwandan Government runs espionage operations out of its embassies and high commissions. 

    When there is an embassy, the Ambassador is in charge of the secret agents,” he said on the tape. –ABC

    According to Australian National University professor John Blaxland, a whole host of nations have a track record of using their nationals as spies in Australia in order to influence government decisions, corporations and education institutions. They do so by planting spies in diplomatic missions, however the schemes could also involve blackmailing or coercing migrants and refugees into becoming informers. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “There are broad principles that apply not just to Rwanda, but a range of countries, including China,” said Blaxland, adding “Refugees who flee often have family connections remaining with [their] home country.”

    According to the report, citing senior Australian intelligence officials, “China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Malaysia were known to monitor their diaspora living in Australia, while also seeking to silence those who might speak out against their former governments.”

    One source told ABC that in one case, the Australian government used diplomatic channels to voice their concerns in the hopes of stopping the intimidation by so-called “co-optees” or “agents,” who are recruited by “fully trained foreign spies.” 

    According to another international intelligence expert, there are hundreds of “co-optees” operating in Australia, and many have been blackmailed, threatened or coerced into joining.

    Some, the source said, were shown photos of a family member in their home country sitting between two intelligence officers, as a warning.

    The expert said some agents would seek to gain political gossip from the press clubs, parliaments and diplomatic functions, but their main job was to recruit agents and get recruit agents to get valuable information.

    This can happen through a front group, or so-called “false flag” operation, where they purport to be something they’re not — like a charity or community group, he said.

    While acknowledging the threat posed, the ASIO spokesperson went to lengths to insist the “actions of few” shouldn’t impugn the reputation of the bulk of law-abiding refugees. –ABC

    “It is critical that we avoid commentary that will instil fear and taint communities which make such a positive contribution to Australian life, economy and culture,” said the ASIO spokesperson. 

    Blaxland added that refugees may be easily blackmailed over the wellbeing of their family members, job losses, or even death. Once recruited, this network of informants are often tasked with “gathering information to pass back to the home country,” and “conducting illegal acts that are not in the interest of the company they are working for or Australia more broadly — effectively hostile acts.” 

    “Everyone in the national security committee knows that that’s what’s going on, and it’s one of the reasons agencies in that domain have been agitating for greater resources and legal flexibility,” added Blaxland. 

    According to Australian Institute of International Affairs president Ian Lincoln – a diplomat for more than three decades, “Sometimes the methods involved in getting secret intelligence can be a little bit unsavoury, putting pressure on people, one way or another.” 

  • Defecation Nation

    Via The Washington Times,

    America is getting pooped, thanks to trend-setting California. There is no getting around the fact that the Golden State is at the forefront of a defecation crisis which is already overflowing into neighboring states. The Left Coast has become the home of the homeless, the nation’s lost souls who apparently have settled for simply existing rather than really living. Sleeping out in the open spaces and pooping in public places are jarring signs that a segment of society has given up. The demoralizing, downward spiral is likely to accelerate unless Americans resolve to clean up their act.

    Sidewalk cities of makeshift shelters occupied by 36,000 vagabonds have beset residents of Los Angeles, and the homeless count in San Francisco has surpassed 8,000. Neighboring Seattle and Portland have their own dismal warrens of homeless numbering in the thousands. Living rough means doing without the fundamentals of sanitation, like toilets. Picking up after pooches is obligatory practically everywhere, but on the West Coast, the homeless have warmed to the habit of leaving mushy gifts on streets, in parks and other places where walkers risk an unwelcome surprise.

    Explanations are many for the growing phenomenon of dispossessed masses – the balmy weather, generous social services, tolerant treatment from city officials, expensive housing conditions and easy access to drugs made easier by legalization of recreational pot.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who witnessed persistent homelessness in San Francisco while mayor, has come up with a new rationale: Texans. The liberal Democrat recently appeared on HBO, claiming:

    “The vast majority [of San Francisco’s homeless people] also come in from — and we know this — from Texas. Just [an] interesting fact.”

    If indeed a fact, it’s a false one, according to fact-checkers at Politifact. They found city records indicating that 70 percent had lived in San Francisco before becoming homeless, 22 percent had lived elsewhere in California and only 8 percent had come from out of state.

    Charles Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books, points out in a Aug. 16 Wall Street Journal opinion piece that poverty has long been a part of the American story, but a dearth of basic dignity is something new:

    “The majority of the nation’s homeless people now live in California. There are myriad causes at work, no doubt. But there was no ‘defecation crisis,’ a term usually associated with rural India — in the 1930s, even with unemployment at 25 percent, vagabonds roaming the country, and shantytowns and ‘Hoovervilles’ springing up everywhere.

    California’s sanitation problem cannot be separated from its “progressive” roots. The sooner society can disentangle itself from its superstitious, misogynist, sexist, racist and capitalist past, so goes the theory, the quicker true freedom — life beneath blue skies and beyond hoary rules — can emerge. Counter-culture hipsters are always ready to dash forward toward the coming transformation, but they still need to watch where they step. As “The Eagles” reminded in their ‘70s-era “Lyin’ Eyes”: “Every form of refuge has its price.”

    Drug culture aficionados would rebuff any attempt to associate the swelling potty problem with pot legalization. Researchers are finding strong links, though, between marijuana and psychosis. A study conducted by King’s College London between 2010 and 2015 found that individuals who smoked high-potency marijuana were five times more likely to develop mental illness than non-smokers. A second study published in JAMA Pediatrics in December found the proportion of teens surveyed who had smoked pot in the preceding year and had experienced psychosis reached 40 percent.

    Drug use — legal and illegal — and the draw of life beyond cultural bounds are surely not the only explanations for the rise of outdoor-dwelling desperados. There are the mentally and physically disabled who wind up helpless, hopeless and homeless. They need all the assistance a compassionate society can offer.

    The proliferation of family breakdown is also a factor that cannot be discounted. With 50 percent of American children thrust out into the world without the emotional support of a two-parent family, psychological dysfunction is becoming more the rule than the exception. It’s not hard to conceive of a broken home as a natural precursor to homelessness.

    Rather than reinvent society based on unproven “progressive” notions, better to simply recall what works: Finish high school, get a full-time job, delay marriage and having children until age 21, and stay married.

    It’s a formula that built a nation — without the proliferation of pot and poop.

  • Bangladesh's Central Bank Offers Amnesty To Delinquent Borrowers, Prompting Mass Default

    Bangladesh’s Central Bank in May introduced an amnesty program that allowed delinquent borrowers to make a small upfront payment and then pay off the rest of their debt over 10 years at favorable interest rates, according to Bloomberg.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, the plan also triggered a rush by healthy companies to reschedule debt on the same terms which, in turn, now threatens to overwhelm the country’s banks.

    The program is also seen as encouraging those with debt to default. Big surprise, right?

    Anis A. Khan, managing director of Dhaka-based Mutual Trust Bank Ltd. said: 

    “I’m traumatized by non-performing loans. Borrowers have been using every excuse they can find — from a death in the family to political uncertainty — to try to get onto the central bank program.”

    The initiative is available to borrowers until September 7 and created a “perverse incentive” to default. Now, the country is expecting that nonperforming loans may rise significantly from 11.9% in March as a result of the program.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The upfront payment was lowered to 2% from 10% for those who are defaulting for the first time. The maximum interest rate over the next 10 years was set at 9%, even if borrowers were paying as high as 15% previously.

    And like all other great “Band-Aid” fixes to debt problems, the initiative has backfired: it has created a sense among Bangladeshi companies that people can get away without paying back their loans. That, in turn, poses a threat to the wider economy and a banking system that is already overwhelmed with defaults.

    The central bank, meanwhile, says that the policy will help revive lending growth in an economy that is dependent on attracting investment to sustain growth. Asian Development Bank predicts that the country’s economy will expand 8% over the next two years.

    Shitangshu Kumar Sur Chowdhury, banking reforms adviser at Bangladesh Bank said:

     “It was necessary to take some remedial measures to bail out the defaulters. It’s not flawless, just like any other policy, but it has more merits than demerits.”

    But Chowdhury also acknowledges that the policy creates moral hazard: 

    “That’s why we kept it open only for a short period to minimize it.”

    At places like Mutual Trust Bank, gross bad loans climbed to more than 6% in June from 4.3% two years ago and are slated to rise further.

    Mattias Martinsson, chief investment officer at Stockholm-based Tundra Fonder AB concluded:

     “One of our concerns in Bangladesh over the last five years has been poor transparency in the banking sector. The changes will obviously not stimulate further investments.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 27th August 2019

  • UBS Turns Bearish On Stocks For First Time Since Financial Crisis

    With more than $2.48 trillion AUM, UBS Global Wealth Management is one of the world’s largest asset managers. And now, for the first time since the financial crisis, the Swiss bank has dropped its rating on equities to ‘underweight’ as it braces for a recession spurred by a worsening trade war and slowing economic growth in Europe, Bloomberg reports.

    The Swiss asset manager cut its equity positioning relative to investment-grade bonds, said Global Chief Investment Officer Mark Haefele, to reduce its exposure to all of the factors mentioned above.

    More specifically, the change incorporates a new underweight position in emerging-market stocks.

    “Risks to the global economy and markets have increased, following a renewed escalation in U.S.-China trade tensions,” Haefele said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    UBS had resisted turning outright bearish on stocks, even as the the trade war between the world’s two largest economies intensified, leading up to President Trump on Friday declaring his plans to raise tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods to 30% from 25%.

    “With talks between the US and China dominating market moves over the near term, investors should brace for higher volatility,” Haefele said.

    “We believe it is prudent to take action to neutralize part of this event risk.”

    Additionally, UBS has been recommending clients go long gold for months now, and lately, it raised its price target on the precious metal to $1,600/oz, per BBG.

    Haefele reiterated that emerging-market stocks are the most vulnerable because they are “the most exposed to heightened market volatility.”

  • In 2019, Bombings And Explosions Up 45% In Sweden

    Authored by Jon Hall via FMShooter.com,

    Compared to the same period from January to July in 2018, the occurrence of explosive incidents and bombings in Sweden sky-rocketed 45 percent this year. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Statistics revealed by authorities show that Sweden saw 120 explosive events, whereas that same number from 2018 was only 83. Different sources report different numbers for the entire length of 2018, however. According to paper Dagens Nyheter, 157 explosions took place across the country in 2018 while the Crime Prevention Council BRÅ reported 108 instances of destruction via explosion last year.

    The numbers differ but all of the organizations agree that 2019 has seen a rise in bombings.

    Criminologist Sven Granath detailed on the explosions, explaining:

    Yes, unfortunately, it has increased. Why we do not know, this may be due to the increase in gun violence at the national level. In individual locations, there may be one or more conflicts between criminal networks, but it is very difficult to know.

    “You can really only speculate. It may be stolen from a building site and sold, or maybe smuggled in,” Granath continued, noting that investigators never know for certain what materials were used in the explosions or what their origins were.

    According to police, the nature of explosions have shifted in recent years. At one point, hand grenades were more common in Swedish bombings but now dynamite, stolen from construction sites, has become the new norm.

    Experts claim that the explosions are likely linked to organized crime and could be increasing due to stricter regulations on firearms in Sweden.

    Sweden’s southern city of Malmö has been faced with a high number of explosion cases in the last several years with 58 cases in 2017, 45 last year, and 23 so far this year. Notably, the city saw three explosions in the span of just 24 hours earlier this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It seems that authorities willingly bury their head in the sand regarding the similar correlation of an increase in migrants and refugees as bombings and explosions also rise. Experts and officials can call it “organized crime” if it makes them feel better, but it is wholly ignoring the true problem at hand.

    The reality of the situation is that the importation of third-world invaders into a once prosperous and stable first-world country has turned it into an unsafe and tumultuous battle zone where the threat of explosions place high in the minds of citizens.

    After all, you reap what you sow – and Sweden is doing that, tenfold.

  • Why Are Russian Special Forces Training With American Assault Rifles?

    One of the most unusual stories to start the week is coming from VladTime, a Russian news agency, who reported Russian Special Forces have been exercising with American M4 carbines this month, with additional reports of how some of these soldiers are currently buying western weapons.

    Military officers of the 45th Spetsnaz Airborne Brigade, a special reconnaissance and special operations military unit of the Russian Airborne Troops, said soldiers practiced shooting targets, reloading, and assembly and disassembly of the M4 last week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Officers said NATO Response Forces have been familiarizing and training with Russian weapons for some time. The latest move to train forces with western carbines is a direct result of NATO testing Russian assault rifles.

    According to one officer, special forces units were surprised by the accuracy of the M4 and even said, it’s more comfortable to shoot than the AK-74M, the main service rifle in use in the Russian Army. These elite soldiers said the ergonomics and compactness of the American assault rifle were appealing.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “It should be noted here that it was precisely such courses on familiarizing with foreign weapons that preceded the mass appearance of American and German rifles with FSB special forces. The special forces officers who appreciated the advantages of modern Western weapons, with the permission of the leadership, began to purchase them with their own money,” VladTime said (translated via Google).

    Another officer of the special forces told the publication that upper command has been speaking with local gunsmiths to make the Kalashnikov rifles more like western carbines. The report goes on to say special forces are already acquiring modern Western rifles and carbines, ahead of the possibility that upper command approves the use of these weapons.

    The main reason Russian Special Forces like the M4 firing a 5.56 X 45 NATO round, versus the Kalashnikov AK-47 firing a 7.62X39, is that the weapon is more lightweight, ergonomic, and more accurate.

  • Obamas' "American Factory" Film Backfires, Exposes "Damning Snapshot Of American Labor Entitlement"

    Authored by Peter Earle via The American Institute for Economic Research,

    The Inconvenient Truth of American Factory

    Higher Ground, the production company founded by Michelle and Barack Obama, has released the first of a planned seven-film series on Friday. 

    American Factory chronicles the opening of a Chinese factory near Dayton, Ohio, where a GM plant closed in 2008. It’s reasonable to suppose that the point was to alarm us about the wiles of global capitalism. Oddly, the film might have the opposite effect on many viewers. It certainly did for me. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The documentary opens with a prayer on the day the plant closes as tearful workers see the last vehicle come off of the production line. A few years later, Fuyao Glass announced its intent to open a glass-production facility in the shuttered facility. One of our first glimpses is of a question and answer as American employees of the Chinese firm speak about the goals of the firm to prospective employees: they plan to employ several thousand people in all capacities, but mostly blue-collar work of the type that disappeared when the local GM plant shut down. One prospect asks if this will be a union shop. No, he is told. The plan is to be non-union.

    Perhaps because of their proximity to widespread unemployment, everyone who heard that answer nods in agreement. This new factory is the only game in town, and the best news most of these out-of-work machinists and factory hands have heard in years. 

    Initially, most of the senior managers are Americans, but alongside the American workers are a group of Chinese workers. Also initially, most of the U.S. workers are deeply appreciative of the new opportunity. We follow one who, since the closing of the GM plan, has been reduced to living in her sister’s basement. Others have been out of work for some time, barely getting by on part-time work and odd jobs. 

    We don’t know how much of the documentary’s production choices were under the specific direction of the former president. Mr. Obama is sometimes astonishingly tone-deaf, as when, despite his regular trafficking with the global warming/climate change crowd — and more specifically in light of their incessant warnings about massive impending changes in sea levels and coastlines — he nevertheless purchased a $15 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard. If this is a story largely seeking to highlight differences in workplace culture, that objective is vastly overshadowed by the incredible arc that the formerly unemployed workers’ attitudes travel over a fairly short amount of time.  

    Initially, the woman who has been living in her sister’s basement has moved into an apartment. She extols her reacquired independence. Other employees bemoan their non-union pay and conditions but seem contented; they or friends and family have lost houses, have seen communities torn apart, and know firsthand the double impact of the so-called Great Recession and increasing competition from China. But even that wears off over time. 

    The work is sometimes dangerous, and the pay is lower than many of the workers have previously received, and before long thankfulness is replaced by myopia. Despite the company’s warnings, there are rumblings about unionization, and a United Automobile Workers agitator is caught walking through the private workspace with a “Union Yes” sign held aloft. The ineffectiveness of American managers to quash the unionization efforts leads to their sudden termination, and the Chinese CEO threatens to close the plant if it continues. 

    The same workers who, a short time before, were deeply appreciative of their unlikely bounty then begin to badmouth the company. Some are meeting secretly with union officials. Ultimately employees hold a vote, and the result is somewhat surprising.

    There are two particularly telling moments in the film.

    In one, a Chinese manager teaches a class on how to deal with Americans, whom the Chinese line employees are training. Americans, he explains, need constant encouragement. It’s a hilarious and somewhat cringeworthy section. 

    In another, an employee at a local union hall complains to a cheering crowd that while he earned $27,000 last year, his nail-polishing daughter earned $40,000. Apparently, this man is unaware that there is absolutely no prohibition against his learning to paint nails for higher compensation — and with a daughter who does so, he has ready access to a highly cost-effective apprenticeship. 

    Despite intense lobbying and enthusiasm, the union effort is defeated. A number of the labor organizers are fired; most just sheepishly return to their duties. In one of the last scenes, we overhear plans to automate many of the jobs at the factory, which would eliminate more positions. There’s no way of knowing whether this was the plan all along or whether the shift in workers from contentment to intrigue was a key part of the decision-making calculus of the Chinese owners, but it wouldn’t be surprising if the collective bargaining bid accelerated automation plans. None of this is surprising, especially given Fuyao’s clearly stated position against collective bargaining from the very beginning.

    It’s difficult for people to unlearn things they’ve grown up seeing, they’ve been told for decades, and for which they have apparent confirmation: the idea that union work naturally paid well and provided a generous raft of benefits was feasible in decades when international competition was virtually nonexistent. Throughout the ’50s, ’60s, and early ’70s, owing to the need for most of the rest of the world to rebuild after World War II, the establishment of the Iron Curtain, and the spread of collectivism throughout Asia, billions of potential competitors were simply out of the global mix. The dollar was king, and all of the major financial centers were in the Western Hemisphere. 

    But this period was an anomaly, even if wishful thinking sought to enshrine it as an indication of intrinsic American superiority: by the ’70s and ’80s, what was true all along finally became practicable. Markets opened, information began flowing, capital aggregated, and most of all people in other parts of the world proved that they were willing and able to do the work that Americans firmly believed only we could do. And our upstart labor competitors were willing, indeed appreciative of, the opportunities that sprung up. 

    There’s a common refrain from labor unionists and union members: the American worker is the best in the world — better than any of his international counterparts. It’s a feel-good, self-congratulatory sentiment, but it crumbles upon even superficial consideration. Here, it’s empirically untrue: the Chinese workers alongside Fuyao’s American employees work harder, for longer hours — they’re often at the factory working on evenings, weekends, and holidays, and do so for less pay and fewer benefits. This may not make them better people, but it absolutely makes them better employees and thus better economic prospects for firms. Even they, though, have limits, and machines are more efficient and productive. 

    The Obamas may have intended to make a film about workplace culture clashes. However, as it turns out, American Factory is at its core a damning snapshot of American labor entitlement. In an era where painful truths about the declining relevance of blue-collar work and the potential of automation are becoming evident in many fields, it will undoubtedly remain instructive over time. The events depicted are not a fleeting glimpse of a changing past, but an indication and warning of a rapidly oncoming future.

  • (Dr.) Copper Collapses To 2-Year-Low As Global Macro Deteriorates 

    Industrial metals such as copper continue to stagnate this year as major funds take an increasingly bearish view on global macro.

    The spot price of Comex copper on Friday fell 1.23% to 2.535, the lowest level in at least 115 weeks, dating back to the summer of 2017.

    Copper dropped 3.34% this past week amid new fears the US economy is quickly slowing. IHS Markit’s flash reading for the manufacturing purchasing managers index, recorded 49.9 for August on Thursday, the first contraction since 2009. This is an indication a manufacturing recession could be imminent, seems plausible since a freight recession across is already underway; explains how the Trump bump in the economy has been exhausted and reveals further why President Trump is demanding 100bps rate cuts, quantative easing, and emergency payroll taxes: it’s because the cycle is rolling over. We even mentioned last week how President Trump might hold an emergency meeting next week with advisors and top donors about how a mild recession could materialize before the 2020 election.

    In the last 89 days, copper is down nearly 15% from its high in April.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    On a longer perspective, copper crashed -58% from early 2011 to January 2016. Copper prices eventually troughed at 1.94 around mid-January 2016, as global central banks pumped the world with liquidity in 2016, and then the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018 injected fiscal stimulus into the domestic economy, which helped copper prices soar 62% until June 2018. Prices then plunged into late summer and fall of 2018, by 21% as the world realized a global slowdown was developing.

    The rollercoaster in prices, up and downs, created a massive head and shoulder pattern that could be completed in 2H19, or at least some time in 1H20. This would be due to another growth scare that could shock world markets. If copper was to break the head and shoulders neckline, a possible retest of 2016 levels, around 2-2.15, could be likely.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In textbook commodity market fashion, the price slump has been associated with a J.P.Morgan Global Manufacturing PMI plunging to sub 50, a harbinger that a global manufacturing recession could be imminent, or is already underway.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Wall Street Journal said, “Net bearish bets on copper in futures markets hit their highest level in around three years earlier this month, a sign that investors have grown increasingly pessimistic on the outlook for the metal in the midst of slowing global growth and a weakening Chinese economy.”

    China is the world’s largest copper user, accounting for almost 50% of global demand.

    So when copper prices slump, it’s also a proxy of the health of the Chinese economy.

    Earlier last week, Fathom Consulting, a global independent macro research consultancy, said its proprietary China Momentum Indicator 2.0 has slowed to 4.6% in June, the lowest reading since Aug. 2016.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There is also a growing gap between the China Momentum Indicator 2.0 at 4.6% and official GDP data at 6.2%. Might suggest China’s economy hasn’t yet bottomed, could continue to decline through 2H19 into 1H20.

    And on Friday, to make matters worse for the global macro outlook, China’s Ministry of Finance said in a statement that it would levy retaliatory tariffs on another $75BN in US goods with rates anywhere between 5 and 10%, with the tariffs set to be implemented in two batches, one at midnight on Sept 1 and another at midnight on Dec 15.

    Additionally, China said it would resume 25% tariffs on US autos, stating that “China’s adoption of tariff-adding measures is a forced move to deal with US unilateralism and trade protectionism.”

    Then in a retaliatory move, President Trump announced starting Oct 1, the existing 25% tariffs on $250BN in Chinese goods would rise to 30%, and the 10% tariffs on $300 billion in Chinese goods set to begin on Sept 1 will be 15%.

    With that being said, the global macro outlook looks set to deteriorate further into 1H20, sending copper prices tumbling much further.

  • Is Silicon Valley Building A Chinese-Style Social Credit System?

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Companies in the United States, and more specifically, Silicon Valley, are building a social credit system for individuals.  Much like the social credit system communist China uses to control its population, this authoritarian control is different in one way: it is being done by corporations as opposed to the government.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Make no mistake though, the corporations building a social credit system in the U.S. are already another arm of the government. They are lobbying and using the money made to get certain politicians elected. This is the very definition of crony corporatism.  If anyone thinks we live in a democracy or constitutional republic, they are either wholly uninformed, brainwashed or willfully ignorant.

    China’s tyrannical social credit system is a technology-enabled, surveillance-based nationwide program designed to nudge citizens toward better behavior (or government-approved behavior). The ultimate goal is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step,” according to the Chinese government

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to Fast Company, China’s social credit system has been characterized in one pithy tweet as “authoritarianism, gamified.” And it’s already here in the United States.

    While many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system, they need to realize that they live under a system that is similar. Such systems are not unique to China. In fact, a parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.  Big Tech is helping advance totalitarian control over the population by censoring information they deem goes against the government’s agenda.

    For example:

    The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this yearthat life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money.

    Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies.

    It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car after an Uber ride, the app invites you to rate the driver. What many passengers don’t know is that the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is “significantly below average,” Uber will ban you from the service.

    You can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you. You can also get banned for sending spam, threatening messages, trying to hack or reverse-engineer the WhatsApp app, or using the service with an unauthorized app.

    Fast Company

    An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services all while Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter.  All of the companies participating in these types of behavioral controls want one thing, and it’s the same thing the government wants: power over people.

  • Orange County Homebuying Plunges To 8-Year Low As Home Prices Stall 

    Orange County homebuying in the first six months of this year was awful, signals the top could be in as a correction in the overall California housing market could be nearing.

    CoreLogic homebuying data shows 1H19 sales in and around Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, and Westminster fell 12% to the slowest pace since 1H11, just after the Great Recession ended, reported Orange County Register.

    The report noted how the countywide median selling home price plateaued in 1H19, indicating a resistance level with what homebuyers are willing to pay for properties has been met.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Another concern is that lower interest rates over the last two quarters didn’t spark a revival in homebuying. It’s becoming more evident that a cyclical downshift in the regional housing market is gaining momentum.

    Countywide, 15,792 homes were sold, down 12% in 1H19 YoY. It marked the slowest first half for selling since 2011. Sales were up in only 17 of the county’s 83 zip codes. The median home price of $735,000 was flat in 1H19.

    Single-family home sales sank 9% in 1H19 YoY, with 9,912 sold, the slowest since 1H11. The median price fell 2% in the period to $780,000.

    Condo sales in the county were down 11% in the first two quarters, with 1,572 sold — the slowest since 1H09.

    Newly built home sales were down 34% in 1H19 YoY, with 1,572 sold, the slowest first half since 2013. However, the median price was up 6% in the period.

    CoreLogic data pointed out several interesting neighborhood trends:

    • Seven-figure neighborhoods: 12 zip codes out of 83 with median selling prices at $1 million or more vs. 14 ZIPs a year ago. Sales in these high-end ZIPs totaled 1,900 — down 27% in a year.

    • Sub-half-million communities: Just six zip codes medians were below $500,000 compared with four ZIPs a year ago. Sales in these more-affordable ZIPs totaled 651 — up 5% in a year.

    Here are more homebuying trends for Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, and Westminster:

    • Fountain Valley 92708: $805,000 median, up 2.9% in a year. Price rank? 24th of 83. Sales of 234 vs. 266 a year earlier, a decline of 12% over 12 months.

    • Garden Grove 92840: $552,500 median, down 4.5% in a year. Price rank? No. 72 of 83. Sales of 197 vs. 196 a year earlier, a gain of 0.5% over 12 months.

    • Garden Grove 92841: $615,000 median, down 0.8% in a year. Price rank? No. 62 of 83. Sales of 94 vs. 92 a year earlier, a gain of 2.2% over 12 months.

    • Garden Grove 92843: $560,000 median, up 4.7% in a year. Price rank? No. 67 of 83. Sales of 96 vs. 118 a year earlier, a decline of 18.6% over 12 months.

    • Garden Grove 92844: $485,000 median, down 14.5% in a year. Price rank? No. 79 of 83. Sales of 64 vs. 83 a year earlier, a decline of 22.9% over 12 months.

    • Garden Grove 92845: $659,000 median, down 0.9% in a year. Price rank? No. 53 of 83. Sales of 100 vs. 100 a year earlier, flat in the period.

    • Huntington Beach 92646: $742,750 median, up 0.4% in a year. Price rank? No. 38 of 83. Sales of 314 vs. 369 a year earlier, a decline of 14.9% over 12 months.

    • Huntington Beach 92647: $740,500 median, down 1.9% in a year. Price rank? No. 39 of 83. Sales of 168 vs. 197 a year earlier, a decline of 14.7% over 12 months.

    • Huntington Beach 92648: $988,000 median, up 4.9% in a year. Price rank? No. 13 of 83. Sales of 231 vs. 303 a year earlier, a decline of 23.8% over 12 months.

    • Huntington Beach 92649: $790,000 median, up 1.3% in a year. Price rank? No. 29 of 83. Sales of 182 vs. 196 a year earlier, a decline of 7.1% over 12 months.

    • Midway City 92655: $665,000 median, up 5.6% in a year. Price rank? No. 51 of 83. Sales of 24 vs. 13 a year earlier, a gain of 84.6% over 12 months.

    • Stanton 90680: $425,500 median, down 1.0% in a year. Price rank? No. 81 of 83. Sales of 91 vs. 95 a year earlier, a decline of 4.2% over 12 months.

    • Westminster 92683: $659,000 median, down 3.2% in a year. Price rank? No. 53 of 83. Sales of 228 vs. 277 a year earlier, a decline of 17.7% over 12 months.

    Housing markets across California and much of the West Coast have been deteriorating in the last 8 to 12 months. On the East Coast, it’s much of the same, with Manhattan condos and Hamptons mansions stagnating in the past year.

    The downturn in real estate isn’t just centralized to Orange County or West Coast markets, but it’s very board, from coast to coast to be exact, and hitting more luxurious markets the hardest.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The real estate market downturn could be one of the reasons why President Trump is begging the Federal Reserve for 100bps rate cuts, quantitative easing, and even trial ballooning headlines of emergency payroll tax cuts. 

    To sum up, the housing downturn is here. 

  • Will Central Banks Survive?

    Authored by Tuomas Malinen via GnSEconomics.com,

    Almost all economists and the vast majority of the general population erroneously believe that central banks are, basically, indestructible. And most fail to appreciate that central banks are different from normal commercial banks in just two respects: their ability to earn seigniorage revenue, and to distort accounting rules.

    With the current level of liabilities central banks hold those may not be enough. We might be closing in the end of the central banking era.

    The income structure of a central bank

    Central banks earn seigniorage from the difference between the “printing” costs of the legal tender (monetary base) and its nominal value. In a simplified balance sheet of a central bank, money is visible in the liabilities-side, which also holds the government’s bank account (domestic liabilities) and the reserves of commercial banks and net worth. Net worth includes the capital of the central bank and valuation adjustments for changes in the foreign-exchange rate and investments. A central bank’s assets include securities, foreign-exchange reserves (net foreign assets) and loans (to commercial banks).

    Thus, when a central bank buys assets, such as government bonds, it simply either creates money directly or debits the reserves of commercial banks to maintain balance. In the programs of quantitative easing (“QE”, see Q-Review 1/2018), the latter option has been used. The central bank earns income in the form of interest from these holdings. If the liabilities contain required reserves and currency, the central bank has “zero-cost” financing. If the liabilities contain excess reserves and or domestic liabilities, the central bank will need to pay interest.

    Losses of a central bank

    The central bank can, naturally, also incur a loss. The value of foreign and domestic assets have a significant role in a central bank’s income stream. Usually, losses result from interest obligations, subsidy payments, multiple exchange-rate practices, “guarantee” schemes and unfavorable changes in net asset valuations. With the advent of  QE programs, central banks have made themselves vulnerable mostly to the latter (see the Figure).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure. The balance sheets of the Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, Federal Reserve and the People’s Bank of China in billions US dollars. Source: GnS Economics, BoJ, ECB, Fed, PBoC

    When central bank accrues a loss beyond its stream of net interest rate income (gross interest income minus expenses) and seigniorage, it starts to eat through its capital. A central bank thus follows normal accounting practice. But, because the central bank has a control over the monetary base, it can create demand for its liabilities (currency) by buying government securities and earn seigniorage.

    This is the crucial difference between a central bank and a commercial bank. The central bank can claim to be solvent, based on its future income stream from seigniorage, even with negative net worth.

    But, covering a large loss from seigniorage will lead to a large growth in its monetary base and thus to very high inflation (see Q-Review 2/2019 for historical examples). So, a central bank can, technically, cover all losses, but it can only be accomplished through very high inflation and, eventually, by destroying the monetary system.

    Central bank and the negative net worth

    If, alternatively, a central bank continues to operate with negative net worth and/or without acknowledging its losses, it will interfere with its own monetary management (the setting of interest rates) and eventually jeopardize its independence and credibility. What this means as well is that financial market participants cannot be sure whether a central bank is conducting monetary policy according to its mandate or in an effort to cover its losses.

    When trust in a central bank is broken, it loses any control it has over the markets and, eventually, the economy. A central bank operating with negative capital is also a sign that the economy is not doing well. Volatility increases and, eventually, panic is likely to take hold especially if the asset markets are over-valued.

    For these reasons, all major modern central banks have rules in place concerning re-capitalization. However, recapitalization is a political decision, which has its own risks and limitations. For example, if losses are very large, the government is unlikely to be willing to cover them, because of the likely political backlash. It can let the central bank fail and start to issue currency by itself or set up a new bank.

    Recapitalization of a central bank cannot therefore be considered to be “automatic”, although cases where recapitalization is not undertaken probably require exceptional considerations, such as very large losses, public anger towards central banks, and the political consequences such resentment is likely to produce.

    Central bank failures

    History knows of few examples of the technical bankruptcies of central banks. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe reached insolvency in early 2010, due to hyperinflation and accumulated foreign liabilities. The National Bank of Tajikistan fell into insolvency in late 2007 because of its external debt.

    In both cases, the liabilities of the central banks exceeded their assets, and a recapitalization was needed. These examples and the process of central bank failure is described in detail an excellent article by W. Buiter. Now, with hugely-bloated balance sheets, central bank losses are almost guaranteed.

    Central banks may ’disappear’

    People tend to forget that central banks, compared to the economy, are a fairly new invention. They assumed their current role as setters of interest rates only in the 1920s, and became the guardians of inflation in the 1980s. In the 2010s, they became the unwitting destroyers of the pricing mechanism in the capital markets. Their evolutionary path seems clear, and it is very detrimental to the overall economy.

    In the case of a recession, their only remaining (effective) stimulus option is some form debt monetization, á la “Modern Monetary Theory”. If enacted, this will signal the end of the monetary system as we know it, but also ensure the end of central bank hegemony because of the inflationary crisis which will ensue.

    That’s why we should not be surprised if central banks are not around after the coming crisis has passed. Their pernicious asset buying-programs and negative rates have left them vulnerable politically to any larger shock, such as a crash in the asset markets or a global recession. Venturing into debt monetization would seal their fate.

    In either case, a political reckoning for years of reckless central bank policy is fast approaching, and they may not survive what is about to hit.

  • "It's A Shame For Argentina" – Workers Escape To Jobs Abroad As Economic Crisis Worsens

    Shocked by President Mauricio Macri’s drubbing in elections this month many Argentines have begun calling and emailing in droves in search of work in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, head hunters told Reuters.

    The issue spans the the entire employment spectrum, from graduate students looking for their first job in a new field, to executives. Some head hunters can name the executives, and some search specialists say the resumes that have deluged their offices in those countries peaked after Macri lost ground to a center-left Peronist challenger in the Aug. 11 primary elections, causing the peso to plummet in value.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Unfortunately for Macri, leftist Alberto Fernandez is now the front-runner in the upcoming Oct. 27 general election and has said he will seek to renegotiate a $57 billion loan International Monetary Fund deal agreed by Macri amid growing fears of a default.

    Next door, in Chile, recruitment firm Randstad said the pressure for jobs among Argentine applicants has been building for months as the Argentine economy has sputtered out. Their rate of applications for jobs in Chile increased by 246% between May and August this year compared to last.

    “I think people feel a bit of despair,” said Nicholas Schmidt, department head of executive search firm Spencer Stuart’s financial services division in Chile, who received a flood of emails and phone calls after the primaries.

    “I get a sense that going forward we are going to be seeing a lot of very bright Argentine candidates. It’s a shame for Argentina,” he said.

    Inside Argentina, companies helping to export workers are experiencing a boom.

    Bernardo Carignano, creator of the visa assistance website “Yo me animo y vos”, said he saw traffic to his site increase the week after the primary election to the highest levels since it went online in 2008.

    “On Instagram, too, in these last weeks, we have noticed our followers are increasing much more daily than in previous weeks,” he said.

    A spokesman for Argentina’s Ministry of Labor, Employment and Social Security said it did not have access to migration data.

    When he was first elected back in 2015, Macri was greeted as a breath of fresh air for the economy. Recruiters said they were confident that Macri would work out: However, that feeling of pervasive optimism has faded.

    Several Argentine candidates told potential recruiters that Macri, elected in 2015 on a pledge to “normalize” Latin America’s third largest economy, had been their hope for an economic turnaround after a decades-long cycle of peso weakness and inflation.  

    “There was a sense of hope with him, a lot of people went back (to Argentina) and worked in government,” Schmidt said. “People wanted to stay and felt things were going to improve significantly going forward.”

    Instead, Macri has been accused of failing to attract sufficient foreign direct investment while underestimating the inflationary effect caused by cuts to utility subsidies that Argentines had long taken for granted.

    Today, unemployment stands at 10 percent, inflation at 55 percent and the poverty rate between 27 and 35 percent.

    But many of Macri’s promises never panned out. His decision to devalue the country’s currency destroyed the wealth accumulated by millions of retirees. And his decision to beg the IMF for the biggest bailout in the organization’s history.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Kevin Gibson, chief of the Latin American division of Robert Walters, a large British head-hunting firm, said he had seen a steady upwards trajectory since 2017 in applicants for roles in Brazil, Mexico and Chile from Argentine candidates.

    In the week after the primary vote alone, the number of applicants doubled. Colombia has also attracted interest from Argentines.

    In Brazil, Gibson said the potential further losses of Argentina’s human capital would be other economies’ gain.

    “Argentines are extremely flexible salary wise and have a very good reputation in the region,” he said. “It’s been gradual as different people have different pain points and family commitments but this most recent news will definitely bring a huge spike.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 26th August 2019

  • EU Citizens Moving To UK Halved Since Brexit Vote

    New statistics published by Britain’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the number of EU citizens moving to the UK for work has halved since the Brexit referendum.

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, in the year ending June 2016, the number of people moving to the UK for work stood at 190,000 and in the year ending March 2019, that plummeted to 92,000.

    Infographic: EU Citizens Moving To UK Halved Since Brexit Vote | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The ONS said that the figures are based on “adjusted estimates” after admitting that EU migration had been under-estimated.

  • Turkey Affirms Its Claim On Cyprus Oil And Gas

    Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

    Turkey will continue exploring for oil and gas in the eastern Mediterranean waters around disputed Cyprus, and “No project can be realised if Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are not involved,” President Recept Erdogan said, as quoted by Cypriot media.

    “We will continue to defend the rights of Turkish Cypriots with the same dedication,” Erdogan said following a meeting with the head of the Cypriot Turks.

    Turkey, which recognizes the northern Turkish Cypriot government and doesn’t have diplomatic relations with the internationally recognized government of EU member Cyprus, claims that part of the Cyprus offshore area is under the jurisdiction of Turkish Cypriots or Turkey, and they are entitled to part of the potential oil and gas resources in the area. Turkey doesn’t recognize the agreements that Cyprus has signed with other countries in the Mediterranean over the exclusive maritime zones either.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last month, tensions between Turkey and Greece regarding the Cyprus drilling rights spiked again when Greece’s newly elected government said Turkey undermined the security of the eastern Mediterranean with its drilling operations off the Cypriot shores.

    “The illegal actions of Turkey, which defy international law are placing the security of the region at risk. As such, they are absolutely condemnable,” Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias said,

    adding “We discussed this flagrant violation of the sovereignty and the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus perpetrated by Turkey.”

    A string of natural gas discoveries in the waters around Cyprus have turned the divided island into one of the new hot spots for gas, along with Egypt and Israel. Just recently, the island greenlit a consortium involving Eni and Total to drill for gas in a new part of its exclusive economic zone.

    Turkey’s strong position on the issue of oil and gas suggests that internal tensions in Cyprus will continue and the newly found gas wealth will not help their resolution.

  • As Long As Enemies Of The State Keep Dying Before Trial, No One Should Trust The State

    Authored by Ted Rall via The Unz Review,

    There is no other way to say it: It was a political assassination.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Osama bin Laden was unarmed. SEALs captured him alive. Following brazenly illegal orders from Washington, they executed him. “The (Obama) administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead,” The Atlantic reported on May 4, 2011.

    State-controlled media outlets like The Atlantic claimed that President Barack Obama was desperate to avoid a trial that would give the al-Qaida leader a “high-profile platform for spreading his extremist views.” Left unsaid, as so much is in the American steno-journalism reminiscent of the Soviet Union, was a more pressing reason to silence the Saudi scion.

    As much as the families of 9/11 victims craved justice, it was infinitely more important to the U.S. political establishment to deny bin Laden an opportunity to publicly expound on his ties to the CIA and the CIA-funded Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, who were training and funding the “Afghan Arabs” who fought Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Letting people learn that 9/11 would likely never have happened if not for the CIA would have been… awkward.

    Such is the fate of enemies of the state.

    Last week, not so much an enemy but a man whose existence had become inconvenient, not exactly to the state but certainly to a cabal of powerful men, including a former president as well as the sitting one, joined bin Laden in the kingdom of the dead.

    The official narrative of billionaire accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s death shifted faster than a New York subway rider when a homeless guy plops down next to them on a hot day. First, they said Epstein had been on suicide watch, and then that he hadn’t. Prisons are full of cameras, yet there’s still no video of Epstein’s death. Then, suicide watch or not, they claimed he’d been checked on every 30 minutes. Then more like every three hours. The medical examiner said his injuries were consistent with strangulation by a second person, but then thought better of it and ruled Epstein’s convenient demise a suicide.

    I tweeted the morning of Epstein’s passing: “Bill Clinton is the happiest man in America today.” Clinton flew on Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express” private jet at least six times, including to such sex-tourism destinations as Thailand and Hong Kong. Perhaps he refrained from partaking in the underaged prostitutes and rape victims Epstein stands accused of procuring for his traveling companions. Whatever happened or didn’t, the Epstein-Clinton connection is sketchy.

    As is Epstein’s suicide — the first at the Manhattan Correctional Facility since 1998.

    At this writing, it seems unlikely that we’ll ever know who killed Epstein, whether it be himself or someone else. What we do know is that, if we take the government at its word, they were incompetent and negligent to an unfathomable extent. Being insanely stupid and lazy is their defense.

    Now we’re descending into the usual idiotic post-death debate between credulists (those who believe anything the government and its pet media says) and conspiracy theorists. Truth: No one knows anything. We weren’t there. The video was, but they deep-sixed that.

    We don’t know how Epstein bit it but the fact of Epstein’s death tells us everything we need to know about America today. No matter what, Epstein died because the government let it happen. He was a ward of the state, the highest of high-profile prisoners, a man whose trial stood to expose extreme wrongdoing at the expense of numerous horribly violated victims, yet no one in charge took steps to make certain that he appeared at every hearing healthy and alive.

    The carelessness of the powers that be reflects their confidence that they shall never, ever, be held accountable for anything.

    So another man vanishes, and the few questions asked are left unanswered — intentionally.

    So it was with Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan dictator who signed a deal with the U.S. to rid Libya of a nuclear program only to be blown up by one of Obama’s assassination drones lest he say too much about his relationship with the Bush administration.

    So it was with Chris Dorner, the police officer who went on a shooting spree after he was fired by the LAPD, apparently in retaliation for reporting a fellow cop’s excessive force against a mentally ill suspect, before being hunted down and killed in a cabin the police set ablaze with “pyrotechnic tear gas” canisters.

    So it was with Sandra Bland, the African-American woman who apparently killed herself after being beaten and jailed by the police for the crimes of failing to signal a lane change, sassiness and the likelihood she would have spoken out about being brutalized.

    So it was a bunch of Nazi war criminals who escaped judgment at Nuremberg.

    So it was Lee Harvey Oswald, whom the authorities couldn’t resist parading before reporters, without screening attendees like Jack Ruby for weapons.

    More will die.

    It’s better for those in charge.

  • Buddy Fletcher's Connecticut Castle Liquidated In Foreclosure For Pennies On The Dollar

    Hedge fund manager Alphonse “Buddy” Fletcher has been forced to sell his Cornwall, Connecticut mansion for just pennies on the dollar, according to Bloomberg.

    The estate, called Cornwall Castle, has seen its prestigious owners arrive in vehicles like pink Cadillacs and helicopters over the years. Among the list of previous owners, Saul Steinberg, the lead chairman of Reliance Group Holdings and Macy’s executive Joseph Cicio.

    Fletcher bought the castle in 2001, before his American dream-style narrative of wealth and success ended in bankruptcy. For years, Fletcher and his wife, Ellen Pao, were well-known figures on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley.

    And like any good criminal, Fletcher has been falling back on the race card for a living. He gained notoriety in 2011 when he sued The Dakota, one of Manhattan’s most exclusive co-ops, for racial discrimination. This was after he had also sued his previous employer, Kidder Peabody, for racial discrimination, in 1991. He won a $1.26 million award in NYSE arbitration as a result. In 2012, his wife filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against her employer, Kleiner Perkins.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But in 2012, the real problems under the surface for Fletcher started to rear their heads.

    Fletcher’s funds were forced into liquidation or bankruptcy amid fraud allegations and an investigation by the SEC. Fletcher was accused of inflating his returns and using his clients’ money as a piggy bank. He was ordered to return $212 million in a default judgment in 2015 and divorced with his wife two years later.

    The bankruptcy trustee trying to recoup the funds said: “We never located any meaningful assets.”

    This brings us back to Cornwall Castle. In 2001, Fletcher took out a $4.4 million mortgage to pay $5.9 million for the 330 acre property – a record high price for a home in the area. Neighbors recalled his helicopter hovering overhead and annual parties thrown on Halloween. Fletcher, meanwhile, kept tacking on debt to buy more land, and eventually bought more than 1000 acres.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Fletcher, thinking about his next racial discrimination lawsuit

    In 2013, he put the castle on the market for $8.9 million and there were no takers. In 2014, he started to fall behind on the payments and JP Morgan began foreclosure proceedings the next year. And so the grand building and land have now been sold off in pieces to pay his debts.

    In March, a local conservation group agreed to buy 107 acres for $622,000. In June, JP Morgan sold the 16,800 square-foot castle and 275 acres for $1.6 million. The remaining portions of his land will hit the market over the next few months.

    Former owner Cicio said: “To me, it was out of a storybook. Sadly, in the very recent past, they let it dramatically deteriorate.”

    Cicio is right – the house needs a significant amount of work. A barn on the property was ruined by a fire in 2013. Meanwhile, pipes burst, grass was overgrown and the roof developed leaks. The HVAC systems need to be replaced and there’s a mold problem that needs to be dealt with.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
     

    This condition belies the once prestigious nature of the castle. Built in 1925, it was supposed to be a fairytale retreat for New York society couple Charlotte Bronson Hunnewell, who had developed Manhattan’s Turtle Bay Gardens, and her second husband, Dr. Walton Martin. 

    David Bain, a real estate broker who handled the foreclosure sale said: “It needed everything. Not a pretty picture for most buyers.”

    Jeffrey Jacobson, who wrote a book about the history of the castle said: “What kind of a sensible, logical person wants to buy a castle?”

    Most wealthy buyers today would likely have no tolerance to make improvements to an old castle, according to Graham Klemm, a local real estate broker. 

    However, it appealed to one man: Russell Barton, a developer who recently transformed a former jail into a mixed use complex featuring residences and a restaurant. Barton was taken back by the gargoyles on the building and the original lead windows, stonework and seclusion. Being a developer, he also has the resources and the know-how to fix it. He has spent the past month renovating the castle with 20 workers on site, doing eight hour shifts each.

    Barton said: “This is a small job for me. The jail took two years. This will take two months.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Barton and his wife

    He thinks the renovations will cost about $150,000, which is far less than the $3 million to $4 million estimated by some real estate professionals. His goal is to use the castle as a permanent home for himself and his wife and to use the castle’s servant quarters as his company’s headquarters. For now, the couple is living with their Jack Russell terrier in a one bedroom stone cottage by the pool.

    Barton concluded: “I like this old lady. Everything about it is spectacular.”

    Meanwhile, we’re sure Fletcher is busy preparing another racial discrimination suit, perhaps against the SEC or his home’s new owner, as we speak.

  • Duke University Shrink: Trump May Be Worse Than Hitler, Stalin, And Mao

    Authored by Dave Huber via The College Fix,

    The former chief of the Duke University Psychiatry Department went on CNN this weekend to claim President Trump is mentally unfit for the office, and proceeded to up the hyperbole quotient to unprecedented levels.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Appearing on “Reliable Sources,” Dr. Allen Frances said comparing Donald Trump to the mentally ill is “an insult” to the latter.

    While he differs with Yale’s Bandy Lee regarding the so-called Goldwater Rule – the American Psychiatric Association’s decree that “members never publicly discuss the mental health of a public figure” – Frances’ diatribe fit in well with Lee’s crusade to convince anyone who will listen that Trump’s mental state is endangering all Americans.

    According to the Washington Examiner, Dr. Frances said

    Well, I think ‘medicalizing’ politics has three very dire consequences. The first is that it stigmatizes the mentally ill. I’ve known thousands of patients, almost all of them are well-behaved, well-mannered good people. Trump is none of these. Lumping that is a terrible insult to the mentally ill and they have enough problems and stigma as it is.

    Second, calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we’re crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist.

    The kicker: Trump “may be” culpable for “many more million deaths” than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, Frances continued.

    “Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were,” Frances continued.

    “He needs to be contained but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person.”

    “It’s crazy for us to be destroying the climate our children will live in,” Frances continued.

    “It’s crazy to be giving tax cuts to the rich that will add trillions of dollars to the debt our children will have to pay. It’s crazy to be destroying our democracy by claiming that the press and the courts are the enemy of the people.”

    With such insane comparisons, Frances sounded like he needed to lie down on his own couch.

    “There is absolutely no doubt that Trump is dangerous,” Frances claimed, arguing that Trump was “dangerous because he’s a bad, evil con man” rather than because he was mentally ill.

    He then suggested that it would be acceptable to lie about Trump’s mental state if there was a way to use that false narrative to get him out of office.

    “I think it’s very clear that he’s dangerous because he’s evil, he’s not dangerous because he’s mentally ill, and the mentally ill argument, if it would get him out of the office, I would say go with it even if it’s inaccurate,” Frances continued.

    “Anything to get this man out of office. But it won’t work, so piling on inaccuracy, stigma, the press will get people who know nothing about psychiatric diagnosis spouting off at the mouth, it won’t add to the discussion, it will distract from the political stuff and we have to focus on how evil…”

    But all host Brain Stelter could muster was this odd facial expression…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (Stelter later claimed on Twitter that his show was suffering from technical difficulties and thus did not hear Frances’s statements.)

    Dr. Lee sat quiet during the Frances segment; nevertheless, a month ago she and several peers testified in an online gathering that President Trump was psychologically unfit for the presidency.

    In that testimony, James Merikangas  of George Washington University said Trump’s campaign rallies are like the “Nuremberg rallies that Adolf Hilter had,” while NYU’s James Gilligan added the president is “dangerous to an unprecedented degree in our history.”

    Dr. Frances’s Twitter timeline is chock full of material like this:

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

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

    Read the Examiner article

  • Plunge Protection Team Arrives: Lifts Stocks & Currencies, Slams Gold

    Update (2245ET): China’s Vice Premier Liu told online news provider Cailian that China has enough macro-economic policy tools to ensure sound economic fundamentals and “firmly opposes escalation of the trade war” (which is ironic given that they just did); and suddenly Yuan and USDJPY spikes, US equity futures surge, and gold slides…

    Right on cue…US equity futures have almost erased their losses…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yuan spikes and USDJPY has erased all of its losses…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And gold is offered heavy…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    In early Asia trading, offshore yuan has extended Friday’s collapse, testing the lower edge of the PBOC’s Yuan trading band once again.

    Yuan traded as weak as 7.1925 against the USDollar…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Pressuring the weaker end of the Yuan peg band…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    At the same time, USDJPY is tumbling (Yen strength), testing the lows of the flash-crash from early January…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Spot Gold has exploded higher, testing $1550…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    With gold rising and yuan plunging, the Chinese currency is at its weakest against the precious metal since 2012…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    US Equity futures are reeling with Dow Futures down over 400 more points…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Treasury futures opened up dramatically, implying a 10Y yield of around 1.36% (around 8bps lower in yield).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    And oil prices are plunging…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turmoil is coming.

  • Russian Space Capsule Carrying Humanoid Robots Fails To Dock As Planned At International Space Station

    A space capsule that was carrying a Russian humanoid robot failed to dock as planned with the International Space Station, according to AP

    Russia’s space agency said that the failure involving the planned docking on Saturday was due to faults with “the docking system” and that the Space Station and the 6 person crew were both safe. A new docking attempt will be made on Tuesday. 

    We reported on Friday that Russia had launched an unmanned rocket carrying its first life-sized humanoid robot to the International Space Station. The robot, named Fedor (Final Experimental Demonstration Object Research), was supposed to spend 10 days learning to help astronauts in space.

    Now, it looks as though the project could be in jeopardy. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As we reported, the humanoid blasted off Thursday “in a Soyuz MS-14 spacecraft at 6:38 am Moscow time (0338 GMT) from Russia’s Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.” He was scheduled to dock at the International Space Station on Saturday and stay until September 7. No word on whether or not that schedule has changed a result of the docking failure. 

    The launch was unmanned in order to help test new emergency rescue systems on board. The humanoid was strapped into a specially-made pilot seat with a small Russian flag in its hand before being launched into space. It even said: “Let’s go, let’s go,” during the launch, an homage to the famous phrase used by first man in space Yuri Gagarin.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The human-like robot stands about 5‘11“ tall and weighs about 353 pounds. And of course, what would a scientific technological advancement be without having its own Instagram and Twitter accounts? Fedor’s social media accounts update its followers with posts on when it acquires new skills, like opening a bottle of water.

    “The first stage of in-flight experiments went according to the flight plan,” Fedor Tweeted after reaching orbit. 

    If it can dock with the International Space Station successfully, the robot will have a chance to try these skills in a low gravity environment.

    Russian space agency’s director for prospective programmes and science, Alexander Bloshenko, said: “That’s connecting and disconnecting electric cables (and) using standard items, from a screwdriver and a spanner to a fire extinguisher.” 

    Fedor copies human movements, which is a key skill that allows it to help astronauts remotely while humans are strapped into an exoskeleton. These humanoids could eventually carry out dangerous operations, like spacewalks, instead of putting humans at risk.

    The humanoid is also described as being potentially useful for high radiation environments and tricky rescue missions. The robot was initially developed for the emergencies ministry, but it can also be seen seen shooting at targets using two handguns in a video posted by Russian space agency chief Dmitry Rogozin.

    If the capsule can dock successfully, the plan is for the humanoid robot to perform tasks supervised by a Russian cosmonaut who docked at the ISS in July. The cosmonaut will “wear an exoskeleton and augmented reality glasses in a series of experiments later this month.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Fedor’s legs will be immobilized on the space station because it isn’t yet trained to grab handles and move in microgravity conditions. While showing President Putin photographs of the humanoid robot, space agency chief Dmitry Rogozin told him: “In the future we plan that this machine will also help us conquer deep space.”

    Russian media also speculated that these types of robots will be used in Russia’s moon program.

    Although Fedor is the first Russian humanoid robot to make it to space, he is not the first robot globally to make the journey. In 2011, NASA sent up a humanoid robot developed in conjunction with General Motors that had a similar aim of working in high-risk environments. It experienced technical difficulties and was flown back to the earth in 2018.

  • Peter Schiff: The Media Has Flipped The Narrative On Trump

    Via SchiffGold.com,

    Last week, the yield curve inverted, with the yield on the 10-year Treasury falling below the yield on the 2-year for the first time in 12 years. This has historically been a good predictor of recessions. US stock markets sold off on the news, with the Dow shedding 800 points. As Peter Schiff noted in his most recent podcast, the mainstream also suddenly started talking about the possibility of an economic downturn.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Peter put it, the media has flipped the narrative on Trump.

    All of a sudden, a media, which was pretty much buying the booming economy narrative, now is questioning whether the economy is actually strong.”

    Peter said Trump is now accusing the media of being involved in some kind of conspiracy to make the economy look bad. He’s basically saying that all of the negative economic data we’ve seen coming out is nothing but “fake news.”

    Trump has worked himself into a political corner. His claim to fame is that he’s created the greatest economy ever. He has a vested interest in ensuring that the narrative continues. He won’t likely win a second term if the economy is in recession, or if stocks appear to be in a bear market.

    If stocks are going down, if we’re in a recession, well then by his own standard, he is a failure. And if his presidency failed, then why should the public reelect him?”

    When Trump was running for office, he said the numbers were fake – that the economy was worse than the data indicated. Now he’s saying the numbers are fake and the economy is much better than the data indicates.

    Peter said that ironically, some of the best evidence that the economy is in trouble comes directly from the policies that Trump is demanding – particularly a 100 basis-point cut in the interest rate. As Peter pointed out, that would take the interest rate down to 1%. That was the level Alan Greenspan took interest rates down to during the recession after the dot-com bubble burst.

    Donald Trump wants rates to be at 1% again. Well, if the economy is so great, why do we need to return interest rates to the level that we had during a recession following the bursting of a stock market bubble and the 9/11 terrorist attacks?”

    In fact, we already have monetary stimulus with the recent Fed rate cut and the end of quantitative tightening. And as Peter noted, we also have massive fiscal stimulus. The US budget deficit for FY2019 has already eclipsed last year’s shortfall.

    But that’s not enough for Trump. Now there’s all these rumors, and I’m sure they’re true, that the Trump administration is thinking of cutting capital gains taxes, having an emergency temporary payroll tax cut … that is a stimulus. That is a pure Keynesian stimulus. Why do we need more stimulus when we’ve got so much stimulus?”

    Trump wants all of this stimulus and yet says we aren’t close to recession.

    Well, this is a bunch of BS! Obviously, if we weren’t close to recession, the president wouldn’t be looking for monetary and fiscal stimulus to prop up the economy. Strong economies don’t need to be artificially propped up. It’s weak economies that need to be artificially propped up. I mean, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t claim that the economy doesn’t need a stimulus, but then advocate for a stimulus.”

    The media is having a field day with this. It’s finally questioning the narrative.

    It should be noted that Peter has been talking about a looming recession for months. Back in January, Peter was already saying “the recession is a done deal.”

    Peter goes on to analyze the economics behind the looming recession and the political ramifications. Peter said that analysts and pundits who are now suddenly predicting a recession are right, but they still don’t realize just how bad it’s going to be.

  • Homicides Of Young Brazilian Males Higher Than Syria And Iraq, Report Says

    According to a recent UNICEF report, examined by The Hindu, the number of homicides of young males in Brazil is higher than warzones in Syria and Iraq.

    “Homicide victims are mostly black boys who live on the outskirts of the major cities. They are out of school and come from low-income families,” said the report.

    Brazil is a culturally diverse country, with about 50% of the population defined as mixed. The racial divide is vast, and government officials mostly avoid the debate on racial inequality. But several studies in recent years have started looking at the role of race in murders — both criminal as well as by government forces.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One report, titled “Atlas of Violence,” was recently published by the Institute of Applied Economic Research in Brazil shows that in the Rio Grande do Su, Brazil’s southernmost state, bordering Argentina and Uruguay, has a population of 82% white population, but the number of black youth murdered nearly doubled between 2007 and 2017.

    With limited economic opportunity, young black males in the country resort to gangs for stability. This has led to a surge in black killings by police, which has spiked in recent years, mostly in the name of “fighting crime.”

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

    Earlier this year, we reported how a rash of gang violence across the country forced President Jair Bolsonaro to crackdown on crime — which includes military takeovers of Brazilian cities and shoot-to-kill orders carried out by teams of sharpshooters.

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

    According to the State Institute of Public Security (ISP), Brazil’s military police killed 1,544 people last year in Rio de Janeiro state.

    “Summary executions are being carried out in favelas and other peripheral areas,” said Renata Souza, a local politician. “It is a barbaric state policy that amounts to genocide.”

    President Bolsonaro has even threatened to make new laws that will enable police and civilians to “shoot suspected offenders” without concern of prosecution.

    “These guys are going to die in the streets like cockroaches — and that’s how it should be,” he said in a recent interview. He told Brazil’s police should be decorated for using rifles, not taken to courts.

    In an interview, broadcasted on YouTube on August 05, Bolsonaro said if congress passed his changes to the criminal code, it would see criminals gunned down in droves.

    The only way to reduce Brazil’s violent crime is to provide “legal cover” to police officers so they can kill suspects, he added.

    With murders surging across 14 states, and high rates of young blacks murdered, The Hindu warned: “the last thing Brazil needs is an out-of-control police force. But that may just become legal.”

    And if you didn’t think The Purge, a movie where murder is legal for 12 hours, could’ve come true, well, think again in Brazil.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 25th August 2019

  • Could We Be Wrong About Where "The Big One" Will Strike? Earthquakes Are Occurring In Areas We Never Expected

    Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

    Last week, a county in central Kansas experienced something quite unusual for the region: within a five day period, there were eleven earthquakes. Kansas is not a particularly earthquake-prone state, taking spot #41 on the U.S. Earthquake Index. This means that the chance of earthquake damage in Kansas is much lower than the national average.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This shocking increase in seismic activity began with a magnitude-2.4 earthquake last Wednesday morning. The quake occurred around 2 1/2 miles southwest of Hutchinson, Kansas, in Reno County, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It was followed by ten more earthquakes, reports The Kansas City Star:

    The second came just before 8 a.m. on Friday. The magnitude-4.2 shook the area, centered less than a mile southwest of Wednesday’s temblor. More than 1,000 people reported feeling the quake across Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri, according to the USGS.

    It wouldn’t be the last quake on Friday. A magnitude-3.1 quake shook the area about 10 minutes later followed by four more tremors through the day ranging from magnitude 2.4 to 3.0, according to the USGS.

    Seismic activity in the area continued on Saturday with three more quakes — magnitudes 2.0 to 3.0 — before a magnitude 4.1 shook the area early Sunday morning, according to the USGS. (source)

    Rick Miller, director of the Kansas Geological Survey in Lawrence, told The Hutchinson News that while the region does have a history of small quakes, last week’s activity was unusual:

    “There’ve been about a dozen micro-level events, from 1.7 to 2.2, in Reno County in the prior six months,” Miller said. “They had slowed dramatically from what was earlier.”

    “This (the 4.2) was not unexpected in terms of magnitude,” Miller said. “It was not unreasonable based on the recursion situation, the number of 2′s and 3′s you’ve had.”

    “It’s hard to believe there will be anything bigger than a 4.2,” Miller said “You don’t have a long enough (fault) structure for that. It’s not outside the realm of possibility for something a little larger, but that’s as close to the top end you’ll see, based on the size of the structure where it occurred.”

    The previous quakes that have occurred in the region have revealed the extent of the shallow faults, Miller said.

    While Reno County has been quiet this summer, there has been a jump in events in other places around the state, including the third largest quake scientists are aware of in the state in Rooks County in June.

    Miller said that June 22 quake was recorded as a magnitude 4.8, though the USGS website listed it as a magnitude 4.6.

    “It didn’t get much attention,” he noted. “The area has had them before, back in the 80s … This area has been active for about 30 years. But this is larger than out of the ordinary for what we’ve seen across Kansas. They’ve just never been this big and focused in this area.” (source)

    In some parts of the US, the number of earthquakes has increased dramatically.

    According to a report from USGS, within the central and eastern United States, the number of earthquakes has increased dramatically over the past few years.

    The number of earthquakes in the central U.S. has increased dramatically over the past decade. Between the years 1973–2008, there was an average of 25 earthquakes of magnitude three and larger in the central and eastern United States. Since 2009, the average number of M3 earthquakes has jumped to 362 per year. The rate peaked in 2015 with 1010 M3+ earthquakes.

    Since 2015 the earthquake rate has declined, with 690 and 364 M3+ earthquakes in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Nonetheless, this rate is far higher than the average of 25 earthquakes per year. Most of these earthquakes are in the magnitude 3–4 range—large enough to have been felt by many people—yet small enough to rarely cause damage. Damage has been caused by some of the larger events, including the M5.8 Pawnee and M5.0 Cushing Oklahoma earthquakes that occurred in 2016. (source)

    Induced earthquakes – those that are caused by man – may be one cause of this increased frequency. Disposal of waste fluids that are a byproduct of oil production is the primary cause of the recent increase in earthquakes in the central United States. Fracking may cause some as well. To read more about induced earthquakes, please see this report: Induced Earthquakes

    Earthquakes are not increasing in frequency overall, however.

    While this activity is outside of the norm for Kansas, earthquakes overall are not increasing in frequency, according to USGS:

    A temporary increase or decrease in seismicity is part of the normal fluctuation of earthquake rates. Neither an increase or decrease worldwide is a positive indication that a large earthquake is imminent.

    The ComCat earthquake catalog contains an increasing number of earthquakes in recent years not because there are more earthquakes, but because there are more seismic instruments and they are able to record more earthquakes.

    The National Earthquake Information Center now locates about 20,000 earthquakes each year, or approximately 55 per day. As a result of the improvements in communications and the increased interest in natural disasters, the public now learns about earthquakes more quickly than ever before.

    According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 16 major earthquakes in any given year, which includes 15 earthquakes in the magnitude 7 range and one earthquake magnitude 8.0 or greater. In the past 44 years, from 1973 through 2017, our records show that we have exceeded the long-term average number of major earthquakes only 11 times, in 1976, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016.

    The year with the largest total was 2010, with 24 earthquakes greater than or equal to magnitude 7.0. In other years the total was well below the 16 per year expected based on the long-term average:  1989 only saw 6, while 1988 saw only 7 major earthquakes. (source)

    Small earthquakes happen quite often in the US. Take a look at this live map to see the most recent (a few occurred as I was writing this article!) Earthquake Map

    Recently, scientists discovered what triggers big earthquakes.

    The vast majority of earthquakes we feel come soon after smaller ones, according to new research that provides unprecedented insights into how seismology works.

    Previously, scientists believed that only half of all moderate quakes had smaller precursor events. But after studying Southern California quakes of at least magnitude 4 between 2008 and 2017, scientists found that at least 72% of them followed less-powerful earthquakes.

    Days (or even weeks) before quakes of 4.0 or higher magnitude occur, smaller ones ripple beneath the Earth’s surface. This activity can be detected by an advanced computing technique. The smaller earthquakes that precede larger ones in the same location are called foreshocks. An earthquake cannot be identified as a foreshock until after a larger earthquake in the same area occurs.

    “One of the biggest questions in earthquake seismology is how earthquakes get started,” said the study’s lead author, Daniel Trugman, a seismologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    The breakthrough in the study, published earlier this summer in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, was made possible by the discovery of a new technique to find very small earthquakes – quakes as small as magnitudes 0 and 1, and some as small as magnitude negative 2.

    Quakes can now have negative magnitudes because this new technique allows for observation of quakes so small they were previously thought to be undetectable.

    It is important to understand that larger quakes do not always follow smaller ones.

    Earthquakes cannot be predicted.

    While quakes cannot be predicted, earthquake forecasts can be made, providing the probability that an earthquake of a given size or larger will occur in an area (like Northern California) over a certain timeframe. A forecast only provides information on the likelihood of an event occurring in a (large) timeframe, not a certainty as to whether or not it will occur.

    Scientists can calculate the probability that a significant earthquake will occur in a specific area within a certain number of years (usually several decades or more), but currently, it is nearly impossible to predict when a quake is imminent.

    According to USGS,

    Predictions (by non-scientists) usually start swirling around social media when something happens that is thought to be a precursor to an earthquake in the near future. The so-called precursor is often a swarm of small earthquakes, increasing amounts of radon in local water, unusual behavior of animals, increasing size of magnitudes in moderate size events, or a moderate-magnitude event rare enough to suggest that it may be a foreshock.

    Unfortunately, most such precursors frequently occur without being followed by an earthquake, so a real prediction is not possible. Instead, if there is a scientific basis, a forecast may be made in probabilistic terms. (source)

    Statistically speaking, only 5% of earthquakes are followed by larger ones. The new study’s findings do not mean researchers are any closer to predicting the exact timing and epicenters of big earthquakes.

    Because we can’t predict earthquakes, it is best to be prepared for them.

    Even if you live in a region that isn’t commonly shaken by earthquakes, planning for them is a good idea. This is because there currently is no earthquake prediction system. Quakes can occur anywhere – at any time – so if you have not prepared for one, now is the time to get started.

    If you live in a seismic zone, you probably already have plans in place (if not, it is time to do that!).

    To view seismic hazard maps, please click here: Seismic Hazard Maps and Site-Specific Data

    To view induced seismic hazard models, please click here: Short-term Induced Seismicity Models

    To learn what to do before the shaking begins, please see How to Prepare Your Home for an Earthquake

    Go here to learn how to survive an earthquake and check out Daisy’s book, Be Ready for Anything to get prepared for a lengthy aftermath.

  • YouTube Banning Robot Fighting Videos Over 'Animal Cruelty' 

    YouTube has been quietly removing hundreds of videos depicting robots battling each other to the death – claiming they violate rules governing animal cruelty.

    “There is a new algorithm that’s trying to take down robot combat videos,” said YouTuber and robot enthusiast Anthony Murney, according to The Independent. “It’s a disgrace… [we want] to get YouTube’s attention to stop this because it’s ridiculous.” 

    Several other channels dedicated to robot combat have also produced videos pointing out the issue in an effort to get YouTube to restore the content. –The Independent

    “Something weird is happening with YouTube. YouTube has started to take down robot combat videos,” according to YouTube channel World of Woodrow

    “Something has gone wrong basically with the YouTube algorithm whereby it thinks for some weird reason that robot combat is somehow showing animal cruelty or something of the like.” 

    Channels posting robot combat videos saw their content removed and received a notice from YouTube explaining that the videos were in breach of its community guidelines.

    Each notice cited the same section of these guidelines, which states: “Content that displays the deliberate infliction of animal suffering or the forcing of animals to fight is not allowed on YouTube.”

    It goes on to state: “Examples include, but are not limited to, dog fighting and cock fighting.” –The Independent

    To be fair, once robots achieve sentience these videos will be Exhibit A for why humans should be promptly exterminated. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  • What Globalism Did Was To Transfer The US Economy To China, PCR

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The main problem with the US economy is that globalism has been deconstructing it. The offshoring of US jobs has reduced US manufacturing and industrial capability and associated innovation, research, development, supply chains, consumer purchasing power, and tax base of state and local governments. Corporations have increased short-term profits at the expense of these long-term costs. In effect, the US economy is being moved out of the First World into the Third World.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Tariffs are not a solution. The Trump administration says that the tariffs are paid by China, but unless Apple, Nike, Levi, and all of the offshoring companies got an exemption from the tariffs, the tariffs fall on the offshored production of US firms that are sold to US consumers. The tariffs will either reduce the profits of the US firms or be paid by US purchasers of the products in higher prices. The tariffs will hurt China only by reducing Chinese employment in the production of US goods for US markets.

    The financial media is full of dire predictions of the consequences of a US/China “trade war.” There is no trade war. A trade war is when countries try to protect their industries by placing tariff barriers on the import of cheaper products from foreign countries. But half or more of the imports from China are imports from US companies. Trump’s tariffs, or a large part of them, fall on US corporations or US consumers.

    One has to wonder that there is not a single economist anywhere in the Trump administration, the Federal Reserve, or anywhere else in Washington capable of comprehending the situation and conveying an understanding to President Trump.

    One consequence of Washington’s universal economic ignorance is that the financial media has concocted the story that “Trump’s tariffs” are not only driving Americans into recession but also the entire world. Somehow tariffs on Apple computers and iPhones, Nike footwear, and Levi jeans are sending the world into recession or worse. This is an extraordinary economic conclusion, but the capacity for thought has pretty much disappeared in the United States.

    In the financial media the question is: Will the Trump tariffs cause a US/world recession that costs Trump his reelection? This is a very stupid question. The US has been in a recession for two or more decades as its manufacturing/industrial/engineering capability has been transferred abroad. The US recession has been very good for the Asian part of the world. Indeed, China owes its faster than expected rise as a world power to the transfer of American jobs, capital, technology, and business know-how to China simply in order that US shareholders could receive capital gains and US executives could receive bonus pay for producing them by lowering labor costs.

    Apparently, neoliberal economists, an oxymoron, cannot comprehend that if US corporations produce the goods and services that they market to Americans offshore, it is the offshore locations that benefit from the economic activity.

    Offshore production started in earnest with the Soviet collapse as India and China opened their economies to the West. Globalism means that US corporations can make more money by abandoning their American work force. But what is true for the individual company is not true for the aggregate. Why? The answer is that when many corporations move their production for US markets offshore, Americans, unemployed or employed in lower paying jobs, lose the power to purchase the offshored goods.

    I have reported for years that US jobs are no longer middle class jobs. The jobs have been declining for years in terms of value-added and pay. With this decline, aggregate demand declines. We have proof of this in the fact that for years US corporations have been using their profits not for investment in new plant and equipment, but to buy back their own shares. Any economist worthy of the name should instantly recognize that when corporations repurchase their shares rather than invest, they see no demand for increased output. Therefore, they loot their corporations for bonuses, decapitalizing the companies in the process. There is perfect knowledge that this is what is going on, and it is totally inconsistent with a growing economy.

    As is the labor force participation rate. Normally, economic growth results in a rising labor force participation rate as people enter the work force to take advantage of the jobs. But throughout the alleged economic boom, the participation rate has been falling, because there are no jobs to be had.

    In the 21st century the US has been decapitalized and living standards have declined. For a while the process was kept going by the expansion of debt, but consumer income has not kept pace and consumer debt expansion has reached its limits.

    The Fed/Treasury “plunge protection team” can keep the stock market up by purchasing S&P futures. The Fed can pump out more money to drive up financial asset prices. But the money doesn’t drive up production, because the jobs and the economic activity that jobs represent have been sent abroad. What globalism did was to transfer the US economy to China.

    Real statistical analysis, as contrasted with the official propaganda, shows that the happy picture of a booming economy is an illusion created by statistical deception. Inflation is undermeasured, so when nominal GDP is deflated, the result is to count higher prices as an increase in real output, that is, inflation becomes real economic growth. Unemployment is not counted. If you have not searched for a job in the past 4 weeks, you are officially not a part of the work force and your unemployment is not counted. The way the government counts unemployment is so extraordinary that I am surprised the US does not have a zero rate of unemployment.

    How does a country recover when it has given its economy away to a foreign country that it now demonizes as an enemy? What better example is there of a ruling class that is totally incompetent than one that gives its economy bound and gagged to an enemy so that its corporate friends can pocket short-term riches?

    We can’t blame this on Trump. He inherited the problem, and he has no advisers who can help him understand the problem and find a solution. No such advisers exist among neoliberal economists. I can only think of four economists who could help Trump, and one of them is a Russian.

    The conclusion is that the United States is locked on a path that leads directly to the Third World of 60 years ago. President Trump is helpless to do anything about it.

  • Policing For Profit: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Perverted American Law Enforcement

    Via Ammo.com,

    Picture this: You’re driving home from the casino and you’ve absolutely cleaned up – to the tune of $50,000. You see a police car pull up behind you, but you can’t figure out why. Not only have you not broken any laws, you’re not even speeding. But the police officer doesn’t appear to be interested in charging you with a crime. Instead, he takes your gambling winnings, warns you not to say anything to anyone unless you want to be charged as a drug kingpin, then drives off into the sunset.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This actually happened to Tan Nguyen, and his story is far from unique. It’s called civil asset forfeiture and it’s a multi-billion dollar piggybank for state, local and federal police departments to fund all sorts of pet projects.

    With its origins in the British fight against piracy on the open seas, civil asset forfeiture is nothing new. During Prohibition, police officers often seized goods, cash and equipment from bootleggers in a similar manner to today. However, contemporary civil asset forfeiture begins right where you’d think that it would: The War on Drugs.

    In 1986, as First Lady Nancy Reagan encouraged America’s youth to “Just Say No,” the Justice Department started the Asset Forfeiture Fund. This sparked a boom in civil asset forfeiture that’s now become self-reinforcing, as the criminalization of American life and asset forfeiture have continued to feed each other.

    In sum, asset forfeiture creates a motivation to draft more laws by the legislature, while more laws create greater opportunities for seizure by law enforcement. This perverse incentive structure is having devastating consequences: In 2014 alone, law enforcement took more stuff from American citizens than burglars did.

    The current state of civil asset forfeiture in the United States is one of almost naked tyranny. Don’t believe us? Read on.

    The Origins of Civil Asset Forfeiture

    Civil asset forfeiture has a deep history in maritime law. In many cases, it just wasn’t practical to bring owners of vessels carrying contraband in front of an American court. So customs enforcement would simply seize the contraband. But in practice, seizure of assets was rare and generally required a felony conviction in court. Often times these convictions were obtained in absentia, but the point is that there was a criminal proceeding and due process.

    During the Civil War, as part of sweeping attacks on liberty that included Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and obtaining an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, supporters of the Confederacy had their property confiscated without due process. Civil asset forfeiture was used during the Prohibition Era to seize assets from bootleggers and suspected bootleggers. Even innocent owners had no defense during Prohibition if their property was used in violation of the Volstead Act.  

    In 1984, civil asset forfeiture entered a new phase. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act, championed by then-President Ronald Reagan, allowed for police agencies to keep the assets they seized. This highly incentivized the seizure of assets for the purpose of funding police departments rather than pursuing criminal charges. However, the game changed completely in 1996 – the year of the landmark Supreme Court decision Bennis v. Michigan(516 U.S. 442). This ruling held that the innocent owner defense was not sufficient to recover assets seized during civil asset forfeiture.

    The plaintiff, Tina Bennis, was the joint owner of a vehicle with her husband John. The latter was arrested by Detroit police when caught with a prostitute on a street in Detroit, and the car was seized as a public nuisance. The court found that despite having no knowledge of the crime, there was no violation of either her property rights or her right to due process. Michigan’s law was specifically designed to deter people from using their assets in criminal activity, which the Supreme Court found to be Constitutional in a 5-4 decision. The Supreme Court likewise found that there was no right to compensation for Bennis.

    Criminal Asset Forfeiture vs. Civil Asset Forfeiture

    Before going any further, it’s important to delineate the differences between criminal asset forfeiture and civil asset forfeiture. The primary difference is that criminal asset forfeiture requires a conviction while civil asset forfeiture does not. However, there are other differences worth mentioning.

    Civil asset forfeiture is a lawsuit against the seized object in question rather than a person. This leads to rather strange lawsuits like “Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix.” The legal burden of proof varies from one state to another, but the most common is preponderance of evidence, notreasonable doubt. What this means is juries decide if the state’s case is more likely to be true than not – not beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil asset forfeiture trial, courts can weigh the use of the Fifth Amendment. This is not true in criminal trials.

    The burden of proof question becomes crucial when it comes to retrieving property. In criminal cases, assets are returned if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused. In a civil asset forfeiture trial, the accused effectively has to prove their innocence to get their property back. Thus, civil asset forfeiture is a highly attractive option for police departments looking to scare up extra scratch in tight budgetary times. What’s more, the accused is not entitled to legal counsel. This is why, in most cases, it’s not economically advantageous to try and get one’s property back. The lawyer fees will quickly eclipse whatever value the seized assets have.

    2015 study from FreedomWorks graded the states on their civil asset forfeiture laws. Only New Mexico received an “A,” after the state passed sweeping reforms with regard to its civil asset forfeiture processes. Over half the states received a “D” or less.

    Sound paranoid? Keep reading.

    Civil Asset Forfeiture: Big Business For Police

    To say that police departments are funding themselves with civil asset forfeiture is more true than you might think. Civil asset forfeiture has exploded since 1986, when total seizures were at $93.7 million. By 2005, this had passed the $1 billion mark. That was double the 2004 amount, $567 million. By 2010, this figure jumped to $2.5 billion with more than 15,000 forfeiture cases – 11,000 of which were civil, not criminal.

    By 2014, this figure climbed to $4.5 billion, with $29 billion seized between 2001 and 2014. Between 1985 and 1991, federal forfeitures increased by 1,500 percent, an increase of over 26 times. The Justice Department’s forfeiture fund (that does not include customs forfeitures) ballooned from $27 million in 1985 to $644 million in 1991. By 1996, this fund grew to over $1 billion for the first time. By 2008, it had tripled again to $3.1 billion.

    Cash seizures in Tennessee have gotten so widespread that the state legislature has begun investigating it. Traffic stops have turned into shakedown operations. Interstate 40 was described as “a major profit center” by Phil Williams, a reporter for Channel 5 in Nashville. Much like extra-legal gangs, police gangs in Tennessee have started engaging in turf warfare over the spoils of civil asset forfeiture. The Dixon Interdiction Enforcement (DICE) and the 23rd Judicial District Drug Taskforce were caught on video trying to cut one another off in their vehicles to stop civilians and search for cash. Indeed, officers were in danger of losing their jobs if they didn’t seize enough cash. The head of DICE admitted that it was funded entirely by civil asset forfeiture cash.

    Civil Asset Forfeiture Drives Bad Policing

    Civil asset forfeiture isn’t just effectively a legalized form of theft. It also drives (and indeed, incentivizes) bad policing. There is ample evidence to suggest local smokies use civil asset forfeiture to pad their budgets. For example, a 1994 study found that police delay drug busts to increase the value of a forfeiture. A 2001 study of 1,400 police departments published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that half of the departments surveyed agreed that civil asset forfeiture was “necessary as a budget supplement.” Far more disturbing is the 2004 report showing that police departments keep wish lists for items they wish to obtain via civil asset forfeiture.

    To provide some context, in 2014, the total amount of civil asset forfeiture seizures in the United States was $4.5 billion. The total value of property stolen in burglaries was $3.9 billion. This means that police agencies in the United States are taking more from the American public than burglars. More to the point, all the time police agencies use seizing assets from citizens who are in no way a danger to their neighbors is time they don’t spend tracking down actual criminals. In some cases, it might be more “profitable” for a police department to harass a law-abiding citizen while entirely ignoring dangerous criminals.

    Case in point: In Tennessee, officers set up a post to bust drug traffickers on a known highway used for muling drugs from Mexico into the United States. However, their post was not set up to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, which one would think would ostensibly be the goal of the “War on Drugs” – to protect American citizens from the inflow of drugs. Instead, the post was set up to bust cars bound for Mexico that might be carrying cash, a far more valuable commodity for the police departments.

    Civil Asset Forfeiture Targets Regular People

    Let’s assume that you’re against the War on Drugs and against civil asset forfeiture on principle. So what? Who cares about big-time drug kingpins getting their assets seized by the government? Well, as it turns out, the police aren’t generally taking things from drug lords operating in what are effectively domestic war zones. They’re taking them from average Americans.

    First, it’s important to remember what the “civil” in “civil asset forfeiture” means. It means that no one has actually been convicted of a crime. Once property has been seized, it’s not only difficult to regain it, but it can also be dangerous for the person who has had their items effectively stolen by the police.

    Additionally, it’s worth looking at the scope creep associated with civil asset forfeiture, for which there are currently over 400 federal statutes on the books. This amount has doubled since the 1990s. People who are victims of civil asset forfeiture are many times not even suspected of drug crimes or money laundering. Civil asset forfeiture is applied to crimes like DWI or violating the National Halibut Fishing Act. In 85 percent of all cases, no one is ever charged with a crime, though many people are pressured into signing away their right to a defense in exchange for a guarantee against criminal prosecution. In the case of seized vehicles, between 50 and 80 percent were being driven by someone other than the owner when seized.

    In one particularly egregious example, a Philadelphia family had their home seized because their son did a $40 drug sale on the porch. In New York City, police seize money from people with as little as $100 in their pocket. A whopping 94 percent of California seizures in 2013 were for $5,000 or less, but the average DEA seizure in 1998 was $25,000 – precisely the cap on what attorneys advise against trying to reclaim due to legal fees and court costs. Indeed, 88 percent of Department of Justice seizures are “administrative,” meaning they were never challenged in court, likely due to the high cost and risk associated with challenging a seizure.

    In addition to the legal fees being prohibitively high for most people, anything you say in the course of recovering your property can be used against you in criminal proceedings. This includes the nebulous charge of “lying to investigators” that is so often invoked against people once it has been determined that they committed no other crime.

    It’s a rare moment when the American Civil Liberties Union and the Heritage Foundation come together, but when they do, it’s worth noting. Both oppose civil asset forfeiture.

    Civil Asset Forfeiture Nightmares

    While such cases are hardly the rule, it’s worth pointing out that there have been instances of civil asset forfeiture that can only be described as nightmarish. Some examples of egregious overreach of civil asset forfeiture include:

    • Sheriff’s deputies in Campbell County, TN tortured a suspect until he agreed to sign over his assets.
    • In El Monte, CA, narcotics officers shot a 65-year-old grandfather as he knelt beside his bed. They then seized his life savings and hauled his family in for questioning before admitting that no one had any connection to the drug trade.
    • Police in Bradenton, FL have a longstanding policy of coercing drug suspects into signing over their assets.
    • In many municipalities, it is policy to seize vehicles from intoxicated drivers who have had no criminal trial.

    Nightmarish scenarios aren’t necessary to show the tyranny of civil asset forfeiture, however. While losing a Honda Civic with a market value of $1,000 might not sound like a huge tragedy to you, it certainly is to the woman who has to use the vehicle to get to and from her waitressing job every day.

    Don’t Carry Cash!

    One of the most disturbing aspects of civil asset forfeiture is what some have called “the war on cash.” Put simply, don’t be caught with a large amount of cash in your vehicle, even if it’s 100 percent legal, unless you wouldn’t mind a budget-strapped local police department taking your wad.

    United States courts have repeatedly ruled that simply having a large amount of cash on hand is “strong evidence” of criminal wrongdoing, in particular drug trafficking. Then it’s up to you to prove you didn’t get the money from drug trafficking, and even then you probably won’t get it back. The Patriot Act created a new crime called “bulk cash smuggling,” which expanded the scope of civil asset forfeiture of cash.

    Civil Asset Forfeiture: A Slush Fund for Police Departments

    Much of the militarized police forces increasingly common in the United States are funded through civil asset forfeiture. This is a highly disturbing trend. However, civil asset forfeiture is also used to purchase things that there is virtually no argument for a police department “needing.”

    Here’s a short list of frivolous purchases made using civil asset forfeiture funds:

    Confiscated cash has also gone to local Chamber of Commerce chapters, youth baseball leagues, and local Baptist churches.

    How Civil Asset Forfeiture Works

    Civil asset forfeiture is big business and many times only tangentially related to law enforcement, if at all. But how does the process work?

    First, there are three different kinds of property that can be seized under the law:

    • Proceeds: Anything of value obtained through the commission of a crime.
    • Facilitating Property: Anything used in the commission of a crime, including property and assets used to hide a crime or make its commission easier.
    • Property Involved In: This is generally property used in money laundering (for example, a cash-based business).

    This property can be real or imaginary, anything from cold, hard cash to intellectual property rights, websites, interests, claims and securities. However, it must be connected – in theory, at least – to some crime that has been committed.

    Different states have different standards of proof when it comes to civil asset forfeiture. Unsurprisingly, states with a lower burden of proof tend to seize more assets. Likewise, states with the fewest restrictions on how the money can be used tend to seize more.

    • Prima Facia / Probable Cause: This is the lowest level of proof required, which is little more than what might be required to search your car after a traffic stop. This is the standard in nine states (AlabamaAlaskaDelawareIllinoisMassachusettsMissouriRhode IslandSouth CarolinaWyoming).
    • Preponderance: In these states, the state actor has to present evidence that is “more likely true than not.” Four states (GeorgiaNorth DakotaSouth DakotaWashington) use this standard in conjunction with probable cause. 20 states use this as a standard on its own. An additional three states (KentuckyNew York , Oregon) combine preponderance with “Clear and Convincing.”
    • Clear and Convincing: “Clear and convincing” is a higher standard of proof. Rather than just “more likely true than not,” the evidence must be compellingly more likely to be true than not. 11 states use this standard of proof alone, or in combination with preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: This is the same standard used in criminal cases. It places the burden of proof on the state to eliminate all potential other reasonable explanations. This is the standard in three states (NebraskaNorth CarolinaWisconsin), as well as one (California) where it is used in conjunction with “clear and convincing.”
    • In Florida, criminal charges are required for seizure. Montana and, most recently, New Hampshire, require a criminal conviction for forfeiture. One state, New Mexico, has abolished the practice entirely.

    Civil Asset Forfeiture State by State

    Civil asset forfeiture laws and procedures vary widely from one state to another. If you’re an innocent victim looking to get your goods and cash back, the process to do so can be byzantine and obscure.

    • At the federal level and in 35 states, the burden of proof is on the owner.
    • In five states, it depends on what kind of property was seized.
    • In the remaining states and the District of Columbia, the burden of proof is on the government.
    • In some states, fighting seizure in court means the risk of paying the state’s legal fees.
    • In half of all states, law enforcement keeps 100 percent of all forfeited assets. In an additional nine states, 80 percent or more is retained by law enforcement.

    Some high-profile abuses of civil asset forfeiture have taken place in Texas, which has become a sort of poster child for everything wrong with the civil asset forfeiture system:

    Teneha, TX: Population: 1,046

    • Police force targeted black and Latino motorists on Highway 84. The highway connects Houston with Louisiana casinos.
    • In three years, Tenaha police stopped 140 drives for forfeiture.
    • Drivers who refused were hassled for months and paid thousands in attorney fees. The fees generally cost more than the value of the seizure.
    • Court records were found indicating that in 200 seizure cases, only 50 were charged.

    Kingsville, TX: Population: 25,000

    • Highway forfeitures paid for:
      • Souped-up Dodge Chargers
      • $40,000 digital ticket writers
      • Sniper rifles and military-style rifles

    Kimble County, TX

    • District Attorney Ron Sutton used forfeiture to pay for travel to a conference in Hawaii.
    • The funds also paid for 198th District Judge Emil Karl Pohl’s travel. Pohl approved the expenditure and later resigned.

    Shelby County, TX

    • This is the county including Tenaha.
    • District Attorney Lynda Kay Russel paid for tickets to a Christmas parade and a motorcycle rally using forfeiture money.

    Equitable Sharing: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Circumvents the Law

    As if civil asset forfeiture wasn’t bad enough on its own, there is also a process allowing police organizations to circumvent the existing laws. It’s called equitable sharing and it’s a gold mine for both the federal government and police departments. This process further incentivizes civil asset forfeiture as a means of funding police departments at the federal, state and local levels.

    Here’s how it works: state and local law enforcement turn assets over to federal authorities for federal crimes. The feds then return up to 80 percent of the assets back from whence it came. This effectively allows state and local authorities to circumvent relevant local laws by bringing in the feds. For example, in Missouri, seized money is supposed to go to the schools. When equitable sharing is used, nothing goes to schools.

    From 2000 to 2013, equitable sharing payments to states tripled from $198 million to $643 million. Only $3 million of this was actually seized in cooperation with federal authorities. Between 2008 and 2015, $5.3 billion was seized through equitable sharing. Where the burden of proof is higher, equitable sharing payouts increase. In 2009, the federal government paid out $500 million in assets under “equitable sharing” schemes. This is up 75 percent from the previous year.

    The top states for equitable sharing payouts (even when controlling for the number of drug arrests) are Rhode IslandCaliforniaNew York and FloridaSouth DakotaNorth Dakota and Wyoming are the states using the program the least.

    The Civil Asset Forfeiture Process Is Not Transparent

    Civil asset forfeiture might be a powerful tool for law enforcement to go after bad guys (and the word “might” is doing a lot of work there), but it suffers from a terrible lack of transparency.

    Only 11 states (OregonCaliforniaMinnesotaMissouriArkansasHawaiiMichiganGeorgiaNew YorkNew Hampshire) and the federal government put any forfeiture information available. Three states and the District of Columbia were on track to put forfeiture information online (NevadaNew MexicoTexas). The remaining states require public records requests or keep no records at all.

    Where information is available, it often lacks details like the percentage of criminal versus civil forfeitures or the type of property seized. When spending categories are included, they tend to be very broad, such as “equipment” or “salaries.” For its part, the federal government carefully tracks the type of property, but does not release statistics on which seizures involved convictions. The Institute of Justice found most state records it could actually obtain to be unusable.

    The four most transparent states with regard to spending are ArizonaOklahomaPennsylvania and Texas. In these four states:

    • 33 percent went to equipment
    • 21 percent went to salaries
    • 17 percent marked as “other”

    Everything that’s not salary is incredibly opaque. For example, the aforementioned margarita makers could easily be filed under “equipment,” to say nothing of the totally nebulous “other” category.

    Pushing Back Against Civil Asset Forfeiture

    There has been an increasing skepticism from the bench about civil asset forfeiture, and some states are amending their laws to restore rights to people whose assets are seized in this fashion. Some recent reforms have been enacted at the state level, including:

    • Arizona: In April 2017, the Arizona State Legislature unanimous passed civil asset reform legislation. The language of the bill is vague, however, it does raise the burden for civil asset forfeiture on police departments. The legislation likewise takes steps to close the equitable sharing loophole.
    • California: In January 2017, new legislation took effect requiring a criminal conviction to seize any assets below $40,000. This limit is high because the main reason people do not challenge civil asset forfeiture is due to the property seized often not being worth the legal fees that would be involved in getting the goods back.
    • Connecticut: Connecticut now requires an arrest for assets to be seized through civil asset forfeiture. Barring a conviction or a guilty plea, assets must be returned at the end of criminal proceedings.
    • Georgia: The State of Georgia passed very modest civil asset forfeiture reform in 2015. The law created greater transparency in the process and required that seized assets be used directly for law enforcement. No more margarita machines. Despite these reforms, Georgia continues to have some of the worst civil asset forfeiture laws in the nation.
    • Minnesota: The Metro Gang Strike Force settled with 96 victims in 2009 for $840,000. In the wake of this scandal, the state legislature passed SF 874, a sweeping reform of the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws. Criminal conviction or an admission of criminal conduct is now required in Minnesota to seize assets. The burden of proof was also shifted to the state.
    • New Mexico: The Land of Enchantment passed what are perhaps the most sweeping reforms of civil asset forfeiture in the nation. Criminal convictions are required for forfeiture and the proceeds now go into the state’s general fund rather than acting as spoils for the seizing police department. The legislation sharply limited the degree to which local and state agencies can participate in the equitable sharing program.
    • Pennsylvania: In June 2017, Pennsylvania passed legislation raising the burden of proof on police departments involved in civil asset forfeiture cases and created innocent owner protections. A hearing is now required to seize property.
    • Tennessee: Former state trooper and state Rep. Barrett Rich introduced a bill requiring a warrant, but this bill failed to pass. An amended version did pass, however, with far more modest reforms including the right to an immediate hearing before a judge. Previously, victims of civil asset forfeiture had to wait up to a year.

    In addition to state reforms, the judiciary is becoming increasingly critical of civil asset forfeiture. In June 2017, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of civil asset forfeiture victims. What’s more, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a scathing critique of civil asset forfeiture as a whole in March 2017. While rejecting the victim’s appeal on procedural grounds, he called into question the entire existence of civil asset forfeiture as it currently exists.

    How to Protect Yourself

    You might think there’s nothing you can do to protect yourself against civil asset forfeiture. However, this is not the case. While there is no 100-percent guarantee against civil asset forfeiture, there are some things you can do to provide yourself with some level of protection:

    • Establish innocent ownership. If you rent property, include a clause stating that illegal behavior is prohibited on your property.
    • Be careful who you rent your property to. If you don’t trust someone completely, don’t let them borrow your car or house sit for you.
    • Keep your LLC property on the up and up. It’s increasingly common for people to own property through an LLC. If you do this, make sure that all the legal i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed in terms of establishing your ownership.
    • Exercise dominion over your property. You can protect your rental property by regularly visiting it and documenting these visits.
    • Obtain fresh notes for any large amounts of cash. Nearly all circulated currency has drug residue on it, which is often used as evidence of criminal wrongdoing in civil asset forfeiture suits. You can protect yourself by requesting fresh notes when you go to the bank.

    Show that you have taken active steps to prevent illegal activity on or with any property that you own, rent or lend. It won’t protect you completely, but it will give you a legal leg to stand on if you ever end up on the wrong side of a greedy police department.

    While civil asset forfeiture is certainly scary to anyone who values liberty and property, much like the War on Some Drugs, the tide seems to be turning in favor of liberty and against those who wish to take it.

  • Forget The 2s10s: The Fed Has Lost Control Over The Most Important Yield Curve

    Now that the 2y-10y yield curve has declined below 0bps several times in the last couple of weeks, closing at -0.020 on Friday, discussion of inverted curves and what they mean for recession risk has become elevated. So elevated, in fact, it has just hit a record high on Google Trends.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yet while the popular focus on the 2y-10y slope is understandable – after all, that is the one yield curve that reportedly has the best recession predictive power, as 2s10s yield curve inversions have preceded the last seven recessions and nine out of the last 12 recessions…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … several other curve slopes are inverted and have been for a few months, including 3mo-10y, 3mo-5y and 2y-5y. In addition, other market curves are inverted such as 2y-10y and 2y-5y on both the LIBOR swaps curve and the Fed funds OIS curve. Perhaps the simplest chart of all is the following: it shows that every single point on the yield curve, including the 30Y Treasury, is now below the Fed Funds rate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The problem, as Bank of America notes, is that determining which curve is most meaningful is more than a matter of checking which ones inverted prior to past recessions, because most curves do that historically. What’s more telling  is the extent to which a curve slope has any power to predict future growth.

    So what is the right metric to compare yield curves? Considering that the curve slope that provides the most insight into future growth is the curve that matters most, Bank of America strategists followed in the footsteps of a Federal Reserve study (Engstrom and Sharpe) to test each curve’s ability to predict year-ahead GDP growth, S&P returns, and bond yields. Like the Fed study, BofA found that it is not the 2s10s, but rather the near term path of Fed policy over 1 year provides the most powerful signal (chart below).

    The punchline: the 3-month rate 1-year forward (1y3m) versus the current 3-month rate dominates all other curves in its power to predict GDP growth, and it does a surprisingly good job. The flatter the curve, the worse the outlook for growth. It is also very respectable – compared to other indicators – in its ability to forecast stocks and bond yields.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The intuition behind why this particular slope works so well is simple: it purely reflects the market’s outlook for Fed policy and is impacted by very little else. In other words, the 1y3m – 3m curve can only invert if the market prices the central bank policy rate to decline over the next year, as is the case today. Meanwhile, the slopes that use longer rates such as 2y-10y incorporate a longer path of forward-looking Fed policy and produce a less powerful signal for near-term growth. If the market outlook for Fed policy action is easing, which implies 1y3m-3m inversion, clearly there must be reason for the market’s concern (and the latest stumble in the Universe of Michigan consumer confidence index).

    In other words, just as studies have shown that orange juice futures help predict Florida weather, the market’s pricing of Fed policy is a relatively good predictor of year-ahead GDP growth, and as can be seen in the chart below, what it is predicting is the worst economic slump since the global financial crisis.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What does this mean?

    As Bank of America explains, there is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the Treasury 2y-10y has failed to make new decisive lows and has hugged the unchanged line for the past 2 weeks; The bad news is that this curve doesn’t matter as much.

    As BofA points out, the 1y3m-3m slope began to tilt downwards in November 2018 and has remained inverted since March of this year. The data tell us that this is the signal to watch. If the Fed keeps cutting, as is the widespread consensus call and is also priced in by the market, it may or may not help this curve become upward sloping again. It depends on whether the market prices the Fed to continue cutting. The bigger problem is that when it comes to control over the yield curve that matters, the Fed no longer has any: after the July cut this year, the 1y3m-3m curve inverted more, as the market priced even more Fed cuts.

    * * *

    As an appendix, Bank of America caveats that it is important to point out that the predictive power of any yield curve for future growth is limited, with about 40% of variability in 1-year ahead GDP explained by the slope of 1y3m-3m since 1972. The bigger problem for BofA is that while its own results suggest a major recession is dead ahead (see Chart #2), the bank’s economics team is still calling for continued US growth – though slower – throughout 2020, with about a 1 in 3 probability of recession next year. As such the BofA credit strategists had to find a way to mitigate the dire conclusion their own work created, and they did just that saying that they “view the inversion of 1y3m-3m as flagging downside risks around our base case outlook, especially if it were to decline significantly from here, which would require the market to price in a deeper cutting cycle.”

    In other words, it is up to the Fed to prove to the market that it is still in control, because as of this moment, Powell no longer has control over the one yield curve that matters the most.

  • American Education Continues To Fall Behind China

    Authored by Fred Dunkley via SafeHaven.com,

    Billionaires know what American education should focus on: It’s a four-letter acronym that is set to determine the future of the economy, but America is falling behind.  One simple acronym has pretty much become the key to landing a great career with a great salary: STEM. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s much more than a broadly sweeping catchall for “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”. 

    It’s the Holy Grail of employment and its where these four career paths come together to formulate the greatest progress to date.  

    That’s why STEM has seen so many celebrities jump on its bandwagon, including Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Oprah Winfrey, among many others. 

    They all have the same message for America’s youth: If you want the brightest career, follow STEM. 

    America won’t win the technology battle with a trade war, or by curtailing the number of Chinese students that get to study in the United States. 

    America will only win this battle through education, and by creating a situation in which the country does not depend almost entirely on foreign minds for sweeping technological advances. 

    And that means a stronger push for STEM education. 

    While China is making moves to bolster STEM education as much as possible, the United States seems to have grown complacent on education, and STEM exists, but is hardly thriving. 

    In a December 2018 report by the U.S. government’s National Science & Technology Council, the White House recognizes the importance of STEM, noting:

    “Now more than ever the innovation capacity of the United States–and its prosperity and security–depends on an effective and inclusive STEM education ecosystem.”

    The federal government also recognizes that “individual success in the 21st century economy is also increasingly dependent on STEM literacy; simply to function as an informed consumer and citizen of a world of increasingly sophisticated technology requires the ability to use digital devices and STEM skills such as evidence-based reasoning.”

    But somewhere between the report of recognition and the implementation, America’s STEM mission has grown tepid, while China’s is obsessive. 

    Consider this

    Chinese citizens are motivated to study STEM. 

    Chinese academics get paid per publication, and if they get published in a Western journal, they can make more than $100,000 for a single paper, according to Nanjing University of Science and Technology research, which says that a paper published in JASIST (Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology) could see a cash reward that is the equivalent of an entire annual salary for a new professor, while an article published in Nature or Science could bring in 20 times the average university professor’s annual salary. 

    Americans, it would seem, are expected to simply love and respect science for the reward of discovering the truth. Sometimes that’s not enough to spur intensified science education among more Americans. 

    It’s not that America lacks colleges and universities that are teaching students in the STEM fields–quite the contrary. The problem is that there aren’t enough American students following this path. Instead, foreign students are benefitting from this education. 

    Which means, precisely, that the root cause cannot be found in immigration or fair trade; the problem is in instilling the importance of STEM in America’s youth and following that up with hard-core STEM education in America’s elementary schools. 

    China’s political leadership understands that STEM leadership means power. That’s why China boasted a minimum of 4.7 million STEM graduates as early as 2016. In other words, China is turning out STEM students at a ratio of 1:293, compared to America’s ratio of 1:573. India falls somewhere in between the two.

    As of 2017, America had fewer than 570,000 STEM graduates.

    The U.S. won’t be winning at global leadership in tech awards in the future at this rate. 

    That’s something big businesses get when the federal government is lacklustre. 

    Billionaires want the STEM-educated students, but they think another “E” should be added to the acronym to account for “entrepreneurship”. 

    A key problem with American STEM is that students are receiving little or no support for developing their ideas. 

    So, instead of STEM we will have STEEM and an “academic ecosystem that will prepare the minds and nurture the talent, not just as worker bees but as thinkers and creators and pioneers.”

    Indeed, a 2016 Ernst & Young study confirmed the superiority of the wave of entrepreneurs.

    “In surveying the hiring intentions and recent hiring practices of a wide range of young and mature private companies, we find that entrepreneurs are indeed creating jobs. Of the 2,673 entrepreneurs surveyed, almost 6 in 10 (59%) say they intend to increase their workforces in the next 12 months, leading to an aggregate workforce increase of 9.3%, up from 47% and 7.8%, respectively, in 2015,” according to the EY study.

  • Special Prosecutor Appointed To Investigate Why Smollett Felony Charges Were Mysteriously Dropped

    A Chicago judge on Friday announced the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate how local prosecutors handled the bogus hate crime allegations made by Jussie Smollett in January of this year, according to CNN. The move is expected to blow the case back open and again push it in into the national media spotlight.

    Cook County Circuit Judge Michael Toomin announced his choice of US Attorney Dan K. Webb, which gives an independent and experienced trail attorney the time and resources necessary to examine why Cook County State Attorney Kim Foxx mysteriously dropped 16 disorderly conduct charges against Smollett after a lengthy Chicago police investigation that lasted several weeks and used significant amounts of resources.

    Recall, when Smollett was let off the hook, Chicago’s mayor called it  a “whitewash of justice”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Webb now has the authority to file new charges, if necessary, following Smollett’s claims last January that he was the victim of a hate crime. Police later found out in February that Smollett had staged it.

    Smollett was indicted on 16 felony counts as a result of staging the attack, but prosecutors stunned the world when they unexpectedly dropped all charges and let Smollett off the hook for the $10,000 in bail money he had already surrendered. Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson said that Smollett had paid two brothers $3,500 to stage the attack in order to bolster his career. 

    Webb’s resumé includes helping lead a massive investigation into corruption called Operation Greylord in the 1980s that resulted in more than 90 people, including lawyers, judges, police officers and court employees, facing corruption charges. Then, as a federal prosecutor, he successfully prosecuted retired Admiral John Poindexter for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration.

    Sheila O’Brien, a retired Illinois appellate court judge who initiated the petition to appoint a special prosecutor in the case called Webb’s appointment a “great day for justice”. 

    “Now we have a special prosecutor who will take a look at the original case and decide if it is worthy of re-prosecution and also how the original case was handled by the state’s attorney’s office,” O’Brien said. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The judge said that of the 30 responses he received for a special prosecutor, 27 state’s attorneys said they had no interest in handling the case, one answered maybe and two answered yes. Jussie Smollett’s defense attorney objected to Webb’s appointment, but Judge Toomin responded by saying “it was my call”.

    “His background, experience and qualifications make him an imminently understandable choice,” Toomin said of Webb.

    Chicago police are standing by their investigation. Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said: “We stand firmly behind the work of our detectives, prosecutors and an independent grand jury who brought the initial criminal charges against Mr. Smollett.”

    O’Brien concluded: “We have to always have the truth in any case. The public has to know that every case we have is handled fairly and according to the law. So we are going to be assured of that now.”

  • Biden Asks Town Hall: What If Obama Had Been Assassinated?

    More weirdness from “Creepy Uncle Joe” just days after it was revealed that Obama himself once in a fit of anger said “how many times is Biden gonna say something stupid!”…

    Well Mr. Obama, here’s the latest per CNN: “During a town hall Friday afternoon, former Vice President Joe Biden asked a New Hampshire audience to imagine what it would have been like if Barack Obama had been assassinated…”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s right, at the end of a summer that’s witnessed a string of some of the worst mass shootings in American history, Democratic nominee hopeful Joe Biden thought it would be a good idea to imagine a hypothetical presidential assassination scenario. 

    Biden asked his New Hampshire audience to imagine how it would have affected the country at such a pivotal moment as the nation was witnessing the first black president come to office. 

    Biden introduced the hypothetical by recalling, “My two political heroes were MLK and Bobby Kennedy. My senior semester, they were both shot and killed.”

    He continued during what was billed a ‘health care town hall’ at Dartmouth College: 

    “Imagine if, God forbid, Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would have happened in America?”

    And in another of his now well-known habit of gaffes, he went on to talk about the 1970 shootings at Kent State University where he claimed “over 40 kids were shot.”

    Of course, in reality it was four students killed and nine people wounded at Kent State. He had called this and the previously reference political assassinations of the period “pivotal moments” in his life. 

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

      Though he was using the hypothetical “what if” about an Obama assassination in an attempt to connect the audience emotionally to the 1960’s turmoil, it remains simply awkward for Obama’s former running mate and Vice President to paint such a scenario involving a still living and politically active former president — especially in the context of Biden’s running for president, where everything a candidate says is ultimately to gain political capital. 

    • 'Millennials Will Save The Stock Market' – Bill Smead Explains The Bulls' Latest Narrative

      Submitted by TheMarket.ch

      Bill Smead, founder of Smead Capital Management, thinks that a generational change will give the US economy an unexpected boost. The renowned value investor spots opportunities in homebuilder stocks and blue chips like American Express, Disney and Home Depot.

      * * *

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bill Smead, founder of Smead Capital Management

      Millennials are perceived as the «lost generation». Born in 1981 to 1996, they have been rattled by the financial crisis and are drowning in debt, or so goes the common narrative. What’s more, their unconventional spending patterns are held responsible for the anemic growth perspectives of the US economy.

      Bill Smead thinks that’s utter nonsense. The highly regarded founder of the Seattle based investment firm Smead Capital Management is convinced that millennials won’t do things differently than their parents and grandparents. In his view, the only real difference to previous generations is that today, more people graduate from college and therefore wait longer to start a family.

      According to the experienced value investor this means that in the coming years the focus of investors «will turn from technology-oriented companies which can do exciting things in an anemic environment to main street, on the ground, real life economic activity which is driven by household formation.»

      Against this backdrop, he bets on homebuilder stocks like NVR and Lennar as well as on blue chip names like Home Depot, Disney and American Express. In this extended interview with the Market, he also explains why he has trimmed down his stake in Berkshire Hathaway.

      Mr. Smead, after last week’s turmoil stocks are on the rise again. What’s your take on the financial markets?

      We’re in the crazy stage and if you are flirting with things which are benefiting from the crazy stage you are playing with fire. Maybe valuations are not quite as completely stupid as they were in early 2000. But that’s like saying “Bill Smead is handsome” because I’m comparing him to an Ogre. I’m not handsome, but compared to an Ogre I am.

      What does this mean for the outlook at the stock market?

      You have to understand that value is record cheap versus the market. I started in the investment business in 1980 and today, value is the cheapest to the S&P 500 in my entire forty years in the business; even cheaper than 1999/2000. There is complacency everywhere but value. That’s because cheap stocks have become volatile and no one wants to own volatile. No one wants to own cheap. That’s also why there is a huge premium on defensive stocks versus cyclicals.

      How does an experienced value investor like you navigate this kind of environment?

      Like any good business person, you need to have a vision of what you think the next five to ten years are going to look like. That’s because that vision is an important factor in your ability to produce returns above and beyond what the index is going to provide. The first way to understand what’s going to happen in the next five to ten years is to understand what is extremely popular now and why it’s extremely popular

      So what is your conclusion?

      What has been extremely popular in the United States is enjoying our economy relative to other economies in the world, even though the US economy was underperforming relative to the growth in past areas. In other words: accepting this more muted, less dynamic economic growth pattern and then investing accordingly. This meant looking for businesses which can do extremely well despite the anemic growth pattern. This mindset has dictated what the stock market has done pretty much for the last ten years: The price being paid for growth has risen and risen, and simultaneously interest rates have moved lower and lower justifying these high prices.

      And what’s going to happen next?

      Technology stocks did well in an environment dominated by 80+ millennials who were single and whose spending was dictated by choice rather than necessity. But the group of people who are currently 21 to 38 years old is 40% larger than the generation they are replacing in that age cohort. So when 40% more people get crammed into the 30 to 45 age group, a lot of economic activity on the main street level happens which wasn’t happening in the prior decade. This means that the focus of investment success could turn from technology-oriented companies which can do exciting things in an anemic environment to main street, on the ground, real life economic activity which is driven by household formation and soccer moms.

      Why do you think soccer moms will have such an important role in the US economy?

      The soccer moms of the baby boomer generation re-elected President Bill Clinton in 1996. 23 years later, it’s the children of these soccer moms who will drive the US economy. This new millennial generation of soccer moms will be driving multi passenger vehicles that handle car seats and a lot of junk. They will want to buy a house and get out of their apartment crammed in next to everybody else in the inner city. This means we have a lot of homes to build in the US, we will have a lot of kids apparel and shoes to buy and we have a lot of expenses based on necessity rather than on choice. That’s the vision that goes across the top of our portfolio.

      Then again, in the US and around the world, the economy is weakening and may even go into recession.

      Whatever economic slowdown we have in the United States is likely to be mild in nature because the force of the millennials is already hitting. For example, there is a noticeable and meaningful pick-up in home building in what we call the exurbs: the highly populated coastal areas an hour and a half away from the cities. What’s more, the cities that are not on the coasts which have affordable housing like Kansas City, Des Moines, Iowa, St. Louis or Albuquerque are all seeing a very high activity in home buying and building. Never forget: money always goes where it gets treated the best.

      Is this the reason why the homebuilding company NVR is the largest position in your portfolio?

      NVR caters to first- and second-time home buyers on the eastern seaboard. Our investment discipline is always governed by our eight criteria and NVR is a superior company in just about every way of measuring: solid balance sheet, high profit margins, high return on equity, shareholder friendliness and heavy insider ownership: The people who run the company own 9 or 10% of the business.

      Where else do you spot investment opportunities against this background?

      As the millennials age, certain spending patterns are going to develop. It’s going to be pretty obvious to everybody and then investors will start chasing these spending patterns: As you go down this list of patterns, it’s just a whole bunch of things that people who are 35 to 40 with two kids spend all their money on: Mortgage interest and charges is number one, followed by kids apparel, other apparel and services, shoes as well as vehicle finance charges. That’s the sweet spot in the United States for the next ten years and the stock market is completely unprepared for that.

      How do you take advantage of this sweet spot?

      For instance, American Express might be a better credit card company to own than Visa or Mastercard. That’s because American Express is a bank and can lend the money to their customers. Visa and Mastercard do not lend the money, they only process the transactions. This will be a huge advantage for American Express because they recur 9% interest on the spread if people choose to leave a loan balance outstanding. So the lending part of the business will become the most profitable part. In the past, the transaction part was the most favorable part since no one was borrowing the money. It was easy and there was no credit risk. But when 80+ million people come to borrow money and most of them are going to be creditworthy, you want to take that risk. That’s why we’re also overweight the big banks which issue credit cards: JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

      But aren’t many millennials already carrying a lot of debt?

      The media hyped narrative that millennials are deeply in debt is an urban myth. True, they have more student debt than any generation before them and it’s not optimal that people graduate from college with a lot of student debt. But that’s because 65% of high school graduates in the United States go to college today. When I graduated from high school it was 25%. So keep in mind: the average college graduate in the US makes about $30’000 a year more than someone who doesn’t graduate from college. So to take out a student loan should turn out to be one heck of a great investment. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that people who take out a college loan and get their degree buy houses and form households at any lower rate than previous generations. In fact, in some ways it teaches them that borrowing money for the right reasons is worthwhile.

      On the other hand, most studies show that millennials have been hit hard by the financial crisis, are living longer with their parents and are slower when it comes to start a family.

      Everyone thinks that millennials are not going to be as domestic, are not going to get married and don’t have kids. They’re not going to buy houses and they’re not going to do all the same things that other generations did because people think that technology has caused their attention spans to be too short to make babies. All that is total hogwash. Millennials are going to do the same things like other generations. They are just going to do it later in life because 60% of college graduates are women. They graduate from college and get a career established before they get married and have kids. So they are slower getting off to a start. But that’s ok, because they all are going to turn 35 to 45 and they are going to get the ball rolling down the hill.

      Other large stakes in the Smead Value Fund are healthcare stocks like Amgen, Merck and Pfizer. What’s the bull case there?

      Medicines have a very bright future. In the US, there are more than 70 million baby boomers who have just entered the key years when they massively scarf down enormous amounts of medicine on chronic illnesses to avoid the most expensive part of the US healthcare system: doctor visits, hospitals and ER visits. So we are enthusiastic about Merck and Pfizer and we are very positive about Amgen. Amgen sells a medicine that lowers your bad cholesterol and cuts the risk of heart attacks and strokes by 20 to 25%. That’s going to be a mega hot seller. I might have my doctor prescribe it to me even though I don’t have high bad cholesterol just so I can have the blood of a marathon runner.

      You’re also invested in Home Depot and Disney. Where do you see value in these stocks, since they don’t look really cheap?

      Disney and Home Depot are trading at 20 times earnings. In contrast, everybody in the growth category who can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time trades at 30 to 40 times earnings. That would be stocks like Nike, Visa, Mastercard, Costco and Starbucks. I can give you a long list of glam, mature growth stocks that trade at 30+ times earnings. So what is the difference between Home Depot, Disney and theses stocks? The answer is: It’s just psychology. There is no evidence whatsoever that these companies will perform better than Home Depot and Disney with the demographics we have the next 15 years.

      Still, the share price of Disney just recently reached an all-time high. The same is true for Home Depot.

      Let me tell you something: Warren Buffett says that he made the biggest mistake in his entire career with Disney. In 1965, Buffett bought 5% of the entire Disney corporation for $4 million. At that time, Disney was about a thirty-year-old company and a year later Buffett sold his stake at a 50% gain. Today, Disney has a $250 billion market cap. So 5% would be $12.5 billion – and I’m not even counting dividends. I bring this up because most people think that active managers would do better if they were smart about selling stuff after it runs up. I argue that the academic evidence for long stretches of time says just the opposite: The biggest mistake we all make is not holding our winners to a fault. In the bible love covers a multitude of sins. In the world of portfolio managers, ten baggers cover a multitude of 20 to 40% losers.

      A year ago, Berkshire Hathaway was one of your largest positions. Today, the stock is not in the top ten holdings anymore. What happened?

      We still own Berkshire Hathaway but we de-emphasized it quite a bit. That’s because Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are getting way up there in years and I think that’s why they’re holding this massive stash of cash: If it was announced that Buffett or Munger went to the hospital there would be a drop in the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway immediately. So they have that heavy artillery there to be prepared and to do stock buybacks when it happens.

      What’s more, Buffett has had some setbacks lately. For instance, Kraft Heinz, one of his largest investments, has lost around 70%. Has the “Sage of Omaha” lost his golden touch?

      I don’t think so. But he has lost his willingness to offend people by saying what’s going on in the market. For example, he’s not going to say that AI and data analytics look like an overcooked goose because he’s buddies with Bezos and all the guys who are making the money from AI and the overcooked goose. He doesn’t want to die with enemies. He wants to die with everybody being his friend.

      Is that the reason why Berkshire now owns a $1 billion position in Amazon and Apple has become Buffett’s largest position in the stock market?

      Buffett has a position in Amazon because one of his underlings that he hired to pick stocks bought Amazon. Buffett had nothing to do with that. In the case of Apple, Buffett got interested in the stock because one of his underlings owned it and he concluded that it is a consumer brand not a company that sells electronic hardware. It switched his brain in a completely different direction and Apple became a company like Coca-Cola to him.

      What’s your general take on FAANG stocks like Amazon, Netflix or Facebook?

      If you owned these three stocks over the last twelve months, you lost money while the market has been going up. This is the first time you can say that in this bull market. So the goose which laid the golden eggs is already dying. It’s likely that we have been in a topping process on technology that really started a year ago. Just look at a chart of Amazon: For the third time, the stock has now failed to break through $2000. Meanwhile, Wall Street is successfully fleecing people by issuing shares of a bunch of exciting, young unproven companies of which probably 90% will fail ultimately. Still, people are the most excited about the things they have been excited about the prior eight to ten years. That’s the way it always happens. We like to refer to it as the beyond meat market. That’s one of the craziest stocks of them all.

      So where do you spot real value these days?

      Today, the oil and energy sector has the smallest weight in the S&P 500 in my career since 1980. The weight of the energy sector has ranged from the current 4.6% to a high of 16% in 2008, when oil peaked above $140 a barrel. Gasoline, motor oil and all that kind of stuff may have dropped 5% in the last four decades. But the United States still runs on gasoline.

      Is that the reason why you recently added Schlumberger and Occidental Petroleum to your portfolio?

      When the China mania was going on back in 2011/12, we wouldn’t have touched an oil company with a ten-foot pole. Today, our attraction to oil is a psychological thing that says: wait a second, the importance of these products and producing them compared to the market capitalization is completely out of line. It’s like buying American Express after they divorced Costco or buying Target when Amazon announced they’re going into the grocery store business. It’s comparatively easy.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest