• New Zealand's "Bumbling Jihadi," Known For Inadvertently Tweeting His Location, Caught In Syria

  The 42-year old New Zealand native and globally designated terrorist Mark Taylor, who became known as the “bumbling” Islamic State recruit for the fact that he angered ISIS commanders for posting tweets with the location on, has been captured in Syria by US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and could be transferred back to New Zealand where he will likely face trial and prison time. 

  He’s long been on the US terror watch list after he “used social media, including appearing in a 2015 Isis propaganda video, to encourage terrorist attacks in Australia and New Zealand”, according to the US State Department. Taylor had entered Syria to join ISIS when the so-called “caliphate” was at the peak of its power and territory in 2014. 

  

  True to his media bestowed moniker of “bumbling jihadist” (and sometimes called “Kiwi Jihadi”), Taylor reportedly surrendered to SDF forces after fleeing ISIS in December because he was “in a pickle” with no money or resources to survive.

  He told Australia’s ABC, who spoke to him while in a SDF prison in northern Syria: “There was no food, no money, basic services were pretty much collapsed.” He described further, “I was in a pickle myself and had to make a final decision, which was to leave.”

  New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern also confirmed on Monday that Taylor had been detained by SDF fighters, but it’s as yet unclear what the country’s next step will be. While in Syria Taylor had repeatedly called upon ISIS followers and sympathizers to conduct terror attacks in Australia and New Zealand, including knife attacks against police officers, as was the case in one well-known YouTube video he made. 

  But perhaps the most ironic element to Taylor’s time in Syria is that he was actually jailed three times for running afoul of Islamic State rules. “I had [become] more resentful towards the security of the Islamic State more than anything else. I was threatened with torture and jailed on suspicion of being a spy,” he said to the ABC journalists who interviewed him in his jail cell.

  Referencing his third stint in ISIS prison, he said, “The last time was quite ridiculous. I was accused of drinking and making alcohol and smoking hashish.”

  He was thrown in Islamic State prison another time after an October 2015 incident in which he gave away the location of ISIS positions on Twitter when he forgot to turn off the geotagging function. By his own admission he spent 50 days in jail for the blunder. 

  

  In 2015 Mark Taylor tweeted his location inside Syria multiple times. 

  New Zealander ISIS fighter accidentally tweets secret location http://t.co/F8YVF1tcTv

  — TIME (@TIME) January 2, 2015

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

  “The Twitter account got suspended, and on the ninth of January 2015 I was given a letter by one of the officials and told to have a meeting,” he said. “They took me into a room, took my weapon off me and anything else, like my mobile phone, which I never see again, and say ‘you’re under suspicion for 12 GPS locations around the Islamic State’.”

  After the incident came to light in international press he was mocked and the object of scorn even among fellow jihadis.

  But his one main regret? He told ABC: “To buy a slave, you’re looking at least $4000 American to buy an older woman, at least past 50-years-old.”

  Absurdly and sickeningly he still laments not being able to afford a “decent” slave while in ISIS territory. “And to buy a decent one, at least (USD) $10,000 or $20,000.” he said. 

  And apparently even his own ISIS wives could stand him, via the ABC report: 

  “I was married to one Syrian lady from Deir Ezzor. Her name is Umm Mohammed. She begged me to leave and go to Idlib, then onto Turkey,” he said.

  “One month after that I married another Syrian woman who was pro-Islamic State — much younger lady — but I divorced her. She didn’t want to stay in my house; she wanted to move to another area and be close to her friends, not her husband.

  “I had to explain to her on several occasions that she had to stay home and obey her husband.”

  Taylor, aptly called the “bumbling jihadist,” holds active New Zealand citizenship, making the issue of his return tricky and subject of a New Zealand investigation and debate. 

  Prime Minister Ardern said of the case that New Zealand “has an obligation not to make people stateless,” however she also added, “He would need to make his own way to a country where New Zealand has consular representation — something that, in his current situation, will be difficult to do.”

  So it’s unclear if he would be formally transferred as a US or SDF prisoner back to New Zealand anytime soon, or if as the prime minister suggests, he would have to “make his own way” back to New Zealand. In this case he would likely simply be detained indefinitely by US forces. 

  

• US Conservatives Pursue A "Ben Option" Of Global Ramification

  Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Are we ‘Rome’? The question has weighed heavily on the minds of American conservatives, libertarians and Catholics at their various conferences. Is America headed the way of the Roman empire? Bureaucratic decay, massive public debt, an overstretched military, a political system seemingly incapable of responding to challenges – “the late Roman empire suffered these maladies, and so, some fear, does contemporary America”, notes The American Conservative, a journal which has been pursuing this ‘line’ diligently, and with a growing constituency, over a number of years. (Note that this is not the constituency of Vice-President Pence who represents an Evangelical, fundamentalist, literal insistence on imminent Redemption, with its ‘Rapture’ politics).

  

  The American Conservative rather warns:

  “If libertarians on the Right worry about structural collapse – cultural and religious conservatives add a moral and spiritual dimension to the debate. Rising hedonism, waning religious observance, ongoing break-up of the family, and a general loss of cultural coherence — to traditionalists, these are signs of a possible Dark Age ahead”.

  And this is their narrative in response to these fears: Around the year 500 (CE), a generation after the Franks deposed the last Roman Emperor, a young Umbrian man (i.e. hailing from a rural province in Italy), was sent to Rome by his wealthy parents to complete his education. However, disgusted at ‘Rome’s decadence, he fled to the forest, to pray as a hermit.

  His name was Benedict. And he went on to found a dozen monastic communities, and wrote his famous ‘rules’ which are credited with having helped an earlier culture and its values survive in needy times. Professor Russell Hittinger summed up Benedict’s lesson to the Dark Ages like this: “How to live life as a whole. Not a life of worldly success, so much as one of human success”.

  And just how might a medieval monk be somehow relevant to our secular époque? Because, says the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, they show that it is possible to construct “new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained” during a Dark Age – including perhaps, an age like our own.

  MacIntyre offers the “disquieting suggestion” that the tenor of today’s moral debate (its shrillness and its interminability) is the direct outcome of a catastrophe in our past: a catastrophe so great, that moral inquiry was very nearly obliterated from our culture and its vocabulary exorcised from our language. He refers to the European ‘Enlightenment’. What we possess today, he argues, are nothing more than fragments of an older tradition. And as a result, our moral discourse, which uses terms like good, and justice, and duty, has been robbed of the context that makes it intelligible.

  “For MacIntyre”, Rod Dreher, the author of The Benedict Option writes: “we too are living through a Fall of Rome-like catastrophe, one that is concealed by our liberty and prosperit”. Dreher continues, “In his influential 1981 book, After Virtue, MacIntyre argued that the Enlightenment project cut Western man off from his roots in tradition, but failed to produce a binding morality based on Reason alone. Plus, the Enlightenment extolled the autonomous individual. Consequently, we live in a culture of moral chaos and fragmentation in which many questions are simply impossible to settle. MacIntyre says that our contemporary world is a dark wood, and that finding our way back to the straight path will require establishing new forms of community”.

  “The “Benedict Option” thus refers to [those] in contemporary America who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American Empire, and who therefore are keen to construct local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the Empire represents. Put less grandly, the Benedict Option — or ‘Ben Op’ — is an umbrella term for Christians [and American conservatives], who accept MacIntyre’s critique of modernity”.

  The Ben Op is no call to monasticism. It is envisaged, as it were, as a more practical way for this American constituency to manage being ‘in’, but not ‘of’, today’s modernity. And… where have we heard something like this before? Well – in Italian political philosopher, Julius Evola’s post-war, reflections of a radical traditionalist – Men Among the Ruins – in which he argues for a defence and a resistance against the disorder of our age. It was the writings of Evola, and others of a similar ilk, who sustained Russian intellectuals through their ‘dark ages’ of late communism and then, of full-blown neo-liberalism. Similar broad impulses helped impel the concept of Eurasianism (though its roots extend back to the 1920s in Russia).

  The latter reflects the contemporary trend, manifested most particularly by Russia, but which reaches well beyond Russia, towards the endorsement of pluralism (the main plank in contemporary ‘populism’); or in other words, the ‘diversity’ that precisely privileges one’s culture, narratives, religiosity, and ties of blood, land and language. This notion comports exactly with MacIntyre’s point that it is cultural tradition alone which provides sense to terms such as good, justice and telos. “In the absence of traditions, moral debate is out of joint and becomes a theatre of illusions in which simple indignation and mere protest occupy centre stage”.

  The idea here, rather, is of a grouping of ‘nations’ and ‘communities’, each reaching back to its primordial cultures and identities – i.e. America being ‘American’ in its own ‘American (or Russian, in its own) cultural way’ – and not permitting itself to be coerced into succumbing to the coercion of a diversity-shorn, cosmopolitan empire.

  Clearly this sits ill at ease with the mainstream Americannotion of a compliant, rules-based globalist ‘order’. It is a clear rejection too, of the idea that ‘melting pot’ cosmopolitanism can procreate any true identity, or any moral grounding. For, “without the notion of telos (directionality, and purposiveness to human life) serving as a means for moral triangulation, moral value judgments lost their factual character. And, of course, if values become ‘factless’, then no appeal to facts can ever settle disagreements over values”.

  Dreher is explicit about this radical opposition. He says of Ben Op, “you might even say that it’s a story about the progressive possibilities of tradition, and a return to roots – in defiance of a rootless age”.

  And just to be clear, US conservatives who think they have found an ‘easy’ ally in MacIntyre, “fail to attend to his understanding of the kind of politics necessary to sustain the virtues [any quality that is required for discharging one’s path in life]. 

  MacIntyre makes clear that his problem with most forms of contemporary conservatism is that conservatives mirror the fundamental characteristics of liberalism. The conservative commitment to a way of life structured by a free market results in an individualism, and in particular a moral psychology, that is as antithetical to the tradition of the virtues as is liberalism. Conservatives and liberals, moreover, both try to employ the power of the modern state to support their positions in a manner alien to MacIntyre’s understanding of the social practices necessary for the common good”.

  What is so interesting to an outsider, is how the Ben Op’s author, Dreher, situates it within the US political context:

  “Many of us on the Right who have been dismayed by the Trumpening (sic), and have been hard hit by the Kavanaugh debacle, have concluded that [nonetheless], we have no choice but to vote Republican this November – if only out of self-defense. (He refers to November 2018)

  “But let me quote two passages from The Benedict Option:

  “The cultural Left—which is to say, the American mainstream— has no intention of living in post-war peace. It is pressing forward with a harsh, relentless occupation, one that is aided by the cluelessness of Christians [i.e. those mirroring liberalism], who don’t understand what’s happening. Don’t be fooled: the upset presidential victory of Donald Trump has at best given us a bit more time to prepare for the inevitable (emphasis added).

  [Those] who believe that politics alone will be sufficient – are not going to be prepared for what’s going to come when the Republicans lose the White House and/or Congress, which is inevitable. Our politics have become so sulfurous that there will be a vicious backlash, and that backlash will fall primarily on social and religious conservatives. When the Democrats regain power, conservative Christians are going to be in very bad shape”.

  The Ben Op, in other words, is another important window into what Professor Mike Vlahos has described as the gathering, next chapter to America’s unresolved ‘civil war’:

  “America today fissuring into two visions of the nation’s future way of life: “Red” virtue imagines a continuity of family and community within a publicly affirmed national community. “Blue” virtue imagines personally chosen communities mediated through the individual’s relationship with the state. So, even though these two divided visions of America have been opposed for decades, and so far have controlled the urge to violence, there is in their bitter contest [of today] a sense of gathering movement toward an ultimate decision”.

  “Today, two righteous paths are gridlocked in opposition … Red and Blue already represent an irreparable religious schism, deeper in doctrinal terms even than the 16th-century Catholic-Protestant schism. The war here, is over which faction successfully captures the (social media) flag, as true inheritor of American virtue. Both perceive themselves as champions of national renewal, of cleansing corrupted ideals, and of truly fulfilling America’s promise. Both fervently believe that they alone – own virtue.” 

  We might conclude that this Ben Op is just a uniquely American manifestation, of little wider import to the world at large. But if we did, we would wrong. Firstly, Macintyre traces the moral tradition from its origin in Traditionalist Homeric literature (i.e. to its Pre-socratic roots) and to this ‘heroic society’ becoming the repository for moral stories about eternal values: Narratives that have the peculiar ability of becoming embodied in the life of the community that cherishes them. And seeing community per seas ‘a character’ of sorts, in an historically-extended, moral narrative.

  In other words, Ben Op is not founded exclusively in Christianity at all. Rather, MacIntyre suggests that narrative provides a better explanation for the unity of a particular human life. The self has continuity because it has played the single and central character in a particular story: the narrative of a person’s life. He puts it this way: “In occupying these roles we simultaneously become subplots in the stories of others’ lives, just as they have become subplots in ours. In this way, the life stories of members of a community are enmeshed and intertwined. This entanglement of our stories is the fabric of communal life … For the story of my life is always embedded in the story of those communities from which I derive my identity”. Here, we are being directly returned to Homer.

  But secondly, we would be missing something essential which links the Ben Op impulse to the wider push-back against today’s millenarian globalists who root their ‘redemption’ in a teleological process of ‘melting’ away cultural identity, of making ethnicity and gender matters of personal choice (and therefore never definitive).

  This critique, coming from an important American conservative constituency which votes Trump yet is aware of his drawbacks, is one that may resonate more widely with other non-American constituencies. But as Rod Dreher, who initiated this campaign as far back as 2006 notes, its members in fact already comprehend its wider import. Dreher says:

  “Hey, I’m not Catholic either. So what? We Orthodox claim him [Benedict] as one of our own, as all the pre-schism saints are. But never mind. [Christians] need to look deeply into Church history to find the resources to withstand the pressures of modernity. St. Benedict is one of them. Because of our varying ecclesiologies, a Catholic Ben Op is going to look different from a Protestant one, and an Orthodox one will look different too. That’s okay. Depending on the telos of the Ben Op institution, we may be able to work together ecumenically”.

  

• This Paper Map Shows The Extent Of The Entire Internet In 1973

  Before the modern internet, there was ARPANET.

  As Visual Capitalist’s Frank Cardona explains, ARPANET was the first internet-like network, and it was developed to allow multiple computers to share data across vast geographical distances. Interestingly, the researchers that worked on ARPANET are credited with developing many of the communication protocols that the internet still uses today.

  Today’s map comes from David Newbury, who shared a keepsake from his father’s time as a computer science business manager at Carnegie Mellon University in the 1970s. We added a legend to help explain the symbols on the map.

  

  A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARPANET

  ARPANET was funded in the late 1960s by a branch of the U.S. Military called The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), with the original purpose being to allow researchers at different universities to use their limited computing resources more efficiently.

  Before ARPANET, if a researcher at Harvard wanted to access a database at Stanford, they had to travel there and use it in person. ARPANET was used to test out a new communication technology known as packet-switching, which broke up data into smaller “packets” and allowed various computers on the network to access the data.

  With ARPANET researchers could:

  • Login to another computer miles away
  • Transfer and save files across the network
  • Send emails from one person to several others

  On the map below, you can see the network only had computers in the United States, but later that same year, a satellite link connected the ARPANET to the United Kingdom, creating the beginnings of a global network.

  

  A NETWORK OF NETWORKS

  In 1983, ARPANET adopted the TCP/IP protocol standards which paved the way for a “network of networks”, and the internet was born. Several years later, ARPANET would be decommissioned and the new internet would begin to flourish.

  Below you can see what the early internet looked like in 1984:

  

  A BIG JUMP

  These maps take us back to a simpler time when social networks, mobile phones, and unlimited access to the world’s information did not yet exist. Even 12 years after the first message was transmitted on the ARPANET, there were still only 213 computers on the network.

  Fast forward a few decades later and the change in scale is mind-boggling – the modern internet has 1.94 billion websites and 4.1 billion internet users globally, resembling a digital universe.

  One can only imagine how quaint the ARPANET will look a few more decades from now.

  

• Doug Casey On The Climate-Change Hoax, Part 2

  Via CaseyResearch.com,

  Today, I continue my conversation with Doug Casey and Strategic Investoreditor E.B. Tucker on the great climate change hoax. If you missed part one, click here to catch up.

  Below, the guys take a closer look at what’s really going on… and why all of the hysteria is actually a big threat…

  

  Justin: Why peddle this idea that the Earth is warming rapidly? What’s the motive?

  E.B.: Bigger government.

  I mean, climate change has become a pop culture drumbeat. If you watch the Oscars, somebody is going to say, “We’ve got to do something about the climate.”

  But no one, of course, knows what to do. All they know is that we should give the government more money to do something about this. And that money is obviously going to come from the developed world. I mean you’re not going to get any money if you implement a carbon tax in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  So it’s basically just a giant tax scheme. I mean carbon taxes brought in $82 billion last year. That’s a big number. And no one even knows where this money goes. You can’t question it because everybody has the best of intentions.

  Justin: It’s just one big money grab?

  E.B.: It’s about more than just money. Carbon taxes give government much more control over commerce. When you buy an airline ticket to fly over Kansas, you’ve got to pay a bunch of money to a U.N. organization to mitigate the effect you have on the lower atmosphere or whatever as you fly through it in an airplane.

  It’s stupid, but people go for it. I was in Mexico two weeks ago and took a domestic Aeroméxico flight. When I bought the ticket there was an option to “fly green” for an extra fee. The airline takes the money and buys carbon offset credits. It’s very popular actually. But no one really knows where that money goes.

  And it’s only just the beginning. Now, you have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [AOC] saying the world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something about climate change. She’s proposing that we build trains across the ocean and rebuild every building in America to prevent this from happening. Somebody clearly benefits from all of this.

  And it’s only going to get worse. You’ve got to put yourself in the mind of government bureaucrats, who are just businesspeople in government. Think of them as a government version of businesspeople.

  They want their business to get as big as possible. And the U.S. government has never really collected more than roughly 18% to 20% of gross domestic product in taxes. But that’s not enough.

  Let’s say that carbon taxes reach just 2% of economic output. For the developed world alone, that would mean around $1 trillion. It’s a serious amount of money.

  So I think that climate change is a cover for big government. And it’s a great one. People will go for it. That’s why they’re pushing it so hard.

  Justin: It’s clear neither of you thinks AOC’s Green New Deal is the answer. So what should be done about climate change? Anything?

  Doug: Absolutely nothing should be done about it. As I’ve tried to indicate, the climate has a life of its own. If it’s affected at all by humans, our effect may be dwarfed by that of ants and termites – but that’s a whole other can of worms, as it were.

  That’s not to say man can’t have a major effect on the Earth. Humans have wiped out a number of major species, from passenger pigeons to the buffalo. Both of those species once practically covered North America. And yes, we could probably pave the planet, and wipe out most life. But the exact opposite of that is more likely to happen.

  The fact is that as technology improves – which is happening at the rate of Moore’s Law practically across the board – things become vastly more efficient, with much less waste. Not to mention the human population of the developed world is in an accelerating downtrend. CO2, which should be viewed as no more than necessary plant food, is a complete non-problem.

  So, sure. Humans can have an effect on the planet, but not as major as the sun, volcanism, and other natural processes. The big danger isn’t climate change, it’s hysteria. And government, and the types who manipulate it, destroying the economy. I’m afraid that many scientists on the global warming bandwagon are there for purely selfish economic reasons. Unfortunately most science funding today is done directly and indirectly through the government. It’s a political process.

  And if you’re a scientist who’s considered politically unreliable, who believes politically incorrect things, you’re not going to get the funding. You’re not going to get journals to publish your articles. You’re not going to get positions in universities, which are universally controlled by leftists. It’s interesting that the people who believe in AGW [anthropogenic global warming] are almost all leftists, and the people who don’t believe in it tend to be non-leftists.

  Climate science has been turned from a legitimate branch of knowledge into a new age religion, where heretics are persecuted. It’s become a means to centralize even more power in the State. After all, the fate of the Earth is at stake!

  So, it’s very advantageous to join the crowd if you’re a scientist, or at least not fight against it. It’s evidence of the corruption of science itself, which is really serious.

  That’s another argument for getting the U.S. government 100% out of science of all types. The will, and the capital, to fund scientific projects will still exist. It just shouldn’t be allocated by the political process of government.

  Justin: What threat does climate change pose to capitalism?

  Doug: Climate change itself poses zero threat to capitalism. But the hysteria about it is a big threat. Why? Because the only way to alter something as major as the climate is through the government. You have to force people to do certain things and forbid them from doing other things. Power-hungry statists are using the hysteria as an excuse to do that.

  Climate change has got an aura of moral righteousness about it. Marxists, socialists, and leftists are making Greenism into a new religion. Of course, it’s not designated as such; but these things are actually secular religions. They’re sold on the basis of being morally correct. They have dogmas, sins, saints, devils, clergy, heretics, crusades – the whole nine yards.

  That’s a major reason why Greenism and global warmism are so popular. People always want to feel morally righteous, and that God is on their side. These things appeal to emotion, not reason. It’s all about psychology, not science.

  Some of these people are actually saying it’s going to be the end of life on Earth – so you even have the religious idea of apocalypse. If there’s ever been any excuse for the people that hold these views to take control of everybody else, this is it.

  It’s just further proof that there are two kinds of people in the world: people who like to control physical reality, and people who like to control other people.

  It’s very clever on the part of these people to have harnessed pseudoscience and herded many scientists – although I don’t think it’s only a tiny but vocal minority – into the belief we’re all going to die because the oceans are going to drown us as the Earth turns into a giant steam bath.

  How much warmer can things get than they’ve been since the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago? I don’t know and neither do they. How much longer is it going to be before we go into another ice age? I don’t know – and neither do they.

  The real argument isn’t about earth science. It’s about political science.

  And it’s very clever on the part of the people who are pushing it.

  Justin: Great stuff. Thanks for speaking with me today, guys.

  Doug: You’re welcome.

  E.B.: No problem. It was a great conversation.

  

• Thousands Fired By Chinese Tech Companies Amid Sudden Breakout In Austerity

  It’s not just Silicon Valley which is suddenly scrambling to monetize its VC investments after years of harvesting private company gains in hopes of top-ticking the market ahead of a broader crash: so is China’s tech scene.

  After years of buoyant excess reminiscent of the craziest west coast startups, thousands of Chinese tech employees are suddenly finding themselves without a job, while those who remain find that perks like free snacks and travel, gym memberships, new year bonuses, and yes, even fruit bowls, are now gone as the new mood across China’s tech heartland, from Shenzhen to Hangzhou, is one of painful austerity.

  The math is simple: as the FT reports, with the Chinese economy slowing and foreign capital flows shrinking, start-ups are cutting costs. “For an internet start-up you need people, capital and customers. And they are going to see erosion in every one of these categories,” says one disappointed Chinese tech investor.

  Whether or not it is tied to Trump’s trade war with Beijing is debatable, but China’s pain clearly started in the second half of 2018 when capital began drying up resulting in tumbling valuations of formerly flying tech companies. Not helping are local consumers who have become more thrifty, as seen in China’s plunging car sales, resulting in advertisers rethinking budgets. But it’s the workers who are bearing the brunt of cutbacks.

  Tao Jiali, a recent casualty of what gaming group NetEase euphemistically dubbed “structural optimisation”, sums up the mood. “Everyone is jittery,” she said. The latest blow came on Friday, with reports that Dianrong, a peer-to-peer lender, would shed 2,000 staff.

  To get a sense of the worker unease and in some cases, desperation, Zhaoping.com, an online recruitment site that boasts 180m registered users, said that record numbers of resumes are doing the rounds. “Changes in the market environment have brought the development of the internet industry back to a rational state,” said Li Qiang, executive vice-president. He cited two other issues: after years of growth, internet user numbers have reached a plateau, escalating competition and hurting margins. And regulatory clampdowns are hurting everything from gaming to ecommerce to social media.

  

  To be sure, China’s economic slowdown is also hitting the broader economy, and as we reported last night, for the first time ever, China’s working population shrank in 2018.

  

  But nowhere is the pain more acute than in the highest paying tech jobs; for proof look no further than China’s private valuation titan Didi, which despite successfully chasing Uber out of China in 2016, has more recently faced fierce government pressure after two women were murdered using its carpooling service, and is now laying off 2,000 employees, or 15% of the workforce. For the remaining employees, year-end bonuses were cut in half in December and perks such as free snacks and subsidised gym membership have gone.

  “We recently made adjustments to these [workplace] benefits, however we have no plans to make any major cuts,” said a spokesman for the company.

  Another formerly high-flying Chinese tech giant is JD.com, whose recent problems have been compounded by internal issues — its founder and chief executive Richard Liu was arrested in the US last year on suspicion of rape, although no charges were brought. Even so, the company is suddenly laser focused on maximizing profits and is trumming its ranks of middle management, planning to cut about 10% of those at vice-president level and above.

  Yet while both companies vow to hire enough workers to offset those who were laid off, a more ominous shift in the industry is taking place: advertising budgets – the bread and butter of most tech names not only in China but around the globe – will grow just 17% this year, just a bit more than half the rate of the past two years, according to Jefferies estimates.

  Even this, the FT writes, may be optimistic. Industry players point to “a big step down” in actual ad budgets compared with expectations that were set a the start of last year, when advertisers’ revenues were still surging ahead. That, said analysts, will hurt the likes of fast-growing ByteDance, which scrimped on the money it stuffed in workers’ hongbao, the red money packets traditionally given out at Chinese new year.

  Then, in typical Chinese fashion, CEO Zhang Yiming sent out a memo urging staff to temper their disappointment, blaming the smaller bonuses on the “external environment, industry competition and our own errors and deficiencies in management, decision making and implementation”.

  While the group, which includes the massively popular short video app Douyin, has grown to a value of $75BN in seven years and started hiring across the world, its best years appear to be behind it: the group’s woes suggest growing pains are starting to bite. Like its peers, it has chafed with regulators over content, both at home, and in the US — and its reliance on ads make it vulnerable to the weaker economy, the FT notes.

  The punchline: as periods of austerity go, this one is unlikely to be short.

  “It’s just the beginning of the lay-offs we are going to see for the next two or three years,” one tech investor told the FT, while Wang Xing, whose food delivery app Meituan Dianping has so far resisted talk of job cuts, took to social media with an even more blatant example of gallows humor: “I heard a joke that 2019 may be the worst in the past 10 years, but it may be the best in the next 10 years.”

  One thing is clear: China’s domestic workers know their economy best, and it certainly does not appear that the world’s second biggest economy is set for a sharp rebound. In fact, if Trump were to delay rushing a trade deal with Beijing, it certainly appears that any incremental leverage and negotiating advantage would be solely in his favor as Beijing scrambles to keep its economy from disintegrating any more.

  

• Electoral Suicide: Beware The Radical Left

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

  6 months ago I figured a recession would kill Trump’s chances in the next election. But Radical socialism could save him

  

  Wirepoints founder Mark Glennon says Radicals Positioning To Destroy Illinois If Its Fiscal Crisis Doesn’t.

  “Socialists win big in Chicago” was The Nation’s headline on last week’s [Chicago Mayoral] elections. Jacobin, a leading socialist publication, proclaimed that the “left’s victories in Tuesday’s Chicago elections are tangible and undeniable. Few could have imagined such an unquestionably positive night for leftist candidates.” The Chicago Teacher’s Union is headed by socialist Jesse Sharkey. Their influence on elections is huge, and their longstanding efforts in schools are now showing up in election results. “CTU knows how to put a mayor in place,” said one of its vice president’s recently.

  Nationally, some Democrats are beginning to question the party’s leftward shift. Even a liberal columnist in the Washington Post askedlast week if the party is committing electoral suicide.

  Illinois Plans

  • Progressive real estate transfer tax. It’s best seen as an exit tax on wealthier homeowners fleeing. It’s supported by both Chicago mayoral candidates who won a place in the runoff election, Toni Preckwinkle and Lori Lightfoot. The heavily Democratic City of Evanston is already implementing it.

  • Rent control. Illinois politicians should be setting the rent, we’re told. A bill authorizing rent control is pending in the General Assembly and Governor Pritzker has indicated approval in concept. Preckwinkle supports rent control; Lightfoot hasn’t indicated her position.

  • Universal basic income in Chicago. Just give at least $500 to every family in Chicago, no strings attached. Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently saw enough force behind the idea that he authorized a task force to look into a pilot program. It’s leading proponent, Alderman Ameya Pawar, may well become Chicago’s new treasurer, having just won his way into the runoff election. Its cost to the city if fully implemented would be about $12.6 billion annually. Chicago’s annual budget for fiscal 2018 was $8.6 billion.

  • 100% renewable energy. Both Governor Pritzker and a many Illinois lawmakers (including at least one Republican) want Illinois to commit to reaching that goal by 2050. It’s the core feature of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s Green New Deal for the nation, albeit with a longer deadline – 30 years instead of 10. But a Greenpeace co-founder recently wrote, “You are delusional if you think fossil fuels will end any time soon, maybe in 500 years,” and said the Cortez plan would “bring about mass death.” The Green New Deal’s price tag has been estimated as high as $93 trillion, or $600,000 per household. Illinois supporters haven’t bothered to place a price tag on meeting the goal over their longer time period. That’s a common aspect of the new left’s policy agenda – numbers mean nothing.

  • Statewide $15 per hour minimum wage. Governor Pritzker made this a top priority and already signed the new law raising the minimum to $15 by 2025, statewide. That might seem reasonable around Chicago, but opposition came largely from lower income communities across the state. The Rockford Park District, for example, gives hundreds of teenagers and young adults get their first jobs at a lower wage, and the new law will open a $2 million per year hole in its budget.

  Socialist Idiocy Abounds

  For sure, socialist idiocy abounds in Illinois. But Glennon has the cure:

  Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote needs amendment when it comes to Illinois. “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money,” she said. But in Illinois, the trouble is you run out of other people. If the fiscal crisis doesn’t ensure that Illinois’ population loss accelerates, the new left will.

  Numbers Mean Nothing

  Glennon accurately states “[fiscal] numbers mean nothing”.

  That was the subject of a post I wrote yesterday: Ben Bernanke – The Father of Extreme US Socialism

  The radical Left wants to hijack the Democratic party and perhaps they have already succeeded.

  Although such actions may prevail at the state level until states like Illinois blow sky high.

  However, at the national level the nomination of someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris may very well mean four more years of Trump.

  

• Deflationary Red Alert: Chinese Car Dealers Are Slashing Prices, And It's Not Helping

  A new deflationary tide is rising amid the battleground that is China’s auto industry, where manufacturers and dealers are scrambling to try and find a solution to tumbling demand, and while many have resorted to generous incentives and loan offers for consumers to regain market shares, Bloomberg reports  that so far none of the measures have succeeded in stimulating the moribund local car markets.

  Incentives and reductions totaling more than 10% of the sticker price are now common, while interest free loans are also being offered to try and lure car buyers to showrooms, especially outside of China’s major cities. For now, however, buyers still aren’t taking the bait and car sales continue to decline this year in China, after their first annual drop in more than two decades.

  

  Making matters worse, amid the slowdown of the world’s second largest economy consumers are starting to do away with big purchases in general. There’s also an argument surfacing that heavy incentivizing could wind up doing more harm than good to automakers’ finances, possibly setting up for more layoffs, restructurings and mergers in the industry.  Shi Jianhua, a deputy secretary general of China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, said: “2019 should be a year of the survival of the fittest and we may see more merger and reorganization cases in the auto industry.” 

  The changes may negatively affect smaller Chinese manufacturers more than larger ones, who can offset poor Chinese sales with sales from other countries. But customers of cheaper brands in China tend to live in smaller cities and are often more easily affected by the slowing economy.

  Cui Dongshu, secretary general of China Passenger Car Association told Bloomberg that “the sales slump is adding more pressure on Chinese brands. The speed of the industry reshuffle will be accelerated.” By reshuffle he also means a potential wave of mass corporate defaults.

  Smaller companies like Chongqing Changan Automobile., Brilliance China Automotive Holdings and BAIC Motor have seen their stock prices get cut in half or more over the past year. But that doesn’t mean global brands aren’t facing headwinds as well. Companies like Hyundai Motor Co. and Jaguar Land Rover parent Tata Motors Ltd. blamed China for slipping to quarterly losses last year while Suzuki Motor Corp. pulled out of China altogether.

  Meanwhile, desperate to put a price floor below the rapidly deflating Chinese auto market, in late January Beijing urged authorities to roll out measures to help boost vehicle sales in rural areas, noting that a similar effort about a decade ago helped revive demand. While local governments have yet to make any announcements, automakers are moving ahead with offers their own.

  For instance, BAIC cut about $1000 off the price of its Senova Zhidao sedan. Buyers also have the option of choosing a $149 down payment or 0% interest for three years. Volkswagen said this month that it will offer an incentive package valued as much as $1800 for rural consumers that need to replace their aged models with new ones. Chongqing Changan said it would provide up to $3300 worth of incentives, as well.

  Translation: sharply lower prices, which for those not versed in macroeconomics has a very ominous synonym: deflation, something China simply can not allow.

  A BAIC motor dealership employee, Tom Feng, said he and his colleagues are doing everything they can to reach out to rural customers, including handing out flyers at shopping malls and supermarkets. They are also driving around in new vehicles to spur interest. Confirming the worst case scenarion, Xu Haidong, an assistant secretary general at CAAM, said that “there is no easy solution to revive car demand. Car consumption hinges on the overall economic development.”

  And that “development”, as we know, isn’t going well. 

  

• Why The Boom-Bust Cycle Keeps Repeating

  Authored by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

  In a free, unhampered market, we could envisage that the economy would be subject to various shocks but it is difficult to envisage a phenomenon of recurrent boom-bust cycles.

  

  According to Rothbard,

  Before the Industrial Revolution in approximately the late 18th century, there were no regularly recurring booms and depressions. There would be a sudden economic crisis whenever some king made war or confiscated the property of his subjects; but there was no sign of the peculiarly modern phenomena of general and fairly regular swings in business fortunes, of expansions and contractions.

  The boom-bust cycle phenomenon is somehow linked to the modern world. But what is the link? The source of the recurring boom-bust cycles turns out to be the alleged “protector” of the economy — the central banks themselves.

  A loose central bank monetary policy, which results in an expansion of money out of “thin air” sets in motion an exchange of nothing for something, which amounts to a diversion of real wealth from wealth-generating activities to non-wealth-generating activities.

  In the process, this diversion weakens wealth generators, and this in turn weakens their ability to grow the overall pool of real wealth.

  The expansion in activities that are based on loose monetary policy is what an economic “boom” (or false economic prosperity) is all about. Note that once the central bank’s pace of monetary expansion has strengthened the pace of the diversion of real wealth is also going to strengthen.

  Once however, the central bank tightens its monetary stance, this slows down the diversion of real wealth from wealth producers to non-wealth producers. Activities that sprang up on the back of the previous loose monetary policy are now getting less support from the money supply; they fall into trouble — an economic bust or recession emerges.

  Irrespective of how big and strong an economy is, a tighter monetary stance is going to undermine various non-productive or bubble activities that sprang up on the back of the previous loose monetary policy.

  This means that recessions or economic busts have nothing to do with the so-called strength of an economy, improved productivity, or better inventory management by companies.

  For instance, because of a loose monetary stance on the part of the Fed, various activities emerge to accommodate the demand for goods and services of the first receivers of newly injected money.

  Now, even if these activities are well managed, and maintain very efficient inventory control, this fact cannot be of much help once the central bank reverses its loose monetary stance. Again, these activities are the product of the loose monetary stance of the central bank.

  Once the stance is reversed, regardless of efficient inventory management, these activities will come under pressure and run the risk of being liquidated.

  The central bank is the key factor behind recurrent boom-bust cycles

  The central bank’s ongoing policies that are aimed at fixing the unintended consequences that arise from its earlier attempts at stabilizing the so-called economy are key factors behind the repetitive boom-bust cycles.

  Because of the difference in the time lags from changes in money to changes in prices and real economic activity data, Fed policy makers are confronted with economic data that could be in conflict with the Fed’s targets. (Also, note that the time lags are variable).

  The time lag from changes in money and changes in price inflation tends to be much longer than the time lag between changes in money and changes in real economic activity. For instance, as a result of the previous loose monetary policy, price inflation begins to strengthen. To counter this strengthening the Fed decides to tighten its stance. However due to the differences in the time lags, the real economy is likely to weaken rather quickly in response to the recent tighter monetary stance while price inflation is still gaining strength on account of the longer lag effects of past loose monetary policies. To counter the rising price inflation the Fed tightens further. Hence, what we have here is a situation whereby central bank officials responding to the effects of their own previous monetary policies.

  Fed policy makers regard themselves as being the responsible entity authorized to bring the so-called economy onto the path of stable economic growth and stable price inflation. Consequently, any deviation from the growth path sets the Fed’s response in terms of either a tighter or a looser stance. These responses to the effects of previous policies on economic data give rise to the fluctuations in the growth rate of the money supply and in turn to the recurrent boom-bust cycles.

  The uptrend in the yearly growth rate in the adjusted money supply (AMS) between May 2007 and October 2011 is still dominating the US economic scene. However, a declining trend in the yearly growth rate of AMS between October 2011 and January 2019 is starting to gain strength (see chart). Consequently, we suggest that in the months ahead the influence of the declining trend in the growth rate of AMS is going to assert its dominance on economic activity, all other things being equal.

  

  What will determine the severity of the downturn is the state of the pool of real wealth. Prolonged reckless monetary and fiscal policies have likely severely undermined the real wealth generation process.

  This in turn raises the likelihood that the pool of real wealth is hardly growing.

  

• China Cuts Taxes, GDP Target To 6-6.5%: Key Highlights From The People's Congress

  On Tuesday, as part of its National Party Congress, China cut its economic growth target for 2019 once again, this time to 6.0-6.5%, down from last year’s target of “about 6.5 per cent.” The figure was revealed in the government work report to be delivered by Premier Li Keqiang as the National People’s Congress opens.

  According to Bloomberg, the shift to a band from the previous practice of using a point figure gives policy makers room for maneuver and compares with last year’s “about” 6.5 percent goal. The lower bound of the GDP target would be the slowest pace of economic growth in almost three decades, a consequence of China’s long deceleration as policy makers prioritize reining in debt risks, fixing up the environment and alleviating poverty. Economist consensus sees output growth slowing to 6.2% this year from 6.6% in 2018, before easing further in 2020 and 2021.

  

  This annual gathering of China’s political elite – which we discussed earlier – comes a year after President Xi Jinping amended the constitution to remove a presidential term limit and ahead of the 70th anniversary of Communist Party rule later this year.

  

  China also announced a cut of 3% to the top bracket of value added tax in a move aimed at benefiting the manufacturing sector: such a cut could deliver a boost worth up to 600 billion yuan ($90 billion) or 0.6% of GDP, according to Morgan Stanley.

  The target budget deficit for 2019 was set at 2.8% of GDP, higher compared to last year’s goal of 2.6%. The more modest growth target paired with further targeted stimulus measures typifies the government’s attempt to steady the economy after a bruising 2018 and marks a shift from last year’s edition, when the emphasis was on reining in financial risks and trimming budget outlays.

  Below are the key highlights of what has been revealed so far:

  On economic outlook

  • GDP target 6%-6.5%
  • Budget deficit 2.8%
  • Consumer inflation at about 3.0%
  • Aims to cut tax, social security fees by 2t yuan this year
  • 3% cut to the top bracket of VAT
  • Faces more challenges, risks
  • Needs to brace for “tough” battle (doesn’t sound like a trade deal is imminent)
  • Seeks stable trade while improving quality
  • To further cut RRR for smaller banks to support private sector
  • Will reduce population living in poverty by at least 10 million
  • Fiscal policy will be proactive, stronger and more effective
  • China plans to sell 2.15 trillion yuan in special local government bonds

  On monetary policy

  • Money supply growth, aggregate financing will keep pace with nominal GDP growth and be roughly in line with the 2018 actual growth rates
  • Monetary policy will be prudent, paying attention to balance between tightening and loosening

  On military:

  • The defense budget growth target came in at 7.5% lower than 2018

  On financial risks

  • To keep macro leverage level “basically stable” (doesn’t sound like January’s record credit injection will be repeated)
  • Will stick to structural deleveraging, pay attention to its strength and pace
  • To prevent abnormal fluctuations in financial market
  • To include more financial activities, markets, institutions and infrastructure in macro-prudential policy framework

  On trade talks

  • To continue pushing forward trade talks with U.S.

  On opening up

  • Steadily promote financial sector opening, attract more long-term capital inflows
  • To improve opening measures for bond market
  • To expedite making rules for outbound investment
  • Enhance supervision of capital flows, risks in financial markets
  • To deepen SOE reform in power, oil, rail sectors
  • To increase imports of advanced technology equipment, energy and agriculture products

  On economic development:

  • To build a national oil and natural gas pipeline corporation
  • Will create at least 11 million new urban jobs
  • Will keep the urban jobless rate at about 5.5%
  • Will keep the registered jobless rate at about 4.5%
  • Premier Li warns tax cuts will create a “huge burden” for governments at all levels, which will now need to tighten their belts, and state-owned enterprises will have to hand in more profits

  On property market:

  • Decisively prevent and resolve property market risks; stabilize land and home prices and property expectations

  On consumption:

  • To consider policies to boost consumption of autos and home appliances

  On FX:

  • To increase flexibility of yuan FX rate, keep the rate ‘basically stable’ at a reasonable equilibrium level
  • To keep FX reserves at a reasonable size

  On market stability

  • Encourage banks to lend mid and long-term to private companies, reduce funding difficulties for manufacturers, expand bond issuance by quality companies
  • To keep stock, bond and FX markets steady; tackle abnormal markets in a timely manner

   

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Fourth Turning & The Case Against Cities

  Via HardScrabbleFarmer.com,

  Historians spend a great deal of time on the subject of cities. Rome, Athens, Constantinople, London, Tokyo, Cairo, New York and Moscow. It is as if the stuff that is most worthwhile is the density of the population, those locations where people lived closely packed together rather than the substance of the people who lived everywhere in between. It would appear that all the significant events and accomplishments of a people throughout history are focused on urban centers and as a result we have convinced ourselves that it is and has always been the cities that define a society.

  

  Our perception of urban living versus rural is often defined by the culture shapers — politicians, academics, corporations and media. Rarely are the populations who inhabit the different regions asked about the impact of those decisions on their quality of life. They accept the paradigm into which they were born or they convince themselves that the alternatives are much worse than what they face living in densely populated urban centers.

  We seem to readily accept that economic advantages of living in a city far outstrip the opportunities of living in the country, that the benefits of culture — museums and symphonies, for example — are unavailable to anyone who does not live where these attractions are located. There is an almost equal enthusiasm for certain benefits of urbanity, like diversity, that manifest as many, if not more drawbacks to a good life depending on how the effects of that mix manifests itself in good times and in bad. What one gains in access to a varied selection of cuisines is offset by what one must deal with when communication between diverse groups is not possible due to language or cultural differences. While the former are often cited as beneficial, the latter is never mentioned except where it can be used to shame or ridicule anyone who objects. Under social and economic stresses those features such as clannish or tribal behaviors emerge and create fractures along a number of fault lines.

  In reviewing the challenges of a stressed and divided society like America in the 21st century, we must consider which behaviors and choices bear the greatest responsibility for those problems. While experts most often point the finger at those who are resistant to change, as if change itself is always beneficial and stasis is always a negative, it doesn’t mean that they are correct in their estimation. While it is difficult to prove that there is a net benefit to de-urbanization, it is very easy to prove that there are far more negatives associated with increased urbanization.

  Let’s start with a few basic facts concerning the variables between the two.

  According to the US Census nearly two-thirds of Americans live in an urban environment. That area represents less than one fiftieth of the inhabitable land available for habitation and when we look at the numbers, it becomes far more stark. The population of large cities with over one million inhabitants is over 7,000 per square mile, while in rural areas that figure drops to 35.

  200:1 is a variable that presents quite a few challenges, most of which are environmental.

  Everyone who has ever visited or seen a CAFO where livestock are kept prior to slaughter for fattening can tell you that the single most recognizable factor is the waste. In rural areas where a single family inhabits the same amount of space that would fit 150 inhabitants in a city, there is adequate drainage and soil to accommodate their waste with little or no effect on the environment. In a city there exists no spare land to accommodate any waste disposal and so virtually all excess waste must be treated at an extremely high cost with an even greater amount of material that must be relocated away from the urban source. This goes for solid wastes as well as human waste. Urbanized setting cannot dispose of their detritus without reliance on rural areas to distribute those accumulated wastes. Because of the volume produced, there is virtually little chance of any of that being dealt with organically, i.e. allowing for nature to metabolize the wastes, rather they must be buried in landfills creating huge toxic storage issues that will take centuries rather than days to dissipate.

  Cities likewise are incapable of producing even a fraction of what they consume. Urban farming accounts for at best 5% of their total needs making them dependent upon their rural counterparts for 95% of their nutritional requirements. Cities, quite simply, cannot feed themselves nor dispose of their own waste while rural areas have close to zero dependence on urban enclaves for either of the two.

  Rural areas of the United States of America enjoy a much higher quality of life than urbanized area by a large margin. Crime rates are three times higher in cities, while tax rates are doubled. The income necessary to maintain a standard of living in a city is 35% higher than someone living in a rural area. In terms of pure economics whatever advantage higher salaries provide to urban dwellers, it is offset by a factor of almost 3 to 1 and this is based only on six raw data points; energy, housing, food, medical care, taxes, and public services. It fails to take into account the radical differences in what urban people must spend on additional factors associated with urban dwelling, like additional security, fees, and medications (urbanites have a 40% higher incidence of anxiety and psychological issues than their rural counterparts as well as an STD rate over five times higher.

  Overall the quality of life for rural inhabitants scores fifty percent higher than those who live in the city. While none of these are definitive proof that rural life is objectively better — there are people who thrive in high anxiety, isolation and close proximity to strangers at a higher cost, most human beings seem inclined to live in a peaceful setting with higher ratio of income to expenditures. Proponents of urban living will often point to areas that rural environments do not possess, such as public transportation, diversity (higher percentage of non-natives), and cultural institutions, they do not factor in the costs as opposed to their uses. For example people will tout the fact that the NYC Metropolitan Opera features a valuable resource for those who live in NYC. The truth is that with their 3,800 seat capacity and 200 performance season, less than 1 in 15 New Yorkers would ever have the chance to attend a single performance even if they wanted to, far less when you subtract season ticket holders and out of town ticket buyers. Just because a resource exists in an area does not mean that it will ever be utilized except by a small fraction of the urban population. And in no way are those from the rural regions unable to travel into the city for expressly those purposes, so such claims of urban advantage are specious at best.

  It should also be noted that there are significant demographic aberrations in urban versus rural areas, especially in regards to age. Urban populations are much younger than rural ones and skewed to the advantage of younger females. Anyone who has ever made it to adulthood understands what draws young men to a specific place and that is available young females. As old courtship rights were eroded over the last century, especially in regards to the rise of feminism, and loosened standards in terms of sexual availability cities have acted as a magnet for unattached men and women. Similarly the numbers of in tact families is equally skewed with far more living in rural areas than their equal aged cohort in the city. Urban divorce rates are twice that of the country and people who live in the country are ten times as likely to live with a multi-generational extended family than in a city. In addition the number of newly arrived immigrants found in cities dwarves the number located in the countryside as well as second and third generation immigrants. To find someone who speaks the same language, shares the same values, and believes in the same principles you are far more likely to encounter them the further you move from the cities. There are few other considerations that show any of the correlating demographic idiosyncrasies than those demonstrated by the urban/rural divide.

  Of course we can try to do what most economists would do in looking at this issue and most of them would point to the productivity and dollar value of each particular region. Cities, they will say, create more dollars per square foot than the rest of the country combined, but they never mention the difference between the source of those dollars. The country produces the ores that become raw materials to fulfill the demands of industry, they produce the overwhelming majority of sustenance, they produce the majority the energy that propels the engine of the economy and the vast majority of the tradesmen that build and maintain the infrastructure. Cities produce an overwhelming majority of those on various kinds of relief, government employees, attorneys and those who work in the financial service sector, none of which create anything of tangible value. One cannot survive long without nourishment but no lives are dependent on notional trading of derivatives or arcane regulations regarding tort law. Cities are the centers of specialization while the countryside is the seedbed of the generalist. Those who live in the city are five times more likely to call a plumber, electrician or tradesmen to perform basic tasks than a rural resident. The majority of all US Patents are held by someone who was born and raised in a rural environment and most of the greatest developments of the past two hundred years were the result of people reared on farms; Whitney, Deere, Bell, Edison, Ford, Browning, Eastman, Farnsworth and Howe are but a fraction of the names of those whose roots and generalist approach to life allowed them to create innovative and groundbreaking technologies, while most of what takes place in the cities is a form of refinement of those creations. Specialists have their place, especially in areas like surgery and engineering, but the origin of their fields always have their roots in the soil.

  Human beings possess an innate and powerful drive towards concern for their fellow man. In the country if some sees an accident or a fire the first impulse is always to stop and render aid. It is a rare time when someone in need is ignored in a rural community. In the streets of most major cities the population has inured itself to the sight of human suffering and want. They step over the homeless, pretend they don’t notice the piles of human waste or puddles of urine, blithely stare off into space when someone exhibits signs of mental illness or emotional instability and walk away from random acts of violence. The internet is full of videos of beatdowns, assaults, meltdowns in public places, destruction of businesses, flash mobs and every other form of delinquency but only rarely do these occur in rural settings. It is the desensitized population that makes most of these acts possible despite the fact that the perpetrators are almost always far outnumbered by passerby. Their ability to compartmentalize the vast numbers of human interactions they have every day leaves them numb to their genetic predisposition towards altruism and empathy. People who lack empathy and concern for their fellow human beings cannot be expected to make decisions that would benefit anyone other than themselves. Part of the demographic slant in elections — the majority of Democratic voters live in urban areas while the majority of Republican voters live in rural areas with income, sex and age playing a distant second, third and fourth in terms of political affiliation. Interestingly enough the more dependent upon others someone is, the more likely they are to live in a city, thus the need to vote for increasing government involvement in their lives.

  There are certainly more areas where the distinctions between the urban and the rural can be observed, but perhaps none more important than the disconnect between human beings and their natural environment. Human beings were adapted to live in accordance with the seasons and the environment in which they lived. The very advance of human civilization rested almost entirely upon his ability to create surplus food stores in order to survive in year round settlements. These centers became the hub of both agriculture and the domestication of animal species and from that came every conceivable advance and achievement we have ever made since then. The development of mathematics, written language, metallurgy, construction, engineering, medicine, all of them were a direct result of living in tune with the observable world of nature. Urban living divorces human populations of everything from the source of their daily nourishment to the elimination of their wastes. They turn on their lights without knowing where the source of that energy comes from, running in the rivers or buried in the coal seams of some distant wooded hillbillyville, they turn on their tap for their water unaware of its origins in the distant mountains of flyover country.

  They are as dependent as babies on the material resources of the places they make fun of, incapable of feeding themselves or of cleaning up their own mess. They make more waste, use more resources, produce fewer necessities, consume more luxuries, have greater disparities between the economic classes, fewer intact families, experience far more crime and pay a higher price to adjudicate it, then ship off their offenders to prisons in the hinterlands where the rubes are hired as custodians to the human effluent of the cities. You can hear sirens 24/7 but you cannot see the stars at night. There is no such thing as silence, privacy is almost nil, personal space is reduced, self-reliance almost unknown. In most cities you do not have the right to arm yourself for defense against the criminal population that far exceeds that of the rural regions. Virtually every transaction in the city is economic with very few people doing business outside of their own very small circles. For all of their cosmopolitan posturing their social circles are 30% smaller than the average inhabitant of a town with 2,000 or fewer inhabitants. They are, in fact, the most provincial of peoples despite living in the most crowded environments.

  I have lived in a multitude of places over the course of my life and have seen far more of the United States than the most seasoned travelers. I’ve lived in the center of the largest metropolis on the east coast and now choose to live in a New England village with a seasonal population that never exceeds 2,500 residents in an area twice the size of Manhattan. Our choice to live this way was predicated not upon an economic necessity, nor on an historic attachment to place, but rather as a deliberate choice based on what we wanted to best experience a better way of life. Our economic standard dropped significantly but so did our expenditures. Our physical health improved markedly, our relationships with each other and our children has been greatly enhanced, and our connection to those who live around us, friends, neighbors and the community at large has been nothing short of miraculous. Peace is plentiful, crime is not a concern, freedom to do what we want when we want to has increased and we feel like we have lost nothing in the exchange. Try as I might there are only a few things I can think of as being a loss to us; a good pizza, variety of restaurants, and the friends and family we left behind. Beyond that there is nothing I can think of worth noting and under no circumstance would we ever consider moving back.

  The historians rarely concern themselves with life in the provinces, where the toil and sweat of the creator classes accumulated the surpluses that allowed cities to exist in the first place, to flourish and become the centers of civilization we think of today. Paris, Berlin, Los Angeles, Bangkok, Shanghai and Baghdad. They focus on the remnants of collapsed citadels, shrines and fortresses. Those places that served both to celebrate the accomplishments of the nations and principalities that gave birth to them, and their glory are all ruins today. As much as they were lighthouses to the young and the ambitious of each generation, so too were they the fire that drew attention from afar. Eventually the complex business of moving paper and money, of accumulating wealth and building shrines to their hubris always runs its eventual course. And as the lines of supply are cut off, either through inattention or rebellion, the dependent urban centers begin to feed on themselves, leaving them vulnerable to the predations of those who hunger for a taste of their flesh. And all that endures and comes to life amongst the derelict bones of an extinct metropolis are the sons and daughters of those who preserved their independence and traditions in the far flung country of the rural world.

  Nothing lasts forever and the accelerating pace of domestic instability demonstrates just how fragile our social fabric is. As we enter the maelstrom of the Fourth Turning anything can happen. The Empire and its narrative struggle to maintain legitimacy in a time of universal corruption. All declines follow a similar path and once the collapse occurs events pick up speed leaving everyone who has failed to prepare caught unaware. The cities are the least secure location during such periods and only those who manage to find a place out of the reach of those who tear down the walls of our civilization will be safe.

  Take everything into consideration, but prepare for anything. Your life may depend upon it.

  

•  US Navy Declares F-35C Stealth Fighter "Ready For Combat"

  The Commander, Naval Air Forces and the U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation published a statement last week declaring its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35C stealth fighter jets is operationally ready for war.

  After several decades of testing and development, the service announced Thursday that the fifth-generation fighter had achieved Initial Operating Capability, indicating that it has passed all tests to be flown on combat missions.

  

  Thursday’s announcement came after a squadron of the F-35Cs qualified and deployed with the San Diego-based Nimitz-class supercarrier, Carl Vinson.

  “The F-35C is ready for operations, ready for combat and ready to win,” said Commander Naval Air Forces, Vice Admiral DeWolfe Miller. “We are adding an incredible weapon system into the arsenal of our Carrier Strike Groups that significantly enhances the capability of the joint force.”

  Lockheed Martin, one of the Pentagon’s top defense suppliers, designed three variants of the plane: the F-35A for the Air Force, F-35B for the Marine Corps, and F-35C for the Navy.

  

  “We congratulate the Department of the Navy on achieving Initial Operational Capability with its fleet of F-35Cs,” Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin vice president and general manager of the F-35 program, said in a statement.

  “This milestone is the result of unwavering dedication from our joint government and industry team focused on delivering the most lethal, survivable and connected fighter jet in the world to the men and women of the US Navy,” he added.

  Promoted as the world’s most advanced fifth-generation fighter, the F-35 is a deadly and versatile aircraft that combines stealth capabilities, Mach 1.6 supersonic speed, extreme maneuvering, and state-of-the-art sensors. The F-35C has been a favorite of President Donald Trump, whom last year lauded the plane for being “invisible.”

  

  Rear Admiral Dale Horan, director, USN F-35C Fleet Integration Office said, “The F-35C will revolutionize capability and operating concepts of aircraft carrier-based naval aviation using advanced technologies to find, fix and assess threats and, if necessary, track, target and engage them in all contested environments,” adding “This accomplishment represents years of hard work on the part of the F-35 Joint Program Office and Naval Aviation Enterprise. Our focus has now shifted to applying lessons learned from this process to future squadron transitions, and preparing VFA-147 for their first overseas deployment.”

  However, the stealth jet, which is the most expensive US defense program in history (valued at an acquisition cost of $406.5 billion), has had a long list of setbacks — including problems with the software, engines and weapon systems. 

  Moreover, critics have expressed skepticism about the F-35’s combat capability despite reassurances by Lockheed and Pentagon officials who say the difficulties are being fixed.

  

  As to why the US Navy has declared the F-35C ready for war, well, Zerohedge readers must turn their attention to China.

  Washington has been surrounding China with various forms of the plane, in other words, the Pentagon is building an F-35 friend circle with countries like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia.

  While China is no sitting duck in the potential clash with the US stealth jets in the South and the East China Sea, or even the Taiwan Strait, the Chinese have developed a fifth-generation fighter of their own, dubbed the J-20.

  The outlook is very clear: The Pentagon is preparing its best fifth-generation fighters for a conflict in the East.

  

• The Future Of The Middle-East: The Astana Trio Versus The Warsaw Debacle

  Via GEFIRA,

  While on February 13/14 Warsaw, Poland, hosted the US-sponsored and US-supervised Middle East conference – well attended by the representatives of the Arab countries but only by second-trier EU diplomats; the Astana Trio – Russia, Turkey and Iran – held theirs in the resort city of Sochi (the venue of the 2016 Winter Olympics).

  While the Warsaw event for all purposes and intentions was held to drum up support for a joint action against Tehran, the rival Sochi meeting addressed the on-the-ground situation in war-torn Syria, the makeup of the country’s future government, the formation of the constitutional committee, the restoration of the basic infrastructure in terms of water and electricity supply systems and the voluntary return of the many refugees.

  

  Warsaw and Sochi, two simultaneous games of chess with two sets of chess pawns, swearing allegiance to different sovereigns or to none at all. Turkey, though formally a NATO member, used the occasion to strengthen its ties with Russia rather than its military ally the United States. Israel, though no NATO member, used the occasion of the Warsaw gathering to form a crusade against Iran, eliciting NATO countries’ aid; the European Union members, though predominantly members of the Atlantic Treaty, distanced themselves from the Middle East conference with Germany, as is known, continuing to cooperate with Russia over natural gas supplies.

  Israel – and what follows the United States – has a keen interest in neutralizing Iran, whereas the Astana Trio (named so after the initial venue of the three in Astana, Kazakhstan) sought to capitalize on Assad’s success in the civil war and the resultant American pullout.

  

  Germany, France and the United Kingdom are playing into the hands of the Erdoğan-Putin-Rouhani axis in refraining from backing the Israeli-led orchestration of diplomatic steps aimed against Tehran.

  One may wonder whether or not Benjamin Netanyahu’s objective to rally support for his middle East policy misfired; there is something that the Israeli prime minister has achieved. Having hijacked the Visegrad Group of countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary) in that his proposal to hold the group’s meting in Israel (of all the places) was accepted (whatever for?), he drove a wedge between Warsaw and the remaining members of the Group by offending Poles with the accusations of antisemitism and thus forcing them to break ranks with Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary still willing to participate in the V4 gathering in Israel. Iran may be a contentious issue in the Middle East and a threat to Israeli existence but the Jews worldwide have also set their sights on extorting from Poland a few billions of dollars as damages for Jewish property lost during World War Two in Polish territory. A politically isolated Poland is more likely to fall prey to the extortion and one may rest assured that it certainly will not stop supporting Israel.

  The two meetings showed the emergence of three political constellations:

  (i) the European Union (with Poland falling between two stools with its loyalties divided between Brussels and Washington),

  (ii) the United States and Israel,

  (iii) and the Astana Trio.

  Tel Aviv has failed to create anti-Iranian coalition (as for now) but has succeeded in isolating Poland from its V4 allies and pressed further with the agenda of making it pay for Jewish property; the European Union has managed to operate independently of the United States; Turkey, Russia and Iran have coordinated their efforts to achieve a workable solution in Syria; the conference has turned out to be of no avail to the United States; the rift between Washington, Brussels and Ankara – NATO members – has grown larger.

  

• Voters Would Overwhelmingly Reject "Socialists" And Candidates "Over 75", Poll Shows

  Bernie Sanders might be leading in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire – polls that typically limit respondents to likely Democratic primary voters. But the chances that Americans will embrace a septuagenarian “Democratic Socialist” should he somehow win the nomination remain as uncertain as ever (even as some twitter wits continue to insist that “Bernie would have won” in 2016).

  But in the latest indication that the odds in the general election would be heavily stacked against Bernie, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that only 25% of respondents ranked “socialist” as a desirable trait for a candidate. And only 37% said “someone over 75” would be a desirable candidate, according to Bloomberg.

  Meanwhile, more voters said they would accept a candidate who was gay or a lesbian, or an Independent under the age of 40. Critically, the survey showed that 41% of voters would definitely or likely vote for Trump in 2020, while 48% said they would probably vote for the Democratic candidate.

  

  But, in a possible silver lining for Sanders and his “political revolution”, 55% of voters said they would support a candidate who would implement major changes (as Trump did), vs. 42% who said they wouldn’t.

  “We’re getting early signals from Democratic primary voters that they are looking for bigger change and someone who agrees with them on policy,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who worked on the survey.

  Republicans in the White House, Congress and in the media have made “socialism” a significant point of attack as the election draws closer, ripping proposals for expanded access to Medicare, the so-called Green New Deal, and other Democratic priorities.

  And though only 41% of respondents said they would support Trump in 2020, a majority said they had a favorable view of the Trump economy, and few expect a recession in the coming year.

  “As long as these economic numbers look like this, that always keeps an incumbent president in the race,” McInturff said.

  In a sign that the prospective candidacy of former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has actually soured Americans on third-party candidates, only 38% of respondents said they would support a third-party candidate in 2020. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating ticked higher in January from 43% to 46%.

  As at least one well-funded independent – former Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz – considers jumping into the race, only 38 percent of Americans said the two-party system is seriously broken and that the U.S. needed a third party. But that was the highest percentage on the question in a poll that dates back to 1995.

  Trump’s approval rating ticked up to 46 percent from 43 percent in January. He had the support of 88 percent of Republicans. Thirty-seven percent of GOP primary voters said they’d like to see another Republican challenge Trump in 2020, while 59 percent said they were opposed to that.

  The NBC/WSJ poll of 900 adults was conducted Feb. 24-27 and had an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. The survey also measured 720 registered voters including primary voters from both parties with higher margins of error.

  In summary, Democratic voters only know that they want a candidate who will shake things up. Meanwhile, Republicans overwhelmingly support President Trump.

  

• Poisoning The Public: Toxic Agrochemicals And Regulators' Collusion With Industry

  Authored by Colin Todhunter via Off-Guardian.org,

  In January 2019, campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman accusing European regulatory agencies of collusion with the agrochemicals industry. This was in the wake of an important paper by Charles Benbrook on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides that appeared in the journal ‘Environmental Sciences Europe’.

  

  In an unusual step, the editor-in-chief of that journal, Prof Henner Hollert, and his co-author, Prof Thomas Backhaus, issued a strong statement in support of the acceptance of Dr Benbrook’s article for publication. In a commentary published in the same issue of the journal, they write:

  “We are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides] were reached by the US EPA and IARC. It is an important contribution to the discussion on the genotoxicity of GBHs.”

  The IARC’s (International Agency for Research on Cancer) evaluation relied heavily on studies capable of shedding light on the distribution of real-world exposures and genotoxicity risk in exposed human populations, while the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) evaluation placed little or no weight on such evidence.

  Up to that point, Dr Mason had been writing to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Commission for an 18-month period, challenging them about ECHA’s positive assessment of glyphosate. Many people around the world had struggled to understand how and why the US EPA and the EFSA concluded that glyphosate is not genotoxic (damaging to DNA) or carcinogenic, whereas the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, the IARC, came to the opposite conclusion.

  The IARC stated that the evidence for glyphosate’s genotoxic potential is “strong” and that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, the EPA relied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers.

  In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in the EPA’s evaluation were from industry studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources. Another important difference is that the EPA focused its analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or ‘glyphosate technical’. The problem with that is that almost no one is exposed to glyphosate alone. Applicators and the public are exposed to complete herbicide formulations consisting of glyphosate plus added ingredients (adjuvants). The formulations have repeatedly been shown to be more toxic than glyphosate in isolation.

  REJECTION OF DR MASON’S COMPLAINT

  The European Ombudsman has now rejected Rosemary Mason’s complaint who has in turn written a 25-page response documenting the wide-ranging impacts of glyphosate-based Roundup and other agrochemicals on human health and the environment. She also outlines the various levels of duplicity that have allowed many of these chemicals to remain on the commercial market.

  Mason is led to conclude that, due to the rejection of her complaint (as with others lodged by her to the Ombudsman), the European Ombudsman Office is also part of the problem and is essentially colluding with European pesticide regulatory authorities. Mason has addressed this concern directly to Emily O’Reilly, who currently holds the post of European Ombudsman:

  In your rejection of all my complaints over the last few years, it is clear that The Ombudsman’s Office is protecting the European pesticides regulatory authorities, who are in turn being controlled by the European Glyphosate Task Force…. You have turned a blind eye to the authorisation of many of the toxic pesticides that are on the market today because industry is being allowed to self-regulate.”

  Some of the key points, claims and issues raised in Mason’s new report ‘The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities’ include:

  • The European pesticide regulatory authorities and the European Ombudsman is colluding with industry, resulting in the poisoning of humans and the environment

  • Cancer Research UK is not addressing the impact of agrochemicals because it is heavily compromised by industry interests and therefore claims, “there is little evidence that pesticides cause cancer”

  • The UK Science Media Centre is an industry lobby organisation, which feeds the wider media and its journalists with misleading and false information about agrochemicals

  • Industry group the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) has been instrumental in ensuring the re-licensing of glyphosate in the EU

  • Maladministration and criminal collusion with the agrochemicals industry resulted in the renewal of glyphosate registration in the EU

  • The report touches on the condemnation of the ECHA’s positive classification of glyphosate by the judges of the International Monsanto Tribunal

  • The global insect apocalypse and the impact of intensive agriculture and pesticides is catastrophic

  • Children and adults have diminished mental acuity and exhibit increasing levels of mental health disorders, depression, suicides and anxiety as a result of exposure to agrochemicals

  • Monsanto’s sealed secret studies shows the company knew about impact of its product on cancers and eye damage

  • The report mentions UN expert on Toxins Baskut Tuncak’s call to put children’s health before pesticides

  • Mason outlines the poisoning of British food: breakfast cereals have shockingly high levels of glyphosate

  • She notes that 30,000 doctors and health professionals in Argentina have demanded a ban on glyphosate

  • Brazil’s National Cancer Institute statement that genetically modified crops are causing of massive pesticide use

  • The independence of regulatory decisions made by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been marred by political donations to Labor and the Coalition. In the 2017-18 financial year, Bayer donated $40,600 to Labor and $42,540 to the Coalition, with CropLife donating $34,271 to Labor and $22,300 to the Coalition

  • As a result, APVMA is allowing clothianidin and Roundup to be applied to crops in low lying areas which drains into The Great Barrier Reef

  • In turn, the poisoning of The Great Barrier Reef is taking place due to the impact of herbicides and long-acting insecticides

  There are numerous other important points and issues tackled in the report, which readers are urged to read in full. Mason names key individuals and provides all relevant links to research, reports and papers. You can access the report below. You can also access Dr Mason’s many other documents here.

  Read Rosemary Mason’s new report The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities here.

  

• China's Employed Population Shrinks For The First Time Ever

  China’s imminent, and historic conversion from a current account surplus to deficit nation is not the only “tectonic shift” taking place in the world’s most populous nation. According to the latest census data from its National Bureau of Services, China’s employed population has shrunk for the first time ever on record, and at the end of 2018, the number of people employed fell to 776 million, a drop of 540,000 from 2017.

  

  Meanwhile, in yet another sign that China’s population is aging rapidly, the broader working-age population, or people between the ages of 16 and 59, also shrank for the seventh consecutive year, down a total of 2.8% from 2011 to 2018 according to Caixing. Last year’s China’s total working-age population stood at 897 million, down 5 million from 902 million in 2017, according to the NBS.

  Li Xiru, director of the Population and Employment Department at NBS, warned last month that the employed population would further drop in the coming years.

  While China is already beset with a myriad of economic and asset price bubbles, most notably a massive corporate debt load and a still gargantuan shadow banking system both of which it has to balance against an unprecedented housing bubble to avoid a collapse in the financial system sparking a “working class insurrection“, the country’s shrinking work force creates even more headaches for officials as it pushes up labor costs, sparking inflationary pressures and placing more strains on an economy already struggling against external headwinds.

  As China Daily reported recently, the shortage of workforce means labor cost will continue to increase and industrial transfer and technology will substitute workers. And since university graduates – who expect far higher wages – account for nearly half of the labor force entering the market, the market is unable to provide traditional industries with the required number of workforce and the past high-input economic development mode is unsustainable.

  The futures is even bleaker: the working-age population is expected to see a sharp drop from 830 million in 2030 to 700 million in 2050 at a declining speed of 7.6 million every year, said Li Zhong, a spokesman for the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, in July. Meanwhile, with decreasing supply of labor force, the salary of all industries grew at a rate of 11.3 percent in 2011, 10.5 percent in 2012, and 9.7 percent in 2013, said Zeng, adding that as a result many foreign enterprises left China and shifted to Southeast China due to rising labor cost.

  Adding to the warnings, back in 2015, the World bank cautioned that China’s working age population will fall more than 10% by 2040 in spite of a recent relaxation of its one child policy, heightening the risk of the world’s most populous country “getting old before getting rich”.

  

  A further decline of 10% would equate to a net loss of 90 million Chinese workers, a number greater than the population of Germany, and is consistent with demographic pressures across East Asia. The working populations of South Korea, Thailand and Japan are also expected to fall by 10 per cent or more over the next 25 years.

  “East Asia has undergone the most dramatic demographic transition we have ever seen,” said Axel van Trotsenburg, World Bank regional vice-president. “All developing countries in the region risk getting old before getting rich.”

  As of 2010, almost 40% of all people on the planet aged 65 or older — some 211 million individuals — lived in East Asia, and the World Bank estimates that a least a dozen East Asian countries will see the percentage of their populations aged 65 or higher double to 14 per cent in a quarter century or less. In France and the US, the same transformation took 115 and 69 years respectively

  “As [countries] get richer, fertility falls,” said Philip O’Keefe, lead author of the World Bank report. “Given China’s current fertility [rates], you may get a temporary uptick in people who wanted to have a second child having one, but we don’t see a big long-term impact there.”

  O’Keefe cited surveys showing that only a quarter of Chinese people eligible to have a second child would in fact do so, however according to recent data, despite China’s relaxation of the infamous “one-child policy”, local birth rates have remained stagnant and in fact, in 2018 China’s birth rate dropped to a new record low.

  

  Commenting on China’s demographic collapse, Wang Feng, a sociology professor at the University of California, Irving, said: “Decades of social and economic transformations have prepared an entirely new generation in China, for whom marriage and childbearing no longer have the importance they once did for their parents’ generation.”

  The World Bank urged East Asian governments to embrace immigration as one tactic to counter falling population pressures, noting that more than 20% of Australians and New Zealanders — and 40% of Singaporeans — were immigrants, although Europeans may offer some counterpoints against opening up one territory to a flood of foreigners…

  “Demography is a powerful force in development but it is not destiny,” Mr O’Keefe said. “Through their policy choices, governments can help societies adapt to rapid ageing.”

  Of course, besides demographics, China’s transformation into the next Japan has major, and potentially dire, consequences for the local economy. As we reported back in October via Econimica, the 0-to-24 year old Chinese population swelled by over 300 million from 1950 to it’s ultimate peak in 1991.  Since that peak, the total population of young in China has fallen by 176 million, or a 30% decline in the number of children across China.  Moving forward, the UN has expressed hopes the formal elimination of the one child policy would simply slow the rate of decline in the population…but by no means will China’s fast declining childbearing population (those aged 15-44) nor disproportionately young male population potentially be offset by a slightly less negative birth rate.  Contrast that with the quantity of debt being forcibly injected into a nation that faces a massive imminent population decline.

  

  To put that debt into perspective, the chart below shows that total debt and annual GDP each divided by the 0 to 24 year old Chinese population.  As of 2018, every child and young adult in China under the age of 25 is presently responsible for over $100 thousand dollars in debt while the annual economic activity (GDP) created by all this debt continues to lag ever faster. 

  And the coming decade only worsens as the young population continues its unabated fall and debt creation (absent concomitant economic growth) continues soaring… building more capacity all for a population that is set to collapse.

  

  China’s predicament and reaction to it are not particularly unique…but given China’s size, the ultimate global impact of China’s slow motion train wreck will be unprecedented… particularly as their 15 to 64 year old population is now in indefinite decline.  Chart below shows annual change in Chinese 15 to 64 year old population, in both millions (green columns) and percentage (blue line).

  

  Simply said, without a dramatic rebound in China’s birth rate, massive overcapacity (thanks to over a decade of government mandated malinvestment) versus an ever swifter declining base of consumption does not add up to a burgeoning middle class or a happy ending.

  Of course, it’s not just China: for context, here is a chart showing US federal debt per capita of the 0 to 24 year old US population…

  

  … confirming that the next generation, whether in China or the US, is set for a painful collision course with debt bubble dynamics

  

• Making Marijuana Legalization More Freedom-Friendly

  Authored by Adam Dick via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

  It took 45 years after the 1933 termination of the United States government’s alcohol prohibition for the US government to legalize beer home brewing and, then, another 35 years until in 2013 the last two American states legalized home brewing.

  In comparison, of the ten states where recreational marijuana has been legalized, only the Washington state government prohibits home growing of marijuana, and for years the US government has backed off from prosecuting people complying with the liberalized state marijuana laws.

  

  In this way, freedom is being recognized more quickly under marijuana legalization than it was under alcohol legalization.

  But, the number of states that include prohibition of home grow in their laws generally ending marijuana prohibition may increase. In particular, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing marijuana legalization that includes, consistent with a recently revealed request from some large marijuana companies, a ban on home grow.

  One area where ending marijuana prohibition is progressing with much less respect for freedom is the legal ability to buy and use marijuana in a variety of places. Under legalization, people have been denied the ability to legally purchase marijuana products at bars and restaurants. The sale of marijuana products also remains prohibited at other places where alcoholic beverages are sold, such as at grocery stores and convenience stores, as well as at special events including concerts, sport competitions, and fairs.

  Proponents of marijuana legalization often say that marijuana use is less harmful than alcohol use. This argument was the focus of a series of bus-side advertisements funded by the Marijuana Policy Project, for example, in its 2013 effort to encourage people to vote in favor of an ultimately approvedmarijuana ballot measure in Portland, Maine. Yet, individuals in states with legal recreational marijuana have less options for where they can purchase and consume marijuana legally than they do in regard to beer or even liquor.

  Ending marijuana prohibition in a state or at the national level is an important accomplishment. But, as with the ending of alcohol prohibition, there afterward remain more actions that can be taken to further expand government’s respect for freedom. Hopefully, many of those actions will be taken in a time period measured in months or even a few years instead of several decades.

  

• New Jersey High School Bans Limos, Party Buses, & Luxury Cars From Prom To Promote "Equity"

  What better way to put the fun back into prom night than banning limos, party buses or luxury vehicles?

  At least, this was the thought process of one New Jersey high school, which has implemented a new policy to ban such vehicles on prom night as way to deal with social inequality. How, exactly, does that work? We have no idea.

  According to a report on NJ 101.5, Lakeland Regional High School superintendent Hugh E. Beattie claimed that the new policy is about safety and “equity”. He doesn’t want students who can’t afford a “snazzy ride” to feel left out. Calling it a “group decision made by the Administrative Team”, he says the only way to now arrive at the school’s prom – being held at the Rockleigh Country Club – is to take a chaperoned school bus at a cost of $15 per person.

  That should really ramp up the enjoyment factor of the 45 minute ride students will have to endure on prom night, when it comes around on June 4. 

  

  Beattie said:

  “The decision was made based on the concern over the safety of all our students and in providing equity for all students so that they all could enjoy a shared ‘prom experience’ despite socio-economic status, and based on the success that other districts have demonstrated utilizing this practice. The district wants to ensure that all students have the equal opportunity to share in a positive, safe and memorable school prom experience.”

  The “success of other districts” includes Freehold School District, who has bussed its students to its junior prom for 20 years – because the event usually takes place on a cruise boat. 

  In other words, the district wants prom to be memorable, unless your idea of memorable is flexing your newfound independence and driver’s license to roll up to the prom in mom or dad’s BMW. 

  And, surprise: the idea was met with “howls of complaints” from students and parents, who claim that renting a limo is part of prom tradition. One student claimed the limo ride was “the best part of the night.” Of course it is; it’s much tougher to hide your booze on a school-chartered bus. 

  New Jersey School Boards Association spokeswoman Janey Bramford backed up the school, saying:

   “As a prom is a school-sponsored function, a school district has the authority to make rules concerning the event.”

  We hope the kids boycott the event and start their own “function”, where they are free to arrive and depart in any method they choose. 

  

• Death Toll Rises To 14 As Freak Tornadoes Hit Georgia, Alabama

  Update: The death toll has risen to 14, while the East Alabama Medical Center announced: “We have received more than 40 patients as a result of the tornado this afternoon and expect more. Some patients have also been sent to surrounding hospitals.”

  East Alabama Medical Center: “We have received more than 40 patients as a result of the tornado this afternoon and expect more. Some patients have also been sent to surrounding hospitals. As a result, we are cancelling elective procedures for Monday.”

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) March 4, 2019

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

  ***

  t least two large and destructive tornadoes swept through parts of Georgia and Lee County, Alabama, killing at least ten people and leaving more than 35,000 without power as temperatures are expected to dip into the 30s. 

  It is the deadliest tornado day in the US since January 22, 2017, when 16 people were killed in South Georgia, according to The Weather Channel.

  #Update: More then 30.000 homes without electricity, after tornado struck in #Alabama, and #Georgia. pic.twitter.com/5rCKW09TAc

  — Sotiri Dimpinoudis (@sotiridi) March 3, 2019

  Check out this video of a possible #TORNADO north of Fitzgerald (Ben Hill County) an hour ago. @wfxl #gawx @NWSTallahassee (🎥: James Hobbs) pic.twitter.com/QtnorGgHXJ

  — Kerri Copello (@KerriWFXL) March 3, 2019

  According to WSFA 12 there are at least 10 fatalities. 

  #BREAKING: More than 10 people are dead after at least two tornadoes hit Lee County Sunday afternoon, according to the Lee County sheriff. #alwx #12firstalert

  — WSFA 12 News (@wsfa12news) March 3, 2019

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

  When the 3D volume scan shows the tornado, its a big one. #alwx #gawx pic.twitter.com/Bdp633kKXX

  — Adam Lucio (@Aerostorms) March 3, 2019

  

   

  This is what Lee Road 100 looks like just outside of Beauregard. Incredible destruction from this #tornado @spann pic.twitter.com/EE91ONjTbm

  — Scott Fillmer (@scottfillmer) March 3, 2019

  Two hours ago… pic.twitter.com/7tCXBEM4SJ

  — Micah Messer (@messer_micah) March 3, 2019

  1-minute Mesoscale Domain Sector #GOES16 Visible images + SPC storm reports over #ALwx and #GAwx: https://t.co/TTGPNo3pT1 pic.twitter.com/C4IsKceLTs

  — Scott Bachmeier (@CIMSS_Satellite) March 3, 2019

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

  Here is the debris signature for the strong tornado just west of Columbus, GA (but still in AL). Debris being lofted to nearly 20,000 ft by the tornado. Strong indicator of a strong to violent tornado ongoing. #alwx #gawx pic.twitter.com/q23PliMYV1

  — U.S. Tornadoes (@USTornadoes) March 3, 2019

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

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Real Reason Why Globalists Are So Obsessed With Artificial Intelligence

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  It is nearly impossible to traverse web news or popular media today without being assaulted by vast amounts of propaganda on Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is perhaps the fad to end all fads as it supposedly encompasses almost every aspect of human existence, from economics and security to philosophy and art. According to mainstream claims, AI can do almost everything and do it better than any human being. And, the things AI can’t do, it WILL be able to do eventually.

  Whenever the establishment attempts to saturate the media with a particular narrative, it is usually with the intent to manipulate public perception in a way that produces self fulfilling prophecy. In other words, they hope to shape reality by telling a particular lie so often it becomes accepted by the masses over time as fact. They do this with the idea of globalism as inevitable, with the junk science of climate change as “undeniable” and they do it with AI as a technological necessity.

  The globalists have long held AI as a kind of holy grail in centralization technology. The United Nations has adopted numerous positions and even summits on the issue, including the “AI For Good” summit in Geneva. The UN insinuates that it’s primary interest in AI is in regulation or observation of how it is exploited, but the UN also has clear goals to use AI to its advantage. The use of AI as a means to monitor mass data to better institute “sustainable development” is written clearly in the UN’s agenda.

  The IMF is also in on the AI trend, holding global discussions on the uses of AI in economics as well as the effects of algorithms on economic analysis.

  The main source for the development of AI has long been DARPA. The military and globalist think tank dumps billions of dollars into the technology, making AI the underlying focus of most of DARPA’s work. AI is not only on the globalist’s radar; they are essentially spearheading the creation and promotion of it.

  The globalist desire for the technology is not as simple as some might assume, however. They have strategic reasons, but also religious reasons for placing AI on an ideological pedestal. But first I suppose we should tackle the obvious.

  In most white papers written by globalist institutions on AI, the thrust centers on mass data collection and surveillance. The elites are careful to always assert that their interests focus on the public good. This is why the UN and other agencies argue that they should be the leaders in oversight of mass data collection. That is to say, they want us to believe that they are objective and trustworthy enough to manage rules for data surveillance, or, to manage the data itself.

  For the safety of the public, the globalists want centralized management of all data collection, ostensibly to save us from those evil corporations and their invasion of data privacy. Of course, most of those corporations are also run by globalists that fill the guest books of events like the World Economic Forum to discuss the advancements and advantages of AI. The WEF has made it a mandate that AI be promoted widely and that the business world and the general public be convinced of AI’s advantages. Bias against AI must be prevented…

  So, what we have here is yet another false paradigm in which globalist institutions are opposed to corporations in terms of how AI is used.  Yet, globalist corporations and globalist institutions both develop AI as well as pro-AI sentiment.  The public, with its innate distrust of corporate moral compass, is supposed to be convinced to support UN regulatory reforms as a counterbalance. But in reality, corporate powers have no intention of fighting against UN control, they will ultimately welcome it.

  This was the goal all along.

  The actual effectiveness of AI as a means to help humanity is questionable. AI is primarily about “learning algorithms”, or machines that are programmed to learn from experience. The problem is that a learning algorithm is only as effective as the human beings that program it in the first place. That is to say, learning is not always a cause and effect process. Sometimes, learning is a spontaneous epiphany. Learning is creative. And, in some cases, learning is inborn.

  When a machine is pitted against a human in a system built on very simple and concrete rules, machines tend to prevail. A chess game, for example, is designed around hard rules that never change. A pawn is always a pawn and always moves like a pawn; a knight always moves like a knight. While there can be moments of creativity in chess (which is why humans to this day are still on occasion able to beat computers at the game), the existence of the rules makes AI seem smarter than it is.

  Human systems and natural systems are far more complicated than chess, and the rules tend to change, sometimes without warning. As quantum physics often discovers, the only thing that is predictable when observing the universe and nature is that all things are unpredictable. How well would an algorithm do in a chess game where a pawn could suddenly evolve to move like a knight, without any specific predictable patterns? Not very well I suspect.

  And this is where we get into the crux of how the image of AI is being inflated into a kind of half-assed electronic god; a false prophet.

  AI is being inserted not only into chess, but into everything. Mass surveillance is impossible to manage by humans alone; the amount of sheer data is overwhelming. So, one core purpose of AI for the globalists becomes clear – AI is meant to streamline mass surveillance and automate it. AI is meant to scour social media or electronic mail for “key words” to identify potential miscreants and opposition. It is also meant to monitor public sentiment towards specific issues or governments. The goal is to gauge and eventually “predict” public behavior.

  This becomes more difficult when we start talking about individuals. While groups are more easily observed and mapped in their behavior, individuals can be abrupt, volatile and unpredictable. AI mapping of personal habits is also prominent today. It is more visible in the corporate world where marketing is tailored to individual consumer patterns and interests. That said, governments are also highly interested in tracking individual habits to the point of creating psychological profiles for every person on the planet if possible.

  This all boils down to the idea that AI will one day be able to identify criminals before they ever commit an actual crime. In other words, AI is meant to become and “all seeing eye” that not only monitors our behavior, but also reads our minds as a force for a pre-crime identification.

  The question is not whether AI can actually tell us who is a future criminal. AI is obviously incapable of accurately predicting a person’s behavior to such a degree. The question is, WHO is setting the standards that AI is looking for when identifying potential “criminals”? Who gets to set the rules of the chess game? If an algorithm is programmed by a globalist, then AI will label anti-globalists as future or current criminals. AI does not truly think. AI does not enact the power of choice in its decisions. AI does as it is programmed to do.

  The globalist obsession with AI, however, goes far beyond centralization and control of populations. As noted above, there is a religious factor.

  In my recent article ‘Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Belief System’, I outlined the root philosophy behind the globalist cult. The primary tenet of luciferianism is the idea (or delusion) that certain special people have the ability to become “gods”. But, there are some consequences of this belief that I did not explore in that article.

  First, in order to become a god, one would have to have total observational power. Meaning, you would have to be able to see all and know all. Such a goal is foolish, because observing everything does not necessarily mean a person knows everything. Total observation would require total objectivity. Bias blinds people to the truth right in front of their faces all the time, and globalists are some of the most biased and elitist people on the planet.

  Completely objective observation is impossible, at least, for humans and the algorithms they program. From physics to psychology, the observer always affects the observed and vice versa. That said, I think the globalists don’t really care about this reality. It is enough for them to pretend they are gods through mass surveillance. They aren’t actually interested in attaining godlike enlightenment or objectivity.

  Second, to become a god, in a mythological or biblical sense, one would be required to create intelligent life from nothing. I believe that in the minds of the luciferians the creation of AI is the creation of an intelligent life form, rather than software. Of course, luciferians have a disturbed notion of what constitutes “intelligent life”.

  As I examined in my article breaking down and debunking luciferian ideology, the existence of inherent psychological archetypes form the basis for the human ability to choose, or to be creative in their choices. The existence of inherent understanding of good and evil establishes the foundation of human conscience and moral compass – the “soul” if you will. Luciferians argue despite ample evidence that none of this actually exists. They argue that humans are blank slates – machines that are programmed by their environment.

  To understand this ideology or cult built on blank slate theory, we must consider the fact that globalists often exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths.  Full blown narcissistic sociopaths make up less than 1% of the total human population; they are people who actually lack any inherent empathy or the normal personality tools that we would associate with humanity.  It would not be an exaggeration to say that such people are more like robots than people.

  I have also theorized that luciferianism is a religion designed by narcissistic sociopaths for narcissistic sociopaths.  It is a kind of binding or organizing tool to gather sociopaths into an effective group for mutual benefit – A club of parasites.  If this theory is true, then it represents something that is rarely if ever dealt with in mainstream psychological or anthropological observation; the existence of a cabal of narcissistic sociopaths conspiring together to hide their identities and to become more successful predators.

  To summarize, luciferianism is the perfect belief system for narcissistic sociopaths.  They are, in a way, inhuman.  They are blank slates devoid of humanity, and so they adopt a religion which treats this notion as “normal”.

  So, it makes sense that they would consider something as simple and empty as AI to be intelligent life.  As long as it is able to be programmed to act “autonomously” (which they seem to consider sentience), their definition of intelligent life is fulfilled. There is nothing intelligent about artificial intelligence when it comes to moral or creative actions, but narcissistic sociopaths have no concept of this anyway.

  I leave readers with this to consider; last year an AI program was given the task of creating its own works of art. The outcome was highly publicized and some of the art was sold for over $400,000. I inivte you to look at this artwork here if you have not seen it already.

  

  From what I have witnessed, the common human reaction to this “art” is for people to recoil in horror. It seems like a strange parroting of human elements of art, but with none of the soul. Intuitively, we understand that AI is not life; but for globalists it is the very definition of life, probably because the soulessness of the creation is reflective of the soulessness of the creators.  Just as Christians believe that mankind was made in the image of God, luciferians in their pursuit of godhood have created a “life form” that is perhaps ironically just like them.

  *  * *

  If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

  

• Which Degrees Will Earn You The Most (And The Least)?

  There are a number of considerations to be made when deciding which degree course to pursue. Most people though will at least at some point think about their earning potential once they’ve graduated.

  According to gov.uk analysis, in England, the graduates earning the most compared to the average degree five years after graduation are those that studied medicine – coming in at 74.3 percent more for women and 62.7 percent for men. In second place for both genders is economics which on average allows graduates to bring home 54.8 percent (women) and 40.9 percent (men) more.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  At the other end of the spectrum, the graduates earning the least compared to the average degree five years after graduation are those that studied the creative arts – equating to 21 percent less for women and 29.2 percent less for men. 

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  

• Neither Rain, Nor Sleet, Nor Snow Will Stop The Post Office From Spying On You

  Authored by John Kiriakou via ConsortiumNews.com,

  It’s called the “Mail Cover Program” and it’s run by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Yes, even the Post Office is spying on us…

  

  “We also spy on you.” (Wikimedia Commons)

  You may remember that last year some nut was arrested for mailing bombs to prominent Democrats, media outlets, and opponents of Donald Trump. Less than a week after the bombs went out, a suspect was arrested. Almost immediately, video turned up of him at a Trump rally, wearing a “Make America Great Again” hate and chanting for the camera. He was soon tried, convicted, and jailed. End of story.

  But it wasn’t the end of the story. The investigation into the bomb incidents focused attention on an almost unknown federal surveillance program—one that poses a direct threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of every American. It’s called the “Mail Cover Program” and it’s run by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Yes, even the Post Office is spying on us.

  The Mail Cover Program allows postal employees to photograph and send to federal law enforcement organizations (FBI, DHS, Secret Service, etc.) the front and back of every piece of mail the Post Office processes. It also retains the information digitally and provides it to any government agency that wants it—without a warrant.

  In 2015, the USPS Inspector General issued a report saying that, “Agencies must demonstrate a reasonable basis for requesting mail covers, send hard copies of request forms to the Criminal Investigative Service Center for processing, and treat mail covers as restricted and confidential…A mail cover should not be used as a routine investigative tool. Insufficient controls over the mail cover program could hinder the Postal Inspection Service’s ability to conduct effective investigations, lead to public concerns over privacy of mail, and harm the Postal Service’s brand.”

  Return to Sender

  Not only were the admonitions ignored, the mail cover program actually expanded after the report’s release. Indeed, in the months after that report was issued, there were 6,000 requests for mail cover collection. Only 10 were rejected, according to the Feb. 2019 edition of Prison Legal News (P.34-35) .

  I have some personal experience with the Mail Cover Program. I served 23 months in prison for blowing the whistle on the CIA’s illegal torture program. After having been locked up for two months, I decided to commission a card from a very artistically-inclined prisoner for my wife’s 40th birthday. I sent it about two weeks early, but she never received it. Finally, about four months later, the card was delivered back to me with a yellow “Return to Sender – Address Not Known” sticker on it. But underneath that sticker was a second yellow sticker. That one read, “Do Not Deliver. Hold For Supervisor. Cover Program.”

  Why was I under Postal Service Surveillance? I have no idea. I had had my day in court. The case was over. But remember, the Postal Service doesn’t have to answer to anybody – my attorneys, my judge, even its own Inspector General. It doesn’t need a warrant to spy on me (or my family) and it doesn’t have to answer even to a member of Congress who might inquire as to why the spying was happening in the first place.

  The problem is not just the sinister nature of a government agency (or quasi-government agency) spying on individuals with no probable cause or due process, although those are serious problems. It’s that the program is handled so poorly and so haphazardly that in some cases surveillance was initiated against individuals for no apparent law enforcement reason and that surveillance was initiated by Postal Service employees not even authorized to do so. Again, there is no recourse because the people under surveillance don’t even know that any of this is happening.

  Perhaps an even more disturbing aspect of the program is the fact that between 2000 and 2012, the Postal Service initiated an average of 8,000 mail cover requests per year. But in 2013, that numberjumped to 49,000. Why? Nobody knows and the Postal Service doesn’t have to say.

  The question, though, is not how many cases are opened under the Mail Cover Program or even how many requests there are for the information. The real question is, “How is this constitutional?” Perhaps a secondary question is, “Why hasn’t anybody challenged the program in the courts?” In general, Americans don’t–or at least haven’t–objected to a gradual loss of civil liberties and constitutional rights. That has to stop. When even the Post Office is spying on you, you know the republic is in trouble.

  

• Dershowitz Suggests Press Blackout During "Orgy Island" Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Hearing

  The legal team for Attorney Alan Dershowitz has cautioned against press access to a hearing regarding his former client and associate, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein – who was given a slap on the wrist in 2008 by then-US Attorney for southern Florida (and current Labor Secretary) Alex Acosta. Epstein sexually abused dozens of underage girls in his Palm Beach mansion, while Acosta is under fire separately of the sealed records appeal. 

  

  Epstein, a billionaire and friend of the Clintons (Bill Clinton flew on his “Lolita Express” Boeing 727 jet dozens of times), was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution – on of two counts for which he served 13 months in “custody with work release.” 

  Epstein, now 66, reached the deal in 2008 with then-Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta’s office to end the federal probe that could have landed him in prison for life. Epstein instead pleaded guilty to lesser state charges, spent 13 months in jail, paid financial settlements to victims and is a registered sex offender. –Time

  

  The sealed records appeal relates to a 2015 defamation lawsuit in New York brought by Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre says Maxwell helped Epstein traffic herself and other underage girls to sex parties at the billionaire pedophile’s many residences. The case was settled in 2017 and the records were sealed – leading to an appeal by the Miami Herald and several other parties seeking to make them public in the hopes of shedding more light on the scope of Epstein’s crimes – along with determining who else was involved and whether any undue influence tainted the case.

  Oral arguments are scheduled Wednesday. 

  Dershowitz’s attorney asked a New York judge whether the media should be barred from Wednesday’s hearing in the US District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, since “his oral arguments on behalf of his client could contain sensitive information that has been under seal,” reports the Miami Herald‘s Julie K. Brown. 

  The appeals court had not responded to his concern as of Friday, but if the hearing is closed during his lawyer’s argument, it would represent the latest in a long history of successful efforts to keep details of Epstein’s sex crimes sealed.

  …

  Two women — one of whom was underage — have said Epstein and his partner, British socialite and environmentalist Ghislaine Maxwell, directed them to have sex with Dershowitz, 80, and other wealthy, powerful men. Dershowitz and Maxwell have denied the claims. –Miami Herald 

  Dershowitz – having been publicly implicated in Epstein’s crimes by Giuffre, attempted to have the judge to unseal certain records in the case which he claims will exonerate him. Conservative pundit Mike Cernovich, a Dershowitz associate, also filed a motion to release some of the sealed documents. Both requests were denied in 2016, as the case (which settled in 2017) was ongoing, with the judge citing the need to avoid taining a potential jury pool. 

  After the case was settled, the Herald filed a more extensive motion, arguing that with the case now closed, all the documents should be made public. The motion, filed in April 2018, came as the Herald was working on an investigative series, Perversion of Justice, which detailed how Epstein and his lawyers manipulated federal prosecutors to obtain one of the most lenient sentences for a child sex offender in history.

  Dershowitz’s lawyer, Andrew G. Celli Jr., emphasized to the Herald that Dershowitz is not trying to ban the media from the proceeding; he is simply giving the court a heads up that his arguments could include information that has never been made public because it’s under seal. –Miami Herald 

  “What the letter says very clearly is we intend to make reference to the sealed material in open court, so we want to notify the judges that this is my intention to make my arguments,” said Dershowitz attorney, Andrew Celli. “We want the courtroom to be open so long as we can argue the substance of what we want to unseal.”

  First Amendment Foundation executive director Barbara Petersen suggested that Dershowitz’s request has come across as more of a “veiled threat.” 

  “It’s like ‘if you don’t keep out the media, then we are going to reveal stuff and let the chips fall where they may,’” said Petersen. “They don’t want it to come out and they don’t want to make a motion and ban the media, so they are hoping the judges do it for them.” 

  Separately, over a dozen House Democrats signed a letter last week demanding that the DOJ reopen the Epstein investigation after a Florida judge ruled that labor secretary Alex Acosta violated the law by not informing Epstein’s victims about his sweetheart plea deal. 

  “We urge the DOJ to reopen the non-prosecution agreement to allow for a thorough investigation of these heinous crimes,” reads the letter to newly minted Attorney General William Barr. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) was the lead signatory on the letter. 

  “While the government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the (agreement) with Epstein’s attorneys, scant information was shared with victims,” wrote Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. “Instead, the victims were told to be ‘patient’ while the investigation proceeded.”

  Bradley Edwards, an attorney representing two of the victims, says that Marra’s decision should mean that Epstein’s plea deal is thrown out – possibly exposing him to federal charges once again. Epstein’s plea deal also granted immunity to anyone who assisted him in procuring underage girls or concealing their abuse. 

  “Rather than work to correct the injustices done to the victims, the government spent 10 years defending its own improper conduct,” Edwards told Time in an email. “It is time for the government to work with the victims, and not against them, to hold everyone who committed these crimes accountable.“

  <!–*/

  <!–*/

  <!–*/

  <!–*/

  */

  /*–>*/

  /*–>*/

  /*–>*/

  /*–>*/

  <!–*/

  <!–*/

  <!–*/

  <!–*/

  */

  /*–>*/

  /*–>*/

  /*–>*/

  /*–>*/
  

• University Denounces "Repulsive" Selfie Of White Students In "Charcoal Face Masks"

  Authored by Greg Piper via The College Fix,

  Image itself – not just the caption – shows ‘racism’

  

  The University of Tennessee-Knoxville isn’t waiting to investigate before making broad, public denunciations of its own students and launching an inquisition.

  It released a statement Thursday that claimed its students had been caught wearing blackface, citing a Snapchat photo that another student tweeted earlier in the day.

  The photo itself doesn’t suggest any intent. One student with a mud-colored substance on his face appears to be taking a selfie of himself and three friends, including another student with thinner charcoal streaks on his face who is looking away. They both appear to be shirtless.

  What set off outrage was the caption:

  “We for racial equality boys. Bout to get this free college now that I’m black.”

  The administration didn’t wait for context before publicly denouncing the image itself – not just the caption – as “repulsive.” It said flatly that the image by itself showed “blackface” and “racism.” The Bias Education and Response Team – which the statement misnamed – and Office of the Dean of Students is “determining how to handle this incident.”

  I thought long and hard about posting this but it hit an emotional spot for me for people to think that i did not EARN what was given to me because of my race. pic.twitter.com/5ulc1X3jUC

  — jas✨ (@jxxsie_) February 28, 2019

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

  The student who tweeted the photo shared responses she got from students who claimed to be in the photo, including the lone female and the selfie taker.

  “I literally thought he was just taking a picture of his face mask,” she wrote. “I wasn’t aware the guy in [sic] who made the post made a racist comment with it.”

  The selfie taker, identified as Ethan Feick, confirmed the substances on their faces were “charcoal face masks” intended to “help with acne.” He took responsibility for the caption, a “joke that was certainly not funny in the least.”

  Yahoo named all four students in the photo on Thursday and linked Feick’s Twitter account, which he has since removed. Another Twitter user responded to the original poster with screenshots of the students’ Instagram accounts.

  Out of all the users calling for the punishment and expulsion of the students, one objected:

  This isn’t really Blackface … because it’s not inherently making fun of black people, just a benefit we have in the American education system.

  This isn’t really Blackface. Yes, it’s distasteful, but it does meet the criteria of blackface because it’s not inherently making fun of black people, just a benefit we have in the American education system. If they went further with the makeup and caption it would be though 🤷🏾‍♂️

  — Ronald Rump (@ronthewzrd) March 1, 2019

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

  The Knoxville News Sentinel also said the image appears to show the two students wearing “a black skin care mask.” It reported Friday that Vice Chancellor for Student Life Vince Carilli called the image a “hate-filled act” that has “prompted anger and fear in our community.”

  Randy Boyd, interim president of the UT System, also tweeted his appreciation for the Knoxville administration’s “swift response” to a photo it didn’t bother investigating before denouncing its students.

  A protest on campus defending its controversial “Sex Week” morphed into a protest against the Snapchat photo, according to the Sentinel.

  The UTK administration has yet to respond to a College Fix email Friday afternoon asking if it had confirmed the students were intending to display blackface, or that one of them had written the caption, before denouncing them in its Thursday missive to the community.

  The administration has already suggested that it won’t release the results of its investigation if it doesn’t fit the narrative it’s currently peddling. “Federal law prohibits the university from sharing how the university handles matters with individual students,” it wrote Thursday.

  Universities often misuse the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to hide information that is not covered by the law, as its legislative sponsor has acknowledged.

  h/t Inside Higher Ed

  

• Boeing Unveils "Wingman" Combat Drone That Supports Stealth Jets 

  Boeing Australia has announced plans to manufacture a drone with artificial intelligence that can act as a “loyal wingman” for fourth and fifth generation aircraft.

  

  On Wednseday, Defence Minister Christopher Pyne unveiled the Boeing Airpower Teaming System (ATS), an Australian-designed unmanned platform that flies alongside high-value assets such as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, Boeing P-8 Poseidon, and Boeing E-7 Wedgetail.

  

  Designed by Boeing Phantom Works in Brisbane, the largest Boeing development center outside the US, the ATS will be the first combat aircraft designed and manufactured in Australia since the Jindivik drone of the 1950s.

  

  The drone was developed in connection with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Defence Science & Technology (DST) Group. Boeing further partnered with other defense firms such as BAE Systems Australia, Ferra Engineering, RUAG Australia, Micro Electronic Technologies, AME Systems, and Allied Data System, for the ATS development program.

  “The partnership will produce a concept demonstrator of a low cost unmanned ‘Loyal Wingman’ aircraft, capable of operating in concert with Air Force’s fifth generation air combat capability,” Minister Pyne said in a statement.

  “There is significant value investing in innovative, future leaning initiatives like this, particularly in the early conceptual stages where Defence can explore concepts and define the role such capabilities can play in our national security framework.”

  The first version of the ATS will employ electronic warfare sensors. Boeing said future versions of the drone would incorporate various types of advanced weaponry. 

  

  The drone’s artificial intelligence will allow it to fly independently or support manned aircraft while maintaining a safe distance between other aircraft, Boeing said.

  

  The 38-foot-long, jet-powered drone, with a range of 2,000 miles, will be able to conduct electronic warfare, intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions. 

  “The Boeing Airpower Teaming System will provide a disruptive advantage for allied forces’ manned/unmanned missions,” vice president and general manager of Boeing Autonomous Systems, Kristin Robertson said.

  “With its ability to reconfigure quickly and perform different types of missions in tandem with other aircraft, our newest addition to Boeing’s portfolio will truly be a force multiplier as it protects and projects air power.”

  Boeing said it would manufacture the drone in Australia, with the future intent to exporting to allied countries once series production begins.

  

• California Bill Would Legalize Crypto For Tax Payments From Cannabis-Related Businesses

  Authored by Ana Alexandre via CoinTelegraph.com,

  Lawmakers in the United States state of California have introduced a bill to allow cannabis-related business to pay fees and taxes in stablecoins. The bill was introduced by the California State Assembly on Feb. 21.

  

  image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

  Assembly Bill 953 would allow the state, city and county tax offices in California to accept stablecoins — cryptocurrency pegged to a physical asset or a fiat currency — from cannabis-related companies seeking to pay their excise or cultivation taxes, with effect from Jan. 1, 2020. The bill further reads:

  “The bill would authorize that city or county in determining that method to either accept stablecoins directly into a digital wallet controlled by that jurisdiction or to utilize a third-party digital asset payment processor that allows for the immediate conversion of any payments made by stablecoins into United States dollars and deposit into an account of that jurisdiction.”

  Cannabis has been legalized in several states in the U.S. However, cannabis businesses have difficulty securing simple financial services from banks, the vast majority of which are secured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and are thus prohibited from servicing an industry that is still deemed illegal under federal law.

  Cannabis dispensaries can hold hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash at any given time. The bill is apparently an attempt to curtail the vast amounts of cash that end up in state tax offices and need to be processed. California State Treasurer Fiona Ma recently testified before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services regarding the tax collection process for cannabis businesses. She stated:

  “Duffel bags and sometimes suitcases of cash would arrive quarterly at some of our designated offices and some business owners had to drive 350 miles to pay their taxes.”

  In 2017, the Dash network began implementing Dash as a payment option in the cannabis industry’s point of sale devices. In doing so, Dash reportedly aimed to save the industry 10-15 percent, as the decreased flow of paper money will stymie the need for cash boxes, safes and guards.

  Other U.S. states have also introduced bills that would allow tax payments in cryptocurrency. In January, legislators in the U.S. state of New Hampshire proposed a bill to accept Bitcoin (BTC) for state payments. “This bill requires the State Treasurer […] to develop an implementation plan for the state to accept cryptocurrencies as payment for taxes and fees beginning July 1, 2020,” the document reads.

  

• Retail Apocalypse: 465 Store Closures In 48 Hours

  Following government shutdown delays, data for Dec and Jan spending and income collapsed on Friday. This was one of the most significant drops in consumer spending since the financial crash.

  

  As if the situation wasn’t already dire enough, US consumers dialed back their spending in the last several months has put a sizeable dent into sales growth and foot traffic at US malls.

  Last month, we noted that the “Retail Apocalypse” Isn’t Over: It Is Only Just Getting Started”.

  We were right.

  Fox 5 NY is reporting that major chains such as Gap, JCPenney, Victoria’s Secret and Foot Locker have all announced massive closures, totaling more than 465 stores in the last 48 hours.

  

  All four companies reported its fourth-quarter results last week for the holiday period, with three of them (Gap, JCPenney and Victoria’s Secret) reporting a sizeable decline in same-store sales, while Foot Locker had modest growth.

  With somewhat decent growth, because apparently, consumers still need to walk, Foot Locker shocked investors Friday with 165 store closures across the country.

  That comes less than 24 hours after Gap told investors it would close 230 over the next several years after the company’s same-store sales plunged 7% during the holiday quarter.

  

  If the hemorrhaging wasn’t enough, JCPenney was back on the chopping block with 18 more department store closures through the second half of this year, including three from January.

  Bob Phibbs, CEO of New York-based consultancy the Retail Doctor, believes JCPenney will announce another round of stores closures in the second half.

  “It is mind boggling that JC Penney still thinks they have time when the clock has run out and there’s no real plan. Closing 18 stores is barely a drop in the bucket of JC Penney’s more than 850 stores. If this was a big, bold effort to reinvigorate the brand, they would have announced they were closing hundreds of stores and investing in an outstanding experience at their other locations,” Phibbs told FOX Business.

  That builds on recent store closure announcements by Gymboree, Payless ShoeSource, Charlotte Russe and Ann Taylor, to name a few. Even Tesla last week announced it would be closing most of its US showrooms.

  A whopping 4,500 store closures have been announced by retailers in the first several months of this year. The number is expected to increase in the coming months, as growth prospects for the US economy are expected to be at near zero for the first quarter.

  

• CNN Analyst And Former Obama Admin Official Compares Trump's CPAC Speech To Hitler

  One CNN analyst and former Obama administration official was clearly triggered by President Trump’s rambling, expletive-filled, two-hour-plus CPAC address.

  During an appearance on CNN where she offered some “informed commentary” on Trump’s speech, Sam Vinograd, a former member of Obama’s national security council, said Trump’s “xenophobic” talking points about immigrants and white heritage reminded her of  “certain leader” who presided over a genocidal European regime during the first half of the 20th century.

  Though she didn’t use said leader’s name, we think it’s pretty clear to whom she’s referring (spoiler alert: It’s Hitler).

  “Well, Ana, his statement makes me sick, on a personal level, preserving your heritage, reclaiming our heritage, that sounds a lot like a certain leader that killed members of my family and about six million other Jews in the 1940s,” Vinograd began. “But our national security level, the president talks about preserving our heritage as a catch-all for implementing policies that misallocate resources.”

  “He pretends there are massive flows of illegal immigrants coming over our borders and is spending billions of dollars on a border wall emergency, instead of paying attention to real national security threats. He sounds a lot like despotic leaders that have talked about white heritage and white nationalism around the world and is putting resources in the wrong place, and pretending that there are foreign people trying to influence our country in a way that just isn’t accurate.”

  Of course, the fact that, by comparing Trump to Hitler, Vinograd contributed to the trivialization of the historical plight of the Jewish people was apparently lost on her.

  She also slammed Trump for “denigrating our institutions” and suggested that Trump’s talking points mirrored the of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

  “He denigrated our institution, the Department of Justice and U.S. Congress. He spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, he undermined the credibility of several of our institutions, he sewed divisions, he sewed confusion, he was speaking to his base, but he was also saying things that really looked like Vladimir Putin scripted his speech.”

  It’s just the latest example of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” run amok on “the most trusted voice in news”.

  

  

  By the way, if you’re confused about what Putin’s to-do list looks like, allow Vinograd to fill you in.

  How much of Putin’s to-do list is @realDonaldTrump going to tick through at #CPAC

  — Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) March 2, 2019

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

  1. Undermine our institutions (@TheJusticeDept @FBI and Congress)

  — Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) March 2, 2019

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

  2. Sow divisions

  — Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) March 2, 2019

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

  3. Spread conspiracy theories and misinformation

  — Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) March 2, 2019

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

  4. Paint the commander-in-chief as non-credible

  — Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) March 2, 2019

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

  5. Make racist, bigoted, xenophobic statements (who are you “reclaiming” our country from @POTUS ?)

  — Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) March 2, 2019

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

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Here's How You'll Die When The SHTF (And How To Prevent Your Untimely Demise)

  Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

  When it hits the fan…I mean REALLY hits the fan in a permanent kind of way, the most likely outcome is death.

  

  That’s not pretty, and I’m well aware of it. I always try to be positive and optimistic, because for me, preparedness is the ultimate act of optimism, but sometimes we have to look at the numbers and face some things that are pretty terrifying. The first reality check is that some research says that only 3 million Americans are preppers.  That means that 315 million Americans are not preppers. Some experts predict that within 30 days of the power going out, 50% of Americans will be dead. Within a year, an astounding 90% of the population will be dead.

  Do you want to survive such a scenario? Do you want your children to survive? When you read this information, you have to realize that it’s very unlikely that you and your family would live through a grid failure of a year or more unless you are proactive and develop a preparedness plan that takes all of these causes of death into consideration.

  The Top 10 Ways to Die in a Long-term Disaster

  So here are the cold hard facts. One of these is the way that you are most likely to die when the SHTF, particularly in the event of a long-term grid failure. The good news is, now that you know this, you can take steps to prevent your untimely demise.

  1. You die of thirst or waterborne illness.  Most people have a case of water bottles kicking around, and perhaps a 5 gallon jug for the water cooler. What they don’t have is a gallon a day per person for a long-term emergency. Most people also don’t own a gravity fed, no-power necessary water filtration device with spare parts and extra filters. Most people do not have the skills and knowledge necessary to purify their water without these devices either.  Waterborne illness is the number one cause of death after a natural disaster. If just one person handles water and waste incorrectly, this can cause an epidemic of such deadly illnesses as Hepatitis A, viral gastroenteritis, cholera, Shigellosis, typhoid, Diphtheria and polio.  The other worry is dehydration. It only takes 3 days for a person to die of thirst.  Learn more about the importance of water preparedness HERE. If you’d like information on water preparedness in a print version, check out my book on the subject.

  2. You die from fantasy-world planning. So many preppers have poorly thought out plans for survival. They think they’ll “live off the land” and hunt, forage, and farm their way through the apocalypse, but they’ve never milked a goat or planted the contents of their seed banks. They don’t understand that gardens and crops can fail for innumerable reasons. They think they’re still in the same physical condition that they were 25 years ago and overestimate their ability to perform physical labor, like chopping wood for the fire. There are hundreds of bad strategies that will get preppers killed (in fact, here are 12 of them), and mostly it boils down to one crucial fact: it’s all a fantasy. They’ve never done ANY of the things that they think they will do for survival, or if they have done them, it was decades ago, when they were younger, fitter, and more resilient. I can tell you right now, if we had to live off of the contents of this year’s drought-stricken, deer-and-gopher-raided garden, we’d last about a week, enjoying salsa by the jarful, but little else.

  3. You freeze to death. Depending on where you live, you may freeze to death when the power goes out.  When temperatures plummet, people will become desperate to get warm, and this will lead to other modes of death such as carbon monoxide poison from improperly vented heat sources and house fires when people use fireplaces or wood stoves that have not been maintained for years. Learn about staying warm during a winter power outage HERE and begin to develop a plan that will keep your family cozy during a long-term scenario.

  4. You starve to death. Most people only have enough food to see them through until the next grocery trip.  Most people go to the grocery store more than once per week. In urban centers, it’s customary to buy your food fresh from the market each day.  If disaster strikes and you only have a few days’ worth of food, you are going to be one of those people standing in line for hours, begging FEMA for a bottle of water and an MRE to split amongst your family.  Even worse, in an extremely widespread disaster, FEMA won’t be coming at all, and you’ll be on your own, left with only what you have in your home…before it spoils and if you can figure out a way to cook it with no power.  Food poisoning, starvation, and malnutrition will be common causes of death. Learn about building a pantry on a budget HERE. To start yourself out with a speedy supply, go HERE for a variety of high quality, non-GMO kits.

  5. You have an accident involving major trauma. This is something that is difficult to prevent – that’s why they call it an accident. To up your chances of survival, always where the proper protective gear, such as safety goggles and gloves. Secondly, spend some time learning to deal with medical situations. Many communities offer free First Aid courses to get you started. Stock up on books that provide information for times when medical care is not available (this one is the very best in my opinion), and have advanced supplies on hand to deal with injuries.

  6. You get murdered when raiders or looters come to steal your stuff.  Remember the 315 million unprepared Americans? They’re going to be hungry. And the hungrier and more desperate people become, the more dangerous the world is going to be. It’s imperative that you be prepared to defend your home and family from them. If you’re one of those people who says, “I don’t want to live in a world where I have to shoot someone because they’re hungry” you just might get your wish. Because they won’t have a problem shooting you. This is one of the major reasons that preppers must be armed. The danger isn’t just from mobs of strangers.  If you tend to talk too much, your friends, extended family, and neighbors just might be the ones to kill you for your supplies.

  7. You get sick. Without our normal standards of cleanliness and the access to medical care, the likelihood of getting sick increases. Without the access to medical care, the likelihood of that sickness spiraling out of control is exponentially greater. Learn how to treat and manage sickness naturally so that you can get a handle on an illness before it kills you. This book is a fantastic reference, written with the prepper in mind.

  8. You get an infection. A silly little cut or splinter that we take for granted now could be a death sentence after the SHTF. With the possibility that your hygiene standards may drop and that you’ll be getting a lot dirtier doing physical labor, infection is fairly likely. It’s vital to immediately treat even the most trivial-seeming wound. For treating a wound, I can’t recommend this spray enough. I have used it on all sorts of animal infections that I thought would prove fatal, with 100% positive results. Because of this, we use it on our own wounds as soon as possible, too. That may not always be enough to prevent an infection however, so having the right antibiotics on hand could mean the difference between life and death. (Check out this antibiotic primer by Joe Alton of Dr. Bones fame) Many veterinary antibiotics are identical to those made for humans. You can find them on Amazon and add them to your stockpile.

  9. You die because you are fat and/or out of shape. If the Zombies approached and you found yourself outnumbered, are you fit enough to run away?  What if you had to bug out across the mountains? Would your heart hold up to the steep climb? Would your knees hold up to the descent? What if you add a 50 pound backpack? Now is the time to get yourself in shape. Most Americans lead fairly sedentary lives, sitting down to a desk all day for work. It’s not something you can fix overnight, so now is the time to increase your fitness. If you won’t do it for yourself, do it for the family members who will have to wait for you while you huff and puff. They’ll be killed when you slow them down. The road to fitness can start easily. If you can walk, you can improve your fitness level dramatically. This article discusses how to start out slowly and then build up your endurance and this PDF book will help you to reach a healthy body weight.

  10. You die when you daily medication runs out. This one is tougher to prevent. You can extend life expectancy by stockpiling medication but if the crisis outlasts your supply, there is a limit to what you can do. Who can forget the heartbreaking story of the diabetic girl in the book One Second After?  Don’t underestimate the difficulty for some of going without psychiatric drugs. Depending on the drug, withdrawal can be horrific, particularly if they have not been able to slowly wean themselves off. Some conditions,when untreated, can cause the sufferer to lose touch with reality and suffer a psychotic break, making them dangerous to themselves and others. Depending on the medication you require, there are sometimes natural alternatives and dietary tweaks that can help. Some existing conditions can be managed better now through lifestyle changes, which will increase your chances for survival later. For example, if you suffer from Type 2 Diabetes and are significantly overweight, improving your diet and losing weight now can reduce your dependence on daily medication in many cases. Keep in mind that some medications are okay after the expiration dates, while others can be deadly. (Learn more about pharmaceutical expiration dates HERE.) Learn everything you can about your medical condition and figure out a plan ahead of time.

  Good news: nearly all of these deaths will be preventable

  Now that you know how you’ll die, you can take the necessary steps to prevent it. Almost every cause of death mentioned here is entirely preventable.

  What will save you when an epic disaster strikes is what you do now to prepare for it. Make education and good health your mission now and you’ll not only survive the SHTF, you’ll thrive against the odds.

  

• China's "Horizontal Skyscraper" Nears Completion (Video)

  A megastructure featuring the world’s tallest sky bridge has been erected in the southwestern Chinese city of Chongqing.

  

  Designed by the world’s most renowned and prolific architects, Moshe Safdie, Raffles City Chongqing complex measures 1.12-million-square-meters and consists of eight towers and a large connecting sky bridge, which is called a “horizontal skyscraper.”

  

  The 250-meter-long sky bridge – which is basically a horizontal “skyscraper” resting on the to of several traditional skyscrapers – dubbed Crystal, if made vertical, would be the height of the Eiffel Tower. The sky bridge is composed of 3,000 glass panels and 5,000 aluminum panels.

  

  When open, it will have an observatory wing, sky gardens, an infinity pool, and shopping district. At night, the sky bridge transforms into a large light beam, illuminating the sky into a heavenly light show.

  

  The Raffles City Chongqing complex will feature a 230,000-square-meter shopping mall, 1,400 residential apartments, an upscale hotel, and 160,000 square meters of office space.

  

  The eighth and final skyscraper of the $3.8 billion project was completed earlier this month. This novel piece of engineering resides at the heart of Chongqing, facing the intersection of the Yangtze and Jialing rivers.

  

  Developer CapitaLand, one of China’s biggest real estate development firms, announced the ribbon-cutting ceremony is expected to take place in the second half of 2019.

  

  According to Lucas Loh, deputy CEO and CIO of CapitaLand China, exotic perennial plants are being imported from around the country to “enliven the sky bridge,” which will feature one of the tallest observation decks in Western China.

  “After six years of construction using state of the art engineering technologies, we are proud to present in Raffles City Chongqing an iconic architectural form resembling a powerful sail surging forward on the historic Chaotianmen site,” Loh said in a statement.

  Check out the video below by CapitaLand China that shows the evolution of the build.

  

• 9 Artificial Intelligence Trends You Should Keep An Eye On In 2019

  Authored by Irfan Ahmed Khan via Hackernoon.com,

  Artificial Intelligence has become a hot topic in tech circles. It has not only changed our lives, but it has also disrupted every industry you can think of. Despite all this, people have different perception about it. Some might consider it as a bad thing because they are told that it will take your job away from you in near future. On the other hand, AI advocates continue to think of AI as an enabler which will reduce your burden and make your life easy by automating things.

  

  Whether you like AI or not, if you are interested in what AI has in store for the future, then you are at the right place. In this article, we will look at some of the biggest AI trends that will dominate in 2019.

  1) AI Enabled Chips Will Go Mainstream

  Unlike other technologies and software tools, AI depend heavily on specialized processors. To meet the complex demands of AI, chip manufacturers will create specialized chips capable of running AI enabled applications.

  

  Even tech giants such as Google, Facebook and Amazon will spend more money on these specialized chips. These chips would be used for specialized purposes involving AI such as natural language processing, computer vision and speech recognition.

  2) AI and IoT Meet At The Edge

  2019 will be the year when we will see convergence of different technologies with AI. IoT will join hands with AI on edge computing layer. Industrial IoT will harness the power of AI for root cause analysis, performing predictive maintenance of machinery and detect issues automatically.

  

  We will see the rise of Distributed AI in 2019. Intelligence would be decentralized and will be located closer to the assets and devices that are carrying out routine checks. Highly sophisticated machine learning models that is powered by neural networks will be optimized to run on edge.

  3) Say “Hello” To AutoML

  One of the biggest trend that will dominate the AI industry in 2019 would be automated machine learning (AutoML). With automated learning capabilities, developers will be able to tinker with machine learning models and create new machine learning models that are ready to handle future AI challenges.

  

  AutoML will find the middle ground between cognitive APIs and custom machine learning platforms. The biggest advantage of automated machine learning would be that it offers developers the customization options they demand without forcing them to go through the complicated workflow. When you combine data with portability, AutoML can give you the flexibility you wont find with other AI technologies.

  4) Welcome to AIOps

  When AI is applied to how we develop applications, it will transform the way we used to manage the infrastructure. DevOps will be replaced by AIOps and it will enable your IT department staff to conduct precise root cause analysis.

  

  Additionally, it will make it easy for you to find useful insights and patterns from huge data set in no time. Large scale enterprises and cloud vendors will benefit from the convergence of DevOps with AI.

  5) Neural Network Integration

  One of the biggest challenges that AI developers will face when developing neural network models will be to select the best framework. With dozens of AI tools available in the market, choosing the best AI tool might not be as easy as it used to be.

  

  The lack of integration and compatibility among different neural network toolkits is hampering AI adoption. Tech giants such as Microsoft and Facebook are already working on developing an Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX). This will let developers reuse neural network models across multiple frameworks.

  6) Specialized AI Systems Becomes a Reality

  The demand for specialized systems will grow exponentially in 2019. Organization have limited data at their disposal but what they want is specialized data.

  

  This will force businesses to acquire tools that can help them generate high quality AI data internally. The focus will shift from quantity of data to quality of data in 2019. This will lay the foundation for AI that could work in real world situations. Companies will look towards specialized AI solution providers who have access to key data sources and could help them make sense out of their unstructured data.

  7) AI Skills Will Decide Your Fate

  Even though, Artificial Intelligence have transformed every industry you can think of but there is still shortage of talent who have AI skills in abundance. Pat Calhoun, CEO of Espressive said, “Most organizations want to embrace AI as part of their digital transformation but do not have the developers, AI experts, and linguists to develop their own or to even train the engines of pre-built solutions to deliver on the promise.”

  

  Rahul Kashyap, CEO of Awake Security added, “With so many ‘AI-powered’ solutions available to address a myriad of business concerns, it’s time enterprises get smarter about what’s happening within the ‘black box’ of their AI solutions.” He continues, “The way in which Artificial Intelligence algorithms are trained, structured, or informed can lead to significant differences in output. The right equation for one company won’t be the right equation for another.”

  8) AI Will Get into Wrong Hands

  Just like a coin which has two sides, AI also has a positive side and a negative side to it. IT security professionals will use AI to detect malicious activities quickly. You can be able to reduce false positives by 90% with the help of AI driven response and machine learning algorithms.

  

  AI will land into wrong hands and cyber criminals with malicious designs will abuse it to fulfill their motives. With automation, armies of cyber attackers can launch lethal attacks with greater success. This will force enterprises to fight fire with fire and invest in AI powered security solutions capable of protecting them from such AI driven attacks.

  9) AI Powered Digital Transformation

  In 2019, AI will be everywhere. From web applications to health care systems, airline to hotel booking systems and beyond, we will see shades of AI everywhere and it will be at the forefront of digital transformation.

  

  Dr. Tung Bui, Chairman of IT department and professor at University of Hawaii said, “Unlike most of the predictions and discussions about how autonomous vehicles and robots will eventually affect the job market — this is true but will take time due to institutional, political, and social reasons — I contend that the biggest trend in AI will be an acceleration in the digital transformation, making existing business systems smarter.”

  

• Construction Begins On 30-Foot-High San Diego Border Wall

  Construction crews broke ground on a 14-mile stretch of border barrier replacement in San Diego, according to Fox 5 news. 

  

  

  The existing steel-mesh fence – often breached with commonly sold battery-operated saws – is being replaced with 30-foot-high steel bollards according to an announcement by US Customs and Border Protection. 

  

  A $101 million contract was awarded to SLSCO Ltc. of Galveston, Texas to perform the work, with options for an additional $30 million in funding. 

  The bollards replace a second layer of barrier that worked like a fortress when it was built about a decade ago but is now often breached with powerful battery-operated saws sold in home improvement stores.

  Work on replacing a first layer of San Diego barrier is nearly complete, also 14 miles long and made of steel bollards up to 30-feet  high. The old fence, built in the early 1990s, was made of corrugated steel matting used by the military as temporary runways. –Fox 5

  The Trump administration has been unsuccessfully sued by California as well as major environmental groups over various wall projects in the state, claiming that the administration overreached its authority when it waived environmental reviews in order to expedite construction. 

  The Department of Homeland Security cited a 1996 law giving the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive legal requirements for the installation of “additional fencing, walls, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors on the southwest border.”

  The San Diego groundbreaking comes days after Trump declared a national emergency to build his proposed border wall with Mexico – which his administration is now being sued over by 16 states spearheaded by California. 

  Thus far the Trump administration has awarded $1 billion in contracts to cover 97 miles of border, most of which will replace existing barriers. Work is expected to begin later this month on a 14-mile stretch in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley. 

  

• The Debt Accrued Through Dollar Hegemony Is Unpayable (Except In Hyperinflated Dollars)

  Authored by Michael Doliner via Counterpunch.org,

  The United States Entity lost the war in Iraq. That fact determines the Entity’s position in the Middle East today.

  

  After having destroyed Saddam’s army and dispossessing the Sunnis in favor of the Shi’ites, after Abu Ghraib and it’s indelible pictures, after the total destruction of Fallujah, in short after a victory achieved with the utmost brutality, contempt and humiliation of Iraq and Iraqis, the Entity was in charge. Then the “insurgents” appeared. They put improvised explosive devices along the roads so, with a phone call, they could destroy patrols of the Entity. They made car bombs so that every vehicle approaching a check-point might spell doom. They donned suicide vests to blow themselves and any nearby Entity soldiers up. Entity soldiers couldn’t go into the streets. Every move they made could be their last. The enemy was everywhere and nowhere. These people would rather die then be ruled by these idiotic mechanized barbarians. Everything seemed peaceful, but at any moment, out of nowhere, they could be blown to pieces.

  That kind of thing wears on you. Their patrols, pointless bouts of Russian roulette, ended up as parked “search and avoid” missions. Life went on without the clanking monsters. Entity bases were like Kaposi sarcoma in AIDS patients. The Entity’s attempts at reconstruction were comically inept – roads to nowhere and chicken processing plants for chickens no one wanted. In short the Entity’s occupation of Iraq after the victory, other than being a disaster of comical incompetence, was non-existent. Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shi’ite cleric, had much more power than the Entity. Eventually Iraq rejected the Entity’s status of forces agreement (SOFA). In other words the Iraqi puppets the Entity had installed unceremoniously kicked the Entity out of the country.

  Until that time the Entity had been running a protection racket in the Middle East. But after the loss of Iraq these threats seemed a lot less plausible. The game was: oil had to be sold in dollars. Know as Dollar Hegemony, this racket allowed the Entity to print money. Oil backed the dollar just as gold once had. Governments had to maintain large supplies of dollars to protect against “emergencies,” that is, dollar shortages during speculative attacks on their currencies. “To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world’s central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation.” The Entity enforced dollar hegemony with military threats. One of the most important reasons for the Entity’s attack on Iraq was Saddam’s abandoning of dollar hegemony. He had begun to sell oil in euros. The Entity had to stop that. It invaded, and as soon as it was victorious, reversed that policy. Dollar hegemony restored. But the loss in Iraq revealed The Entity’s protection racket as a bluff. It’s threats were suddenly unconvincing.

  Pressed by Entity sanctions, Iran began to sell oil for other currencies after 2007. The Entity was not going to invade Iran! A look at the map reveals just what a catastrophe that would be. As soon as hostilities started, even before a shot was fired, no one would insure tankers going through the Straits of Hormuz, and the tanker owners would not send them through without insurance. Twenty percent of the world’s supply of oil would disappear with no more military action than the commencement of hostilities. The world economy would tank, and this time fall into chaos. There was no way the Entity could even think about occupying Iran after the debacle in Iraq. And there was no way to protect The Entity fleet in Bahrain. They would be sitting ducks anywhere in the Persian Gulf. If they were destroyed the Entity would lose unless it launched nuclear weapons. World War III would be on. Only madmen would even consider doing this.

  

  The Entity had abused dollar hegemony over the years by simply printing dollars. The Entity ran huge trade deficits every year. China, Japan and all other countries had had to keep reserves of dollars if they were to purchase oil and protect their currencies. These were like never- having-to-be-repaid loans to the Entity. If other currencies could be used they would dump these reserves because the only thing preventing inflation of these dollars had been dollar hegemony, backing the dollar with oil. Iran doing business in non-dollar currencies is like a leak in a dike.

  Russia, China, India and Japan are now unloading dollars carefully, so as not to cause a panic. But they are steadily unloading them. They see dollar hegemony disappearing. Naturally, Saudi Arabia sees what is happening, and is not that enamored of the dollar either. As long as they thought the Entity protected them from Iran and, of course, from the Entity itself, they went along with it. Now the Entity is impotent to enforce dollar hegemony. The dollars the Saudis take for their oil today will be worth a whole lot less tomorrow if dollar hegemony ends. They are wavering, especially after Trump scolded them for murdering Kashoggi. Naughty, naughty MBS. They know the Entity cannot protect them from Iran, and they are panicking.

  The Entity’s hive mind, for it’s part, refuses to accept the Iraq failure as having revealed its weakness. It still wants to maintain dollar hegemony and its protection racket. The end of dollar hegemony is an existential threat to The Entity. Originally The Entity exchanged securities for these dollars, one piece of paper for another, or more likely bits of code, with the Federal Reserve. Then it spent them, mostly on the military. The Federal Reserve unloaded these dollar-denominated securities to whoever had faith in the dollars they could exchange them for. Nice work if you can get it, but securities are debt. The Entity is so far in debt that it pays almost a trillion dollars in debt service annually. To do so it needs more dollars and to sell more securities. Faith in this Ponzi scheme might waver. If everyone unloads dollar securities the entity will have to print more dollars, and sell more securities to buy them. Otherwise their price will crash. But what real something or other will these dollars buy given how many will be floating around? For there will be no other buyers unless the dollars can buy something real. The Securities will then be worthless. If Entity securities become worthless so will the dollar. Bye-bye Entity.

  The hive-mind’s strategy is to simply deny what has happened, the ostrich maneuver. The Entity didn’t lose in Iraq, it hasn’t as a consequence lost all credibility in the Middle East, dollar hegemony is salvageable, and the Entity might still attack Iran after all. The continuation of dollar hegemony requires a world in which Humpty-Dumpty gets back together.

  If only Iran could be put back in the box of dollar hegemony all would go back to what it was. In 2012 the Entity blocked Iran from the SWIFT messaging system for making international payments as punishment for straying from dollar hegemony, the first time that system had ever been used politically. It froze Iranian funds and the trust required for international banking was destroyed. However, Iran continued on its wayward path. Now the Entity withdraws from the JAPOCA, which was very beneficial to all other signers. Obedience to the Entity’s sanctions against Iran is bringing the interests of much of Europe into conflict with those of the Entity.

  Without dollar hegemony the dollar will hyper-inflate and destroy the Entity. To restore dollar hegemony it was thought essential that Iran return to the dollar hegemony fold. Why then did Obama sign the treaty with Iran, the JAPOCA? Obama signed the Iran Treaty because of Hassan Rouhani and his party. Rouhani, as President of Iran, was a “moderate” and he had succeeded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the notorious hardliner who refused to even negotiate with the Entity. Ahmadinejad had called directly for the end of dollar hegemony. Rouhani won by arguing that he could relieve Entity sanctions on Iran through negotiations. Obama must have hoped that Rouhani could restore Iran to the dollar-hegemony fold. Perhaps a little coup d’état. He was, Obama must have hoped, our man in Tehran. The JAPOCA, which would relieve Iran of some sanctions, would prove to Iran that going along with Entity wishes, in particular dollar hegemony, was good for them. Rouhani was the guy who promised good things for Iran from a rapprochement with the Entity. Without the successful negotiation of the JAPOCA, Rouhani would fail.

  The actual contents of the Iran deal, with its various detailed restrictions on Iranian nuclear research and enrichment of Uranium, was a drawn-out shadow play. In the end, Obama demanded only what Rouhani could give. Neocons in the shadows complained that he gave too much, as has Trump. Ahmadinejad, on the Iranian side, said it wouldn’t work, and complained that Iran got too little. In any case it was all a shadow play. Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons. American Intelligence Agencies all agreed that it had been abandoned in 2003. Actually, it had never existed. Nevertheless, the two sides hammered out various conditions, dragged out the negotiations interminably, and carefully crafted the agreement to be acceptable to both sides. All of this was to present an appearance that would strengthen Rouhani and protect Obama’s rear. Only the lifting of some Entity sanctions was real. That was Rouhani’s win, and in return Rouhani would, Obama hoped, return Iran to the fold or at least “pave the way.”

  But Rouhani would not or could not do any such thing. Although he did want to open Iran to the West, he would not restore dollar hegemony. When Rouhani did not do what the Entity hoped, it abandoned him and with him the JAPOCA, which Obama signed only to prop him up. That was the end of any hope for a Ukraine style regime change in Iran. At that point the Entity had to reestablish itself as the bully of the Middle East, which meant it had to threaten to attack Iran. Otherwise even Saudi Arabia, mortally afraid of Iran, wavering on dollar hegemony, and no longer believing in Entity protection, might itself abandon dollar hegemony. That would be curtains.

  Earlier this year, the Chinese Ambassador Li Huaxin was pictured with Saudi officials as he praised Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which calls for stronger economic cooperation between the two nations. This pact pressures Saudi Arabia to adopt the “petro-yuan,” which would effectively axe the petrodollar. Although Saudi Arabia relies heavily on U.S. military power, Saudi Arabia warming ties with China closeness are alarming. China’s growing economy and standing in the world could undermine the attitude towards the United States. Above anything else, a shift in alliances could threaten America’s standing in the Middle East and world.

  The Entity, unable to face the truth, pretended its position in the Middle East had not changed. It had to punish misbehavior. Withdrawal from the JAPOCA was the first step, even though everyone admitted that Iran had not breached the agreement. Withdrawal from a signed agreement made the Entity no longer “agreement capable”, as Putin commented, for no one could trust its word. Trump’s blathering about a new agreement was nonsense. Diplomacy, for the Entity, is henceforth “off the table.” Europe’s slavish obedience to the Entity exposed its governments as puppets of the Entity to the benefit of the rising pan-European nationalist sentiment hostile to Entity hegemony. The Entity had to reignite its threats against Iran. But this just revived Obama’s dilemma, for the Entity cannot attack Iran without igniting WWIII.

  With the credibility the Entity had had while it pretended to be the United States gone, and attacking Iran impossible for any sane entity, Trump is left with only one option if he is to maintain dollar hegemony: to go insane. The only alternative to going insane is to not attack Iran, allow dollar hegemony to dissipate (as is inevitable anyway), and so end The Entity– for the debt accrued through dollar hegemony is unpayable, except in hyperinflated dollars.

  

• Soaring Canadian Insolvencies Cripple Local Banks

  Banks in Canada are starting to feel the pain of deteriorating credit quality, just weeks after we reported that insolvency filings had skyrocketed in almost all Canadian provinces. 

  Toronto-Dominion Bank and Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada both just posted ugly first quarter results that included higher provisions for loan losses as a key contributor to missing analyst expectations. TD Bank saw its provision for loan losses move to C$850 million, which was up 23% from the year prior. It also marked the highest level for such provisions in at least two years, mainly split between the bank’s U.S. and Canadian retail divisions (36% each), followed by the bank’s corporate division. 

  Toronto-Dominion’s Chief Financial Officer Riaz Ahmed told Bloomberg that bankruptcies were part of the issue in Canada: 

  “The fourth quarter and the first quarter of the year always tend to have elevated provisions because of the holiday spending season, so we tend to see that seasonality in cards and auto. In Canada, bankruptcies are up a little bit and we do see a little bit of rise in delinquency in our retail cards in the U.S. None of them would rise to the level of being of particular concern for us.”

  

  In early January, we highlighted that bankruptcies in Canada were soaring. Bloomberg reported then that the number of consumers seeking debt relief was up 5.1% to 11,320 last November, according to the Ottawa-based Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Combining October and November’s numbers, there were 22,961 consumer insolvency filings, the most since 2011.

  These new numbers come on the heels of the bank of Canada raising its key lending rate five times since the middle of 2017. Like in the US, the impact of rising rates on the economy is being “monitored closely”, which is a nice way to say “obsessed over by central banks in order to continue to force all asset classes to rise in price”.

  

  David Lewis, a board member at the Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals, told Bloomberg: 

  “We’re seeing a bump, and in some provinces that bump is significant.” 

  Insolvency filings were up in every province except PEI, which was unchanged. Alberta saw insolvencies rise 16%. Filings in Ontario were estimated to have risen 1% in 2018 after declining for eight straight years. Insolvency firm Hoyes, Michalos & Associates Inc. estimates that Ontario will see a minimum of a 2% to 5% jump in insolvency filings in 2019. If rates continue to rise, they predict as much as an 8% jump.

  

• How A "Giant Ponzi Scheme" Destroyed This Nation's Economy

  Authored by Antony Sguazzin via Bloomberg.com,

  Almost two decades of profligate monetary policy has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and fueled rampant inflation, decimating the savings of its people twice.

  

  Hyperinflation of as much as 500 billion percent in 2008 made savings worthless and led to the abolition of the local currency in favor of the dollar the following year. In 2016, former President Robert Mugabe’s cash-strapped government introduced securities known as bond notes that it insisted traded at par with the dollar. In 2018, it separated cash from electronic deposits in banks without reserves to back them, causing the black-market rate to plunge.

  Last week, it threw in the towel and allowed bond notes to trade at a market-determined level, once again slashing the value of savings. The decision came after the southern African nation faced shortages of bread and fuel, was hit by strikes and protests, and President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s drive to attract new investment floundered.

  “At the root of this is the currency crisis,” said Derek Matyszak, a Zimbabwe-based research consultant for South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies.

  “This is analogous to them creating a giant Ponzi scheme that originated under Mugabe. What we are seeing now is that Ponzi scheme collapsing.”

  ‘1-to-1 Fiction’

  The latest step, while welcomed by what’s left of the country’s business sector, is unlikely to solve Zimbabwe’s problems because all it does is reflect exchange rates on the black market, according to Steve H. Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

  “The 1-to-1 is a fiction,” Hanke said.

  “They are saying officially we are going to condone what has been happening anyway. It officially says, ‘we robbed you.’”

  

  The interbank rate for the new currency is about 2.5 to the dollar, data published on the central bank’s website shows. That figure is meaningless because the authorities are failing to divulge the volume of trade, according to marketwatch.co.zw, a website run by financial analysts. It estimates the black-market rate for the bond notes is 3.31 per dollar.

  We see this interbank rate as completely meaningless until the Government allows for transparency on volumes etc.. As for the general public the Parallel market is still flourishing #MarketWatchZW https://t.co/ABxZxvyEgy

  — Market Watch Zimbabwe (@MarketWatchZW) February 26, 2019

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

  The origins of Zimbabwe’s currency crisis stretch back to a violent land-reform program initiated by Mugabe in 2000, which slashed export income and devastated government finances.

  In response, then-Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Gideon Gono, known as ‘God’s banker’ because of his close ties to Mugabe, increased printing of Zimbabwe dollars exponentially to pay government workers, stoking inflation and eventually making the currency valueless.

  Printing Money

  “It was a Ponzi scheme in the past,” said Ashok Chakravarti, an economist and lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe.

  “Especially in the Gono era, where that chap just kept printing money.” Gono didn’t answer a call to a mobile phone number he has used in the past.

  The currency’s collapse led to the predicament Zimbabwe now finds itself in — chronic cash shortages and rampant inflation.

  By late 2008, some Zimbabweans had reverted to barter trade as illicit dealings in foreign currencies flourished. In February 2009, the answer the government came up with was to switch to the use of foreign currencies, mainly the U.S. dollar.

  “Dollarization puts a hard budget constraint on the system,” said Hanke.

  “You can’t go to the central bank or any other government institution to get credit for the government.”

  Repaying Debt

  The pressure on government finances led to history repeating itself, with a loophole being found: the introduction of bond notes and locally denominated electronic money. That contributed to money in circulation growing to more than $10 billion, according to George Guvamatanga, the permanent secretary in the Finance Ministry. The figure was $6.2 billion in 2013, said Tendai Biti, a senior opposition leader and former finance minister.

  “If you continue to print money you are destroying what you are creating,” Guvamatanga said. Under a stabilization program introduced by Finance Minister Mthuli Ncube in October, the government is now repaying domestic debt, has stopped issuing Treasury bills and has no overdraft with the central bank.

  That’s helped the economy move toward “walking on two legs, there is an effort to go in a different direction. It’s an inevitable adjustment.”” Chakravarti said.

  “It’s very unfortunate that this is the second time in 10 years people have lost the value of their savings. In 2009 we all went down to zero including me.”

  For some observers the latest development isn’t a sudden discovery of fiscal discipline. It’s another admission of failure and the victims are Zimbabwe’s people.

  Zero Savings

  To Biti, who says the new currency will fail because it isn’t backed by reserves, it shows the country has come full circle.

  “They have through the back door reintroduced the Zimbabwe dollar,” he said.

  “It’s theft because people had regrouped and rebuilt their lives from zero based on the U.S. dollar.”

  The country’s best hope is to join southern Africa’s Common Monetary Area, which is dominated by South Africa and its rand, Biti said. That would give certainty to business and impose fiscal discipline on the government, as opposed to the current arrangements that are unsustainable, he said.

  “It’s a Ponzi economy,” he said.

  

• In Stunning Interview, Bill Gross Reveals Asperger's Diagnosis, Endorses MMT And Praises Ocasio-Cortez

  It has been nearly a month since Bill Gross announced his plans to retire from the asset-management industry (an announcement that, sadly, wasn’t exactly surprising following a flood of redemptions from his Janus Unconstrained Bond Fund over the prior year). But after what appeared to be an exit interview of sorts where Gross discussed the legacy of QE, whether the Fed “got in his way”, and the limitations of the “unconstrained” bond fund model, the legendary bond investor – who built Pimco – the Newport Beach asset manager he founded back in the 1970s – into one of the largest money managers in the world (while racking up a legendary string of returns at its flagship Pimco Total Return fund, which swelled to more than $300 billion AUM under his management) – Gross sat down for a 90-minute conversation with Bloomberg, ostensibly to commemorate his final day in the office before beginning his “next chapter”.

  Describing that conversation as illuminating would be an understatement. During a wide-ranging discussion, Gross offered a wildly different outlook on monetary policy, the deficit and the reasons behind his successes – and failures – as an investor and fund manger (remember, Gross was infamously ousted from Pimco back in 2014 after clashing with other managers, including his former right-hand man Mohamed El-Erian). And – oh yeah- he revealed that he had been diagnosed with Aspergers, a form of autism, as an adult, a condition that, Gross said, may have exacerbated many of his interpersonal conflicts (not only at Pimco, but also in his marriage, which recently ended in a notoriously acrimonious tabloid divorce).

  

  In another highlight from the interview, Gross, a longtime QE critic, sounded – as BBG described it – like a “near-convert to Modern Monetary Theory”. Speaking for the first time on record about his increasingly liberal politics, the one-time deficit hawk said he wouldn’t see a problem with the federal government pushing the deficit out to $2 trillion, if the Fed would commit to a Japanese-style open-ended program of deficit monetization. He also expressed admiration for “Democratic Socialist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and even endorsed her plans for a 70% marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million (though Gross said, if he had his druthers, the top rate wouldn’t be quite so high). In a sound bite that was more reminiscent of Bernie Sanders than Benjamin Graham, and directly contradicted Donald Trump’s vow that the US would never become a socialist country, Gross said he wouldn’t be surprised if a socialist was elected to the highest office in the land in the not-too-distant future.

  When it comes to how his diagnosis impacted his investing decisions, Gross credited it for helping him stay focused on investing, even when personal issues got in the way.

  Here’s a breakdown of the interview’s most stunning claims, courtesy of BBG:

  Unlimited deficits

  As a bond-market investor, Gross had to have views on monetary and fiscal policy, and he shared them publicly in the investment outlooks he posted regularly on Pimco’s website and, later, on Janus’s. One consistent thread was a critique of budget deficits, zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing. He wrongly predicted they’d spark runaway inflation and hurt returns on stocks and bonds.

  Now, Gross appears to be revisiting those views. Although he still believes low-rate policies destroy the risk-reward relationship in a market economy, he recognizes that the government and the Federal Reserve can work together to combat deflationary forces like America’s aging population and Amazon.com.

  “Why can’t the government have a $2 trillion deficit if the Fed is simply going to buy it, like they do in Japan?” Gross said. “Well, Jim Grant would say, ‘Mmm, it would be inflationary.’ But it hasn’t been. So, yeah, I would say Trump or the next president, whoever he or she is, could go to $2 trillion, as long as the Fed was willing to accommodate.”

  Asperger’s

  That’s the Bill Gross his former colleagues at Pimco will recognize. For years, they found him aloof, volatile and seemingly lacking in empathy. Symptoms of the disorder range widely, according to the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and can include degrees of difficulty with social interactions and communication, as well as deeply focused thinking and a preference for consistency and order.

  Gross kept his diagnosis a secret, sharing it with close friends, and dropping only one hint publicly. In a February 2016 blog post on investing, Gross speculated as to why he wasn’t included as a character in Lewis’s best-seller: “Perhaps I wasn’t addled enough like co-star hedge fund manager Michael Burry, who I share affection for and an affliction (and it’s not a glass eye).”

  While Gross says he’s “sort of proud” of his condition because “it explains a lot about me,” he no longer believes it’s as much of an advantage professionally.

  “The markets are substantially different today than they were when I started, more day-to-day, more robotic, more machine-dominated,” he said. “So it’s not a negative, but it’s probably not as much of a positive.”

  […]

  That’s a lot for anyone to take, let alone a portfolio manager responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in client money. Yet Gross says he was able to maintain focus and doesn’t blame his personal ordeals for poor investment decisions.

  “I’m an Asperger, and Aspergers can compartmentalize,” he said, revealing his diagnosis publicly for the first time. “They can operate in different universes without the other universes affecting them as much. Yeah, I had a nasty divorce, and I still had, you know, feelings about Pimco. But I think I did pretty well in compartmentalizing them. Not that I didn’t wake up in the middle of the night and start damning one side or the other. But when I came to work it was all business.”

  […]

  The reason he failed to deliver better returns at Janus is much simpler: “I made some bad trades.”

  Gross learned he has Asperger’s only after reading Michael Lewis’s “The Big Short.” In one passage, Lewis recounts the unusual characteristics of one of the book’s heroes, Michael Burry, a doctor-turned-investor who also was diagnosed with the condition as an adult. Gross recognized that he shared many of the same qualities and had similarly obsessive habits. He went to a psychiatrist, who confirmed the condition.

  “It’s allowed me to stay at 30,000 feet as opposed to being on the ground,” Gross said, discussing why he thinks Asperger’s probably made him a better investor, if also infamously short-tempered. “That’s not necessarily good in terms of one-to-one. People think you’re angry or an a-hole or whatever. But it helps you to focus on the longer-term things without getting mixed up in the details.”

  MMT

  Gross, long one of the most vocal critics of post-crisis stimulus, now sounds like a near-convert to modern monetary theory. He says deflation poses a huge challenge for central banks, admires what Japan has done to revive its moribund economy and thinks the U.S. government should consider doubling the size of its deficit.

  And the billionaire and registered Republican agrees with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that the rich should pay more in taxes – if not quite the 70 percent she’s proposing at the margin. It’s a “necessary evil” to correct the failings of American capitalism, Gross says, adding that if inequality persists there’ll be a “revolution at the ballot box.”

  A Socialist in the White House?

  Gross believes tax rates on high earners need to be raised to restore balance in American capitalism and fund benefits for the middle class, such as access to affordable health care. That’s why he’s sympathetic to Ocasio-Cortez, the congressional freshman who has energized the left wing of the Democratic Party, even if he doesn’t agree with all her ideas.

  “Maybe the next time, the next election, there will be a ‘socialist’ in the White House” he said. “The wealthy have been advantaged for a long time and certainly the past few years with the tax cuts. The middle class hasn’t necessarily suffered, but the gap has increased.”

  Taxes

  The question is how heavy the tax burden should be. Other billionaires, such as Oaktree Capital Group LLC’s Howard Marks, have warned against the consequences of “confiscatory taxes.” Gross says a top marginal rate of 70 percent – the number floated by Ocasio-Cortez – would be too high.

  “I just think Trump took it too far,” he said.

  Will there be another bond king?

  Gross said he wants to be remembered for investing clients’ savings profitably and helping to build a “wealth-creating machine” at Pimco. That leaves only one question: Will there be another bond market king?

  Probably not, according to Gross. One reason is the proliferation of passive investment vehicles. Anyone who claims to be a king of index funds is “just a puppet because the market is making the decisions.” Gross volunteered that he wouldn’t pick Jeffrey Gundlach, the chief executive officer and co-founder of DoubleLine Capital who’s frequently cited as the new king. If anyone, he said it might be Scott Minerd, the chief investment officer at Guggenheim Partners, in part because of his “great long-term perspective.”

  “In the right environment, 20 years ago, he could have been a bond king,” Gross said. “But I don’t think he’s got the market or maybe the willingness to be a king. Who would? Well, I guess I did. In retrospect it carries a certain burden. The crown is heavy.”

  And with that, Gross is off to spend his days playing golf and waking up at the (for Gross) uncharacteristically late hour of 6:30 am PT. However, he won’t ever entirely disconnect from markets: He’s planning to manage his $1.4 billion fortune (and the $500 million in his charitable foundation) in his one-man family office. But at the still-spry age of 74, we wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Gross might one day grow bored and decide to give managing outside money another shot.

  

• An Arms Race Begins: Deadly AI Tanks – The U.S. Military's Next Project

  Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

  The United States military is going to attempt to build deadly artificial intelligence-driven tanks.  Dubbed Project ATLAS, this type of tank would lead to the first autonomous ground combat vehicles.

  

  According to Quartz, the Advanced Targeting and Lethality Automated System (ATLAS) would theoretically give a tank the ability to do everything necessary to take down a target except pull the trigger. A human operator will still need to actually fire the weapon that will kill another human being. The United States Army has already called on experts in the field to help it develop this deadly technology. Eventually, it will allow a ground combat vehicle such a tank to automatically detect, target, and engage enemy combatants – without the risk of the operator losing their life.

  The U.S., with support from contractors like Boeing, has continued to develop AI-powered military technology even though some 26 countries have banned autonomous weapons development.  The U.S. Army, on the other hand, has the goal of automating the battlefield in order to make combat and war more efficient. For now, human operators are still required by law to be the ones making the final decision to fire.

    “It looks very much as if we are heading into an arms race where the current ban on full lethal autonomy will be dropped as soon as it’s politically convenient to do so,”University of California Berkeley computer scientist Stuart Russell told Quartz.

  “Anytime you can shave off even fractions of a second, that’s valuable,” Paul Scharre, program director at a national security think tank called the Center for New American Security, told Quartz according to Futurism.

   “A lot of engagement decisions in warfare are very compressed in time. If you’re in a tank and you see the enemy’s tank, they probably can also see you. And if you’re in range to hit them, they’re probably in range to hit you.”

  The United States Army has also already demoed an F-16 that flies and executes strikes all by itself. Humans have begun the fast process of removing what it means to be a human from society.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• North Korea Talks Breakdown – Trump Keeps The Empire Happy

  Authored by Tom Luongo,

  Given the trajectory of President Trump’s foreign policy since last year there was little hope of significant movement at this year’s summit with North Korea.

  Since that first, historic meeting last year in Singapore, Trump’s foreign policy team has become the exact opposite of what that meeting symbolized.

  Belligerent, threatening, cocky, obnoxious and ignorant only partially cover the depths to which Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Trump himself have taken U.S. diplomacy.

  There are many who still think that Trump is working for peace in the world. But, even if he is, the reality is that he’s not in charge of anything anymore.

  So the point is moot.

  Since Trump announced the withdrawal from Syria in December 20th, he has been pushed further and further to the sidelines of his own administration.

  Take two weeks ago in Europe for example. Two major international summits are held in Warsaw and Munich and Trump is at home tweeting about the evils of Socialism and Venezuela while the Triumverate of Evil – Bolton, Pence and Pompeo — failed to rally support for a world war against Iran.

  Vice President Mike Pence is running the operation on Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. Trump isn’t allowed anywhere near where the grown-ups are allowed to be.

  

  It makes sense Trump wanted to go to Hanoi to achieve something substantial as was Kim but that was derailed in the end when John Bolton showed up and demanded chemical weapons be added at the last minute.

  Former SK unification minister Chong Se-hyun suggests that summit was derailed by last minute attendance of Bolton, who added demands for NK to also report chemical/biological weapons, in response to which NKs increased their demand for sanctions relief https://t.co/d7IbkNtqxi

  — Kevin Gray (@DrKevinGray) February 28, 2019

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

  This was confirmed by the North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-Ho at a brief press conference. From RT:

  In exchange for partial lifting of sanctions by the US, North Korea would permanently remove plutonium and uranium processing facilities and Yongbyon, in the presence of US experts, Ri said, adding that the “US was not ready to accept our proposal.”

  The North Korean official said Washington demanded “one more” measure beyond dismantling Yongbyon, which went too far for Pyongyang.

  North Korea also offered written assurances of permanently desisting from nuclear and long-range missile testing.

  Now, Trump sells this failure as a step forward. It’s dutifully lapped up by his base, while the power elite in the West breathe a sigh of relief that peace had been averted one more time.

  This is a story that is getting harder and harder to write, frankly.

  Trump starts out ready to do this thing that will change the course of history and then John Bolton tells him to sit down.

  And he does.

  Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

  How sad is it that during the first day of the Hanoi Hilton Trump is meeting with Kim, Trump’s chief negotiator with China is throwing him under the bus in his testimony before Congress?

  And then to undercut Trump more Bolton shows up and scuttles the whole thing quicker than you can say ‘toxic mustache.’

  In the end Bolton knows that this process with Korea ends with U.S. troops leaving the peninsula along with all of our nuclear weapons. And that once it starts there is little to stop it from going all the way.

  So it can’t be allowed to start.

  But the reality is that the Koreas are the ones ultimately in control of this process. All John Bolton can do is slow it down, which he will.

  Meanwhile Trump will continue to sell us on the idea he’s still President and everyone goes on pretending nothing has changed.

  *  *  *

  Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

  

• Jared Kushner's Multibillion-Dollar Plot To Give Saudis Nukes

  Authored by Juan Cole via TruthDig.com,

  The House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Reform has issued a report on a plot to make billions of dollars by selling Saudi Arabia sensitive American nuclear technology that could allow the Kingdom to develop nuclear weapons. The scheme required breaking US law, which forbids technology transfers that might allow nuclear proliferation.

  

  The plot was pushed by a “company” formed for this express purpose called IP3 International, which doesn’t seem to have actually existed except as a sort of shell for lobbying the Trump administration. IP3 was, according to the committee, helmed by “General Keith Alexander, General Jack Keane, Mr. Bud McFarlane, and Rear Admiral Michael Hewitt, as well as the chief executives of six companies— Exelon Corporation, Toshiba America Energy Systems, Bechtel Corporation, Centrus Energy Corporation, GE Energy Infra structure, and Siemens USA—“ All “signed a letter to Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The letter presented ‘the Iron Bridge Program as a 21st Century Marshall Plan for the Middle East.’”

  Bud McFarlane? That is Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor who was up to his elbows selling arms to Khomeini in the Iran-Contra scandal, and thought up the idea of sending Ayatollah Khomeini a cake shaped like a key and a Bible (along with a few T.O.W. anti-tank emplacements)! Like Elliot Abrams, he was pardoned by George H. W. Bush, who seems to have created a factory for 21st century further scandals.

  The point man for the plot was General Mike Flynn, who called for Hillary Clinton to be locked up at the Republican National Conference in late summer of 2016 and glommed on to Trump, becoming his first National Security Adviser. Flynn had visited Saudi Arabia in connection with the IP3 plot to transfer nuclear technology to that country that could help Riyadh make a bomb if the royal family felt they needed to do so to remain safe (e.g. if Iran went in that direction or if relations with nuclear-armed Israel tanked). The cover story was that the US corporate front would just make 6 nuclear reactors for electricity generation.

  Derek Harvey, the Senior Director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council in the first half of 2017, is alleged to have adopted the IP3 plot as US policy, dubbing it the “Middle Eastern Marshall Plan.” Mr. Harvey seems confused. The Marshall Plan was an aid program where the US gave out hundreds of millions of dollars to poor societies after WW II to promote prosperity and fight Communism. It wasn’t a money-making scheme whereby we would sell nuclear weapons technology to an absolute monarchy that uses bone saws on journalists in return for vastly enriching private individuals and a handful of corporations.

  Remember, all these retired generals and CEOs and Republican bigwigs were calling for Iran to be bombed back to the stone age on the pretext that it had a civilian nuclear enrichment program that was potentially dual use and could maybe someday perhaps lead to an Iranian Bomb (the Iranians never decided to go in that direction and in 2015 mothballed 80% of their program). Apparently what the US economic elite really minded was not so much possible Iranian proliferation but that they would not get a few billion dollars as a payday for being the ones to supply the technology.

  IP3 was not in a position to do an end run around the Atomic Energy Act, the law preventing an administration from handing over top nuclear secrets to another country without congressional approval. But the National Security Council could be a vehicle for secretly making such a deal.

  The Congressional report says that the IP3 plot was closed down at one point but that NSC whistleblowers are afraid that some Trump administration personnel in the NSC and elsewhere may still be working on the illegal technology transfer.

  Note that it might actually have been possible for Trump to get the scheme through the Republican House and Senate before last November but that the current legislators are unlikely to want to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear-bomb-making technology.

  Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, appears to have picked up the scheme once Flynn was fired for having lied to the FBI over his contacts late in 2016 with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The committee report says that whistleblowers allege that in March, 2017, a meeting was held…

  “Also present was a career NSC staffer who later informed colleagues that Mr. Harvey was again trying to promote the IP 3 plan “so that Jared Kushner can present it to the President for approval.”

  For all we know, the plan to give the Saudis a nuke is still in play, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. This scheme is the ultimate in criminality, where US government resources (remember the Manhattan project?) are given away to another government by the white collar criminals now running the US government so that they can scoop up private massive fortunes rivaling those of the richest persons in the world such as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.

  One thing you may be assured of is that Iran is going through this Congressional report with a fine-tooth comb. If there is one thing that really could crash the 2015 Iranian non-proliferation nuclear deal, it is the prospect of a Saudi Bomb. That people would try to destroy that deal on the one hand and slip Riyadh world-destroying secrets for personal enrichment boggles the mind.

  

• "Complete Collapse": Iceberg Twice The Size Of NYC Set To Break Off Antarctica

  Dangerous cracks developing across Antarctica’s Brunt Ice Shelf are due to unleash a massive iceberg twice the size of New York City, according to NASA researchers who warn when it breaks, it could destabilize the entire shelf.

  

  NASA recently released images acquired by Landsat satellites of Antarctica’s Brunt Ice Shelf, where a rift is visibly slicing through the shelf. Researchers said the crack had been stable for more than three decades, but since, has been moving north at about 2.5 miles per year.

  

  “The near-term future of Brunt Ice Shelf likely depends on where the existing rifts merge relative to the McDonald Ice Rumples,” said Joe MacGregor, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “If they merge upstream (south) of the McDonald Ice Rumples, then it’s possible that the ice shelf will be destabilized.”

  The rift is moving toward another fissure, as known as Halloween crack, that is located 3 miles away. Halloween crack was first discovered in 2016, continues to move east, and when the two rifts intersect in the very near term, an iceberg is formed measuring 660 square miles.

  

  “We don’t have a clear picture of what drives the shelf’s periods of advance and retreat through calving,” said NASA/UMBC glaciologist Chris Shuman.

  “The likely future loss of the ice on the other side of the Halloween Crack suggests that more instability is possible.”

  Researchers are puzzled on what drives this process, known as calving, could mean the health of the shelf is in immediate danger.

  “At worst, this calving could destabilize the remainder of the Brunt Ice Shelf leading to its complete collapse,” Dominic Hodgson, a senior scientist at the British Antarctic Survey, told NBC News Tuesday in an email.

  “This would then likely be followed by an acceleration of ice in the upstream glaciers, increasing their contribution to sea level.”

  Calving is a natural part of the life cycle of ice shelves, but recent rifts forming in the region are unusual. The edge of the Brunt Ice Shelf has evolved since Ernest Shackleton surveyed the coast in 1915, but in the last several years, the speed of its transformation has been accelerated.

  

  The risk of the 660 square mile shelf breaking off has prompted safety concerns for researchers working in the area, particularly researchers at the British Antarctic Survey’s Halley Station, a major base for Earth, atmospheric, and space science research typically operates year-round, but has recently closed operations due to unpredictable changes in the ice.

  

  If the converging cracks destabilize the ice shelf even further, a massive iceberg twice the size of New York City could soon be soon floating in the South Atlantic Ocean.

  

• Kalashnikov Kamikaze Drone ‘KUB-BLA’ Already Battle-Tested In Syria

  Submitted by SouthFront.org

  A Russian defense contractor, Kalashnikov Concern, named after one of the most famous small-arms designers of all time, is now producing kamikaze drones designed to destroy remote ground targets.

  The “high-precision unmanned aerial system” KUB-BLA was for the first time showcased at the International Exhibition of Arms and Military Equipment 2019 in Abu Dhabi. The drone delivers an explosive charge on the coordinates of the target, which are set manually or can be acquired automatically by uploading image of the target into the guidance system.

  The KUB-BLA has a 3-kilogram payload, a flying time of 30 minutes, and a 80-130-kilometer-per-hour speed. It measures 1210mm wide by 950mm long and 165mm high. Typically, the payload is apparently a high-explosive charge. Kalashnikov Concern says that the advantages of the system are “hidden launch, high accuracy of the shot, noiselessness and ease of handling”.

  Furthermore, it seems that the KUB-BLA has already been battle-tested in Syria.

  On October 19, 2015, a swarm of five mysterious suicide drones attacked a military position of the Ahrar al-Sham Movement near the town of Maar Shamarin in the Syrian province of Idlib. A few hours after the attack, the local SMART News Agency interviewed the fighters who survived the attack. They all seemed to be shocked and terrified by the “Wunderwaffe” that killed one of their comrades and destroyed most of their equipment.

  Back then, nobody was able to identify these drones. Some sources suggested that these were the ZALA 421-16E. However, this drone has no offensive capabilities and the vestiges of the employed suicide UAVs showed little match with its design.

  In turn, the design of the KUB-BLA appeared to be similar, even in small details, to the mysterious suicide drones, which hit the Ahrar al-Sham position. Another factor is the location of the attack. Maar Shamarin is 27km north of Morek, the stronghold of Syrian government forces back in 2015. Taking into account the declared characteristics of the KUB-BLA, the kamikaze drone should be capable of hitting  targets in the range of about 40km. This range was more than enough to reach the Ahrar al-Sham position even if the drone was launched from the area behind the frontline.

  This was not the first time when the Russians Defense Ministry used Syria as a test-ground for its modern weapons and equipment. According to official data, Russia tested over 300 types of weapons and equipment, including the Su-57 fifth generation fighter jet, the Uran-9 unmanned combat ground vehicle and the Terminator-2 armored fighting vehicle, in Syrian since the start of its anti-terrorist operation in the war-torn county in 2015. However, the October 19 event is the first case ever when it is reasonable to assume with a high probability that the Russian side employed an attack drone of any kind during the conflict.

  

• The Greatest Investor You’ve Never Heard Of: An Optometrist Who Turned Billionaire

  Meet Dr. Herbert Wertheim, a South Florida optometrist and small businessman who in several decades, became a billionaire.

  Wertheim, 79, is a self-made billionaire worth $2.3 billion, according to Forbes‘ The World’s Billionaires list. His fortune comes from numerous inventions and buy-and-hold investing.

  

  Wertheim could very well be the most significant individual investor many Americans have never heard of, and he recently sat down with Forbes to prove it.

  Madeline Berg, a reporter at Forbes following the money, flipped through Wertheim’s brokerage statements which showed hundreds of millions of dollars in tech stocks like Apple and Microsoft, purchased long ago at their IPOs. There are dozens of other blue-chip stocks in the portfolio, ranging from GE, Google, BP, and Bank of America.

  Here is Wertheim’s interesting path into becoming a billionaire.

  In the early 1960s, he attended the Southern College of Optometry and after graduation started a small practice in South Florida. At nights, Wertheim spent his time tinkering on inventions, and in 1969, he invented an eyeglass tint for plastic lenses that filtered dangerous UV rays, helping to prevent cataracts.

  Demand for Wertheim’s tint erupted, and he sold the royalty for $22,000. However, because of contractual breaches, he never collected any royalty funds from the deal.

  So in 1970, Wertheim formed a new company, Brain Power Inc. (BPI). He established the company as a technology consulting firm, but at the same time, he reverted to developing tints, dyes and other technologies for eyewear.

  A year later he invented the world’s first neutralizers, a chemical that restored lenses to their original state. At the time, he showed his wife a can containing the new chemical and said, ‘Nicole, what’s in this can is going to make us millionaires.’ ”

  Between the tints, dyes, and neutralizers, Wertheim rolled the new technology into BPI, which became one of the world’s largest manufacturers of optical tints, selling products to companies like Bausch & Lomb, Zeiss and Polaroid.

  Forbes said BPI “never achieved hypergrowth,” but it allowed Wertheim more freedom to pursue a life of investing.

  Similar to Warren Buffett, Wertheim believes in doubling down when he feels passionate about companies.

  “If you like something at $13 a share, you should like it at $12, $11 or $10 a share,” Wertheim says. “If a stock continues to go down, and you believe in it and did your research, then you buy more. You are actually getting a better deal.” Whenever possible, he adds, dividends are useful in cushioning the pain of stocks that drift down or go sideways.

  Wertheim tells Berg he bought Microsoft at its IPO in 1986. “I knew a lot about computers and had been involved in building them,” he says. BPI used Apple IIe’s, but after Microsoft released its Windows operating system in 1985, Wertheim fell in love with the company. “Only Microsoft had an operating system that could compete with Apple,” he recalls.

  

  The Microsoft shares he owns, which has been paying him a sizeable dividend since 2003, are now worth more than $160 million.

  He also owns 1.25 million shares of Apple, mostly purchased during its 1980 IPO and also at $10 in the 1990s, are worth $195 million.

  “My goal is to buy and almost never sell,” he says, parroting a Buffettism.

  “I let it appreciate as much as it can and use the dividends to move forward.” In this way Wertheim, like the Oracle of Omaha, seldom reinvests dividends but instead uses the cash flow from his portfolio to either fund his lifestyle or make new investments.

  Wertheim’s billionaire status is not just a result of his buy-and-hold strategy, but it was his ability to buy the right stocks at the right time – during the start of four decades of easy money from the Federal Reserve.

  Given that equity valuations are at levels never witnessed in the modern era, the return profile for the stock market in the next decade is rather scary: “A run-of-the-mill completion of this cycle will be a -60% loss in the S&P 500, erasing its entire total return vs T-bills since roughly 1998. What will shape that trajectory over shorter periods, but not ultimately, is the condition of market internals,” said John Hussman of Hussman Funds.

  

  With that being said, maybe buy-and-hold investing has peaked, and a return to actively-managed portfolios is the next trend.

  

• Zuesse: Lies America's News-Media Tell

  Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Here are America’s recent targets for regime-change (against which have been used economic sanctions, invasion, and enormous destruction) – and all of them are nations that never invaded nor threatened to invade America: 

  Iraq 2003,

  Libya 2011,

  Syria 2011-2018,

  Yemen 2015-now, 

  Ukraine 2014,

  and Venezuela 2017-now. 

  

  Because all of these were and are aggressive wars by the US against nations that never invaded nor threatened to invade the US, they all ought to be subject to mega-criminal prosecutions as was done by the US, Britain, and USSR, against Germany at the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II. That was merely victors’ ‘justice’, applied by the US, Britain and USSR, but this would instead be actual international justice, the first instance of such in all of world history. It’s desperately needed — especially now.

  America’s Government and news-media were and are remarkably unanimous in saying that these invasions and coups are and were done in order to advance democracy and human rights in the given target-nation. However, what it actually brings and has brought, in each and every case, is, instead, massive bloodshed, death, poverty, destruction, and outpourings of refugees — and an increasingly dangerous world, the current world.

  Is this lying, by the US and its allies, and their ‘news’-media, mere hypocrisy, or is it something even worse — far worse? In any case, only a fair and international juridical tribunal that’s controlled by no nation and by no alliance of nations can possibly deliver a credible verdict on this. And, so, such international criminal trials must be organized and carried out, or else even worse can be expected to occur. Impunity is desirable only by and for gangsters, and no land where it exists can reasonably be called “democratic.”

  America’s news-media — especially the mainstream ones — not only cover-up important truths, but they routinely lie. Both the Democratic Party’s media and the Republican Party’s media report the same lies, which are the Government’s lies, on these international matters. These are lies on which there is bipartisan unity by the nation’s press (and by both political Parties), in order to deceive the public, into support for invading and occupying, or overthrowing via a coup or otherwise, some foreign government. Their target is always a government which America’s billionaires who control international corporations want to replace, and so the US regime unanimously lies against that targeted government, as being dangerous and evil, even though the given takeover-target has never invaded, nor threatened to invade, the United States — is no real national-security threat to the American people. Only on the basis of lies can that succeed. This is the main function of the press, in such countries: deceit, on those international matters.

  In other words: the US Government is fascist, like the Axis powers were in World War II. This is worse than, for example, merely wasting billions of dollars on building a border-wall against Mexico in order to protect Americans, but it receives far less press-attention (perhaps because the press is so unanimous in endorsing and supporting these atrocities — and that’s yet further evidence of the American regime’s fascism). The press is owned by, and funded by ads, and donations from, America’s billionaires, the very same people who fund our politicians and who also own controlling interests in the weapons-firms such as Lockheed Martin, which can’t survive without these weapons-sales, and which therefore demand constant conquests, in order to create new markets for their wares, new “allied nations.”

  So, naturally, America’s military is mainly the enforcement-arm of the billionaires who control US-based international corporations (especially the weapons-firms and the extractive firms such as mining and fuels, which corporations crave to control foreign natural resources), and those people also control America’s Government and press, and this produces the unanimity for these regime-change operations — which likewise fits the fascist model. 

  The US is clearly the world’s leading fascist nation, and there is no close second (and none of the nations that the US regime is trying to conquer is fascist at all). What Germany was under Hitler, the US is and has been at least since the time of US President Ronald Reagan. The US has been a dictatorship since at least 1981.

  Coup or invasion (either form of aggression) is an international war-crime, but the deceit against America’s public usually succeeds, because the public trust especially the billionaire-controlled mainstream press, which is always leading these lies-for-conquest. 

  Furthermore, almost all of the ‘alternative news’ media are likewise owned by (and funded by ads or donations from) wealthy interests that participate in and benefit from this mass-deceit — from the stenographic ‘news’ reporting, the Government’s accusations against the particular target-nation that’s about to be (or has been) regime-changed. 

  For example, all of America’s ’news’-media were stenographically reporting the US Government’s many lies about ‘Saddam Hussein’s WMD’, in order to ‘justify’ America’s kicking out the UN’s weapons-inspectors and simply bombing Iraq and invading and militarily occupying, and basically destroying, that country (which had never invaded ours) in 2003. All of America’s ‘news’ media did the same, but especially all of the mainstream ones did, of both the right and the left, all the way from Fox News to the New York Times. They all were hiding the truth and lying to support an illegal invasion — an international war-crime under international law, and violation of the UN’s Charter. Did Americans stop buying those ‘news’papers and watching those ’news’ channels, and buying those ’news’ magazines, after the truth became reluctantly exposed (during 2002-2005) that those ‘WMD’ didn’t exist and no longer had existed after 1998? No, those same ‘news’-media still are successful. (They all ought to be long-since out-of-business, but such accountability doesn’t exist in the news-business. Not only does a major ‘news’-medium hide its own corruption and lying but it hides that of all other major ‘news’-media, because otherwise the entire ‘democratic’ system of control by the nation’s billionaires would simply collapse.) 

  America’s ‘news’-media report just as much false ‘news’ (not merely what they call “fake news,” but actually false ‘news’) today, as they did back then, because America’s ‘news’-media cover-up not only for themselves, but also for each other, since they all lie so routinely in order to ‘justify’ their Government’s aggressions, coups, military invasions, foreign mass-murders, etc., and those invasions and coups are part of the unspoken business-plan of them all, for growth or expansion of their global control. 

  These atrocities are all done for ‘national security’ reasons, and in order to ‘spread democracy’, and in order to ‘protect human rights around the world’ — and Americans continue to believe it, and to believe the regime, and to subscribe to those same mainstream (and hangers-on) ’news’-media. Accountability against lying doesn’t exist in a hyper-aggressive ‘democracy’, a would-be all-encompassing global empire, which America has certainly become.

  Today, these ’news’-media hide that they’ve been lying when they report that Russia ‘hacked’ Hillary Clinton’s email and John Podesta’s computer. Just click onto that, right there, and you will immediately see the latest documentation that it’s all mere lies against Russia, which is the only nation that does actually possess the military wherewithal to stand up against the US regime (since it inherited the arsenal of the former Soviet Union when the Cold War ended in 1991 on their side — though that war secretly continued and still is continuing on the American side). 

  These fabrications could have many reasons, but perhaps the likeliest is in order to increase weapons-sales by Lockheed Martin and other US weapons-makers, all of which are 100% dependent upon their sales to the US Government and to its allied governments. (There are consequently interlocking directorates between the ‘news’-businesses and the armaments-firms, and the Wall Street banks, and the think tanks, etc.; and all of this is intensified by the revolving door between Government officials and the private sector, such as generals becoming directors of ‘defense’ firms.) But this fraud that ‘Russia hacked the election’ has been exposed before, though not with the same thoroughness as it is in that latest news-report, which comes from the “Sic Semper Tyrannus” blog. You might happen to think that it must be ‘fake news’, because it’s from a non-mainstream site? It comes from Bill Binney, who is the NSA whistleblower who was the NSA’s top signals-intelligence analyst before he quit in disgust at the Government’s lying. Of course, he had tried all the mainstream ‘news’-media as prospective outlets for this news-report, but they’re not interested in exposing the truth — because that would expose themselves to be liars. Once a major lie is told, and told repeatedly, by a major ‘news’-medium, exposing that lie would be exposing itself — and none do that.

  They also hide that they’ve been lying to report that America was justified to bomb Syria on 11 April 2018, justified to do it in order to punish Syria’s Government for having perpetrated a chemical weapons attack on 7 April 2018 in the town of Douma — a chemical weapons attack that was actually fabricated by the US and its allies, and which US Government lie is still being protected (hidden from the public) by the US regime’s ’news’ media, which media, for example, fail to report that the OPCW did not find any such attack to have occurred:

  “OPCW Issues Fact-Finding Mission Reports on Chemical Weapons Use Allegations in Douma, Syria in 2018 and in Al-Hamadaniya and Karm Al-Tarrab in 2016”

  Friday, 06 July 2018

  THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 6 July 2018 — The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued an interim report on the FFM’s investigation to date regarding the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma, Syria on 7 April 2018.

  The FFM’s activities in Douma included on-site visits to collect environmental samples, interviews with witnesses, data collection. In a neighbouring country, the FFM team gathered or received biological and environmental samples, and conducted witness interviews.

  OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties. Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to draw final conclusions.

  If those “final conclusions” are ever made public by OPCW, will you trust your ’news’-media to report them honestly? And, if the conclusions never are published, will you think that the US regime and its ’news’-media are war-criminals there, just as they were in Iraq, and Syria, and Yemen, and Ukraine, and so many other countries?

  According to Russian Television, or “RT” — which all major ’news’-media in the US and its allied regimes say is ‘untrustworthy’ — “Real ‘obscene masquerade’: How BBC depicted staged hospital scenes as proof of Douma chemical attack”. That op-ed by the great British investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley, who specializes in Syria, isn’t published by the BBC, or by ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Guardian, or Washington Post. It’s too honest, for that. Could this be part of the reason that they call RT ‘fake news’? If so, maybe RT should replace them, at least for international reporting.

  And, before that, there was the claimed 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack in the town of Ghouta by Syria’s Government, which was actually done by the US Government’s allies who were trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government — it’s what’s called a “false flag attack” — one that’s designed to be blamed against the other side, in order to serve as an ‘excuse’ to invade. The American Government and its ‘news’-media keep making suckers out of the American public this way, and yet the American public continue to subscribe to them — to pay their good money, for such evil propaganda. Apparently, nobody is even embarassed. It simply keeps happening, again and again.

  Another recent example is the ‘democratic revolution’ in Ukraine in February 2014, which was actually a US coup that destroyed that country.

  And the latest example is the US-and-Canada-led effort to impose a fascist regime in Venezuela.

  Furthermore, as one of the perceptive reader-commenters to that latest Binney article on ‘Russiagate’ noted:

  “Craig Murray, in a very revealing but neglected interview with Scott Horton, said: ‘I should be plain that the Podesta emails and the DNC emails of course are two separate things and you shouldn’t conclude that both have the same source. But in both cases, we’re talking of a leak not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting the information out had legal access to that information.’” Murray, a whistleblower and former UK Ambassador, had been personally involved in that, by transferring a thumb-drive from the DNC whistleblower to Julian Assange, and he also said there, “If you are looking to the source of all this, you have to look to Americans,” and not at all to any Russians or other foreigners. 

  The comprehensiveness of the deceit by the US regime is beyond what the vast majority of Americans can even imagine to be the case. It is simply beyond the comprehension of most people. And that false ‘news’-reporting then becomes basic to, and enshrined in, false but best-selling ‘history’-books, so as to deepen, yet further, the deception of the public.

  On Sunday, February 24th, the “Zero Hedge” independent news-site headlined “WaPo Quietly Deletes Branson’s Venezuela Concert From Article After ‘Fake’ Attendance Figures Exposed” and reported (and documented) that the British billionaire Richard Branson’s free pop-concert on Friday February 22 at the Venezuela-Colombia border in support of Washington’s attempted coup to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected President had drawn less than 20,000 fans instead of what had been reported in the US regime’s Washington Post, which had reported that 200,000 attended, and that as soon as the US regime’s fraud was publicly exposed — which was done by means of a photo of the crowd which had been taken by Dan Cohen of Russia’s RT, plus careful independent calculations by the “Moon of Alabama” blogger — the US regime’s ‘news’paper retroactively removed their ‘news’-report’s crowd-size-estimate from the online version of their ‘news’-report. Of course, the ‘error’ had already been physically printed in that trashy ‘news’paper, which might (at its discretion) subsequently publish a printed correction, saying that they’d only been trying to fool their subscribers in order to assist propaganda supporting the US regime’s grab for control over Venezuela.

  The problem isn’t ‘fake news’ from RT or from small online sites (such as all of the major media claim to be the case), but false ‘news’ from mainstream US (and allied) ‘news’ (propaganda) media. They’ve all got millions of victims’ blood on their hands, and they’re not even a bit ashamed of any of it — and of shifting the blame for it to the targeted nations.

  *  *  *

  PS: Max Blumenthal is an investigative journalist who formerly believed the lies from the (think tanks and other agencies of the) billionaires who finance the Democratic Party. He was the star journalist at one of the Democratic Party’s leading ‘alt-news’ propaganda-sites, AlterNet, until he lost his employment there after starting to expose the rot that he had previously been fooled into supporting. He increasingly moved away from liberalism to progressivism; and the Democratic National Committee doesn’t want any of that, except as window-dressing — and Blumenthal decided he could no longer do that. He became unemployed for a while and then established, along with another former AlterNet reporter “The GrayZone Project,” in order to continue being employed. Blumenthal recently issued a YouTube video in which he interviewed star Democratic Party Presidential aspirant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other members of Congress “Is the US Meddling in Venezuela? Max Blumenthal Asks US Congress Members.” As you can see there, all of them are either mildly or very supportive of Trump’s coup-attempt in Venezuela. Unfortunately, Blumenthal didn’t interview Tulsi Gabbard, who might possibly be an exception to the depressing rule that corruption reigns, and who recently announced her candidacy for the US Presidency. Nor did he interview Bernie Sanders, nor Sherrod Brown, nor Elizabeth Warren, all of whom likewise are competing for the progressives’ votes in the upcoming Democratic Party Presidential primaries. As for the other Democratic contenders, they’re competing to become instead the new Hillary Clinton — the American billionaires’ favorite. Instead, with Trump, we got in the 2016 Presidentials their second choice.

  On February 18th, Blumenthal and a colleague, Alexander Rubinstein, headlined at one of the few sincere and honest US-based international-news sites, “Mint Press,” “Pierre Omidyar’s Funding of Pro-Regime-Change Networks and Partnerships with CIA Cutouts”, and they exposed Omidyar, the owner of a famous ‘news’ site that’s targeted at naive progressives, “The Intercept.” Whereas Mint Press is called ‘fake news’ by America’s billionaires’ ‘news’-media, The Intercept (which isn’t nearly as honest as Mint Press is) is not. The dictatorship’s aim is to crush the truth, and (like The Intercept does) they let in just enough of truth so as to keep hidden what’s most important to them to keep hidden from the public — things such as what Blumenthal and Rubinstein are now disclosing. 

  Everybody except America’s 585 billionaires should be reading sites such as the ones that publish Blumenthal and Rubinstein, and other honest investigative journalists (which are banned at all of the mainstream sites). Propaganda that poses as ‘news’ has to be crushed, in order for truth itself not to be crushed. But can their exposé of Omidyar win a top national journalism award without thereby bringing down the entire rotten and corrupt superstructure of lies? And that would also bring down the enormous international crimes this superstructure has supported and continues to support, such as Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011-2018, Yemen 2015-now, Ukraine 2014, and Venezuela 2017-now. 

  If such news-reports cannot win top journalism prizes, then what hope is there, realistically, that things will ever be able to improve?

  Only by removing the blinders from the public, can the public see the light and the actual truth, about the world in which they are living. That’s what is needed in order for democracy to be able to exist. What now exists is, instead, dictatorship. That’s the current reality. It includes the European Council, which is the unelected government of the EU, which clearly is a dictatorship (and this is true even if Brexit is wrong), and it also includes every other ally of the US regime. The EU was created by the US and its allies after WW II. It “always was a CIA project.” FDR was dead, and maybe whatever there had been of US democracy died along with him. The UN that exists is not the one that he had intended and so carefully planned. We’ve been living in a charade. It didn’t start in 1981. There is this, and there also is this. It’s FDR’s vision turned upside-down and inside-out. That’s the actual world of today. It’s based on lies.

  

• Vertical Group: Tonight’s Move Is Proof-Positive TSLA Has A Serious Demand Problem

  Submitted by Gordon Johnson Of Vertical Group

  Earlier this evening in a widely anticipated announcement, TSLA, again, cut the prices on all existing cars – the third such cut in just two months – with the price concessions ranging from 4.8%-to-13.6% (Exhibit 1). Furthermore, TSLA announced availability of the widely anticipated $35K Model 3 (more on this below) – while this is welcome news to many, it comes 15 months after the car’s original promised timeline, which means the cost sensitive US buyer has lost $3,750 of the federal EV tax credit (and the true $35K version will only come in black, with any additional paint colors costing an extra $1.5K-$2.5K). However, TSLA also warned that 1Q19 would see its earnings go back into negative territory (after two straight quarters of profit), and announced its third round of layoffs just this year (TSLA is cutting the majority of its sales locations globally, shifting to a 100% online purchase model).

  In short, there’s a lot to unload here; however, we believe tonight’s move is proof-positive TSLA has a serious demand problem (if TSLA was not experiencing tepid demand, in our view, it would not have cut the prices on all its cars three times just this year). In fact, we view this as an all-in move by TSLA to try to stay solvent (by our calculations, demand is very bad right now – we believe the Feb. sales report from InsideEVs will disappoint). With respect to the numbers, prior to today’s $2.9K price cut for the Mid-Range Model 3, TSLA cut the price by $2K on 1/2/19, then by $1.1K on 2/5/19. Moreover, when one also considers the fact that TSLA cut the price for Enhanced Auto Pilot (“EAP”) from $5K to $3K, or $2K in total, that’s another ~$1.540K in lost margin (~77% of buyers purchase EAP, so a $2K price drop is equivalent to a ~$1.540K drop in gross margin – EAP has virtually no associated costs, so it’s all margin). So, adding it all up, the ~20% margin on TSLA’s Mid-Range Model 3 alluded to in 4Q18 is now ~13% (by our calculation). Consequently, with OPEX expected to be up ~9% in 2019, that means TSLA is now firmly back in the loss-making column.

  Exhibit 1: TSLA Pricing Dynamics

  

  MODEL 3 DEMAND SET TO TAKE OFF… RIGHT? As detailed in Exhibit 2 below, with TSLA losing its Consumer Reports recommendation recently (link), as well as a number of well documented issues/problems with its Model 3 cars, for those that are saying the $35K Model 3 will unlock hundreds of thousands of incremental purchases, we are skeptical. What do we mean? Well, even with the price-cuts announced today, for the price-sensitive consumer looking to buy the $35K Model 3, the acquisition cost is still +18% higher than originally planned, and will rise even higher to a +24.8% premium 7/1/19 (when TSLA’s federal EV tax credit gets cut in half  again).

  Exhibit 2: Model 3 Affordability Tracker    

  

  WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY HEADS FOR THE EXITS: In our view, and raising yet another red flag, TSLA’s lead counsel in its case against the SEC, Williams & Connolly, seems to have quit on the company with E. Musk facing an ongoing contempt motion (Exhibit 3) – link. In short, while it’s hard to know all the specifics here, our experience suggests changing lead counsel in the middle of an ongoing case with the SEC is not a good thing.

  Exhibit 3: William & Connolly Leave TSLA as Counsel

  

  TSLA GUIDES TO A LOSS IN 1Q19: Finally, as we warned earlier this week, TSLA  is now guiding to a loss in 1Q19 vs. the current Consensus estimate for +$0.63/share in EPS.

  CONCLUSION: We believe TSLA has a serious demand problem. That is, after building up backlog for two years for Model 3 cars and then burning through it in 3Q18 and 4Q18 we see TSLA’s current demand as far below its targeted production. We maintain our SELL rating and $72/shr year-end 2019 price target. We would be aggressively shorting TSLA’s shares.

  

• Remember, The Fed Hasn't Actually Done Anything Yet

  Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

  When the financial markets got, um, choppy towards the end of 2018, the Fed caved almost instantly. But only rhetorically.

  Fed chair Powell promised to stop raising interest rates and shrinking the money supply, and the financial markets, trained to salivate at the sound of Fed happy talk, immediately morphed from “risk-off” to “risk-on.” Stocks are now approaching last year’s all-time highs, bond prices are way up (which is to say long-term interest rates are way down) and the financial press is back to celebrating the “Goldilocks economy.”

  But remember that as far as actual monetary policy goes, nothing has changed. Last year’s Fed Funds rate increases are still in place, while the Fed’s balance sheet remains diminished (which is to say the cash drained from the economy as the bonds in the Fed’s account were retired remains out of action). So the damage has not been undone, and it’s starting to bite. Some examples:

  US retail sales are falling:

  
  source: tradingeconomics.com

  Housing, which a year ago was in a mini-bubble, is rolling over. Housing starts are down…

  
  source: tradingeconomics.com

  … while existing home sales have cratered:

  
  source: tradingeconomics.com

  US manufacturing orders missed big in the most recent reporting month:

  

  Corporate earnings, meanwhile, are so weak that analysts are talking about an “earnings recession”:

  

  From a February Zero Hedge article:

  One week ago, when looking at the dramatic collapse in consensus Q1 EPS estimates, we noted that the “profit party” is over and the days of near record earnings growth are about to end with a bang as a result of the recent barrage in profit warnings and negative preannouncements, first and foremost starting with Apple, which issued a shocking guidance cut one month ago for the first time since 2001. As a result, analysts have slashed their S&P500 earnings estimates for the first quarter, and the Q1 bottom-up EPS estimate dropped by 4.1% (to $38.55 from $40.21) during this period.

  All eleven sectors recorded a decline in their bottom-up EPS estimate during the first month of the quarter, led by Energy (-22.5%) and Information Technology (-7.3%). Overall, seven sectors recorded a larger decrease in their bottom-up EPS estimate relative to their 5-year average and their 10-year average for the first month of a quarter.

  And the slowdown is global. Here’s German GDP growth:

  

  In February MarketWatch asked:

  Is Germany already in a ‘technical’ recession? These economists think so

  Investors are worried that a global slowdown led by China could begin to sap U.S. growth, but it’s Europe that’s looking a little sickly at the moment.

  Expectations that Germany, Europe’s largest economy, could post a second consecutive quarter of falling gross domestic product were on the rise after a dismal reading on November industrial production last week, which showed a 1.9% fall, defying a forecast for a 0.3% rise.

  “Industrial production data was a proper disappointment this month. Our German GDP tracker has deteriorated to minus 0.1% [quarter-on-quarter]. This would be the second consecutive [quarter-on-quarter] GDP contraction, meaning Germany could now be in a technical recession,” wrote economists Evelyn Herrmann and Gilles Moec at Bank of American Merrill Lynch, in a Monday note (see chart below).

  Germany’s slowdown is attributable in part to slowing activity in China, the economists said. And concerns about China are certainly on the rise thanks to homegrown headwinds and the continued trade battle with the U.S.

  What does all this mean? Mainly that despite the recent bounce in US financial asset prices, the Fed didn’t succeed in stabilizing the real economy. With the major countries pretty much all slowing down, corporate profits will likely fall this year. Falling corporate profits tend not so support record-high share prices. And the longer the slowdown continues the bigger the risk that stock investors will catch on and panic, taking us back to the flash bear market of late 2018.

  Then it gets interesting. Realizing that words have failed, the Fed will be forced to stop promising and start delivering. So the second act of this play will be not just a pause but a reversal of last year’s tightening.

  But this won’t work either. A modest reduction in interest rate cuts and slight increase in asset purchases will buy, at most, another two-month pop in share prices, followed by another realization that the economy is still weakening, followed by yet another, probably much bigger stock market plunge.

  Eventually, we’ll settle into a permanent state of ever-increasing QE, zero-to-negative interest rates and every imaginable kind of fiscal stimulus.

  

  A simple way to gauge our place on this path is the price of gold. When Act Two (gradually falling interest rates, modest QE) is implemented, gold should bounce back up to around $2,000/oz. Once Act Three (massive, permanent QE, NIRP, bailouts for bankrupt states and cities) is in full swing, gold should pass $5,000 on its way to infinity.

  

• "There's No Money" – Has China's Shadow-Debt Reckoning Finally Arrived?

  Months before Beijing abandoned its deleveraging plans and approved a gargantuan 4.64 trillion yuan credit injection (including the “shadow” credit that the government had vowed to curb) – which, as we pointed out at the time, resembled the January 2016 “Shanghai Accord” intervention (when Beijing famously intervened to stop global stock markets from careening off a cliff) – a team of S&P credit analysts warned in an October report that China’s debt burden might be much larger than previously believed.

  

  

  Against a backdrop of soaring corporate defaults, the team from S&P warned that investors could safely tack on another ~40% of debt/GDP to China’s total (with even more likely hidden from view) after a careful analysis of a new source of shadow debt being tapped by local governments to further their development plans. These Local Government Financing Vehicles, or LGFVs, represented “an iceberg with titanic credit risks” as local officials had increasingly turned to these sources of shadow financing to finance development projects while bureaucrats in Beijing struggled to turn off the credit taps.

  

  Now that Beijing has reckoned with the idea that now is not the time to try and contain the country’s massive debt load, even as the percentage of bad debt balloons, it increasingly appears that these measures might be too little, too late for investors who financed these LGFVs, as the Wall Street Journal revealed in a report about how a local government in China’s impoverished Southern had caused a stir by stiffing its creditors after racking up a debt pile – largely through these LGFVs – equivalent to roughly three times the government’s annual revenue.

  When a group of wealthy investors traveled to Sanhe to confront the local government, they were swiftly rebuffed, leaving them little recourse to recover their money.

  Meanwhile, many of the buildings that their money helped to finance stood half-finished.

  A building splurge in this impoverished pocket of rural China ended in half-finished projects and a trail of angry investors from some of the country’s wealthiest areas.

  On a recent winter workday, investors and representatives from private fund companies in Shanghai and elsewhere descended on Sandu, a county in the deep south where tens of thousands of locals live on less than a dollar a day. After taxi rides from the high-speed rail station that took them past incomplete buildings and a gigantic golden statue of a man on horseback, they sat in government offices, demanding repayment.

  “We sympathize with you investors,” Jian Shiwei, deputy general manager of a Sandu government-backed investment company that borrowed hundreds of millions of yuan to develop the area. “But there’s no money right now.”

  Though it might be tempting to chalk this up to the mismanagement of Sanhe’s local officials, WSJ claimed that situations like this are playing out in rural areas across China.

  The standoff in Sandu is a microcosm of China’s mounting debt problem. Across the country, local governments and their more than 2,000 financing companies have run up trillions of dollars of debt to borrow and build their way to prosperity, tapping into ready financing from well-off investors chasing higher returns. Now the bills are coming due, and China’s slowing economy, curbs by Beijing on risky financing—and the massive scale of borrowing—are plaguing repayment and leaving some investors in limbo.

  After the confrontation with investors and just before this month’s Lunar New Year holiday, Sandu hustled out interest payments for some overdue obligations. Still, investors and brokers estimate that the government and its companies will need to deliver two billion yuan ($297.6 million) more in payments this year, nearly three times Sandu’s annual revenue.

  Many regional governments are already struggling with debt piles in excess of 100% debt-to-GDP, and that’s before factoring in the shadow financing sources.

  

  And it’s not just wealthy Chinese fund managers who are being left in the lurch; many residents opted to invest in these vehicles after being seduced with high advertised returns – only to see their savings vanish. One investor who spoke with WSJ claimed that the shortfall wasn’t the local government’s fault, but a result of mismanagement and regulatory failures impacting the entire Chinese financial system.

  “Sandu has its problems, but we can’t blame it,” said Jiang Xiaqiu, a factory owner and investor who bought 1.6 million yuan of Sandu’s debt via a private fund in Beijing, with an advertised 9% annual return. “It’s the whole financial system and how poorly regulated the private fund industry has been.”

  Sandu’s government debt totaled 3.73 billion yuan in 2017, according to official figures. Deputy propaganda chief Wu Maohua declined to comment on what the sum includes; some economists, analysts and experts say it doesn’t cover recent borrowings by government-backed investment companies, including off-the-book borrowing from private funds.

  In Sanhe, problems first arose after the local Communist Party chief was removed in a bribery investigation last year. The region missed its first debt payment in September, but has been struggling to make up these payments.

  Mr. Wu said the county is working to resolve its debts, pointing to the overdue payments given to some investors. “You can see the government is being very diligent,” he said.

  For its borrowing spree, Sandu turned to funds like the one Ms. Jiang invested in. These privately offered funds have mushroomed, with more than 74,000 of them, nearly 10 times the number five years ago. Independent brokers and wealth advisers market the funds to well-off clients. Ms. Jiang said a broker connected her with fund managers.

  While putting a number on thee amount of shadow debt in the system is difficult due to the opacity of the Chinese financial system, one economist at a domestic think tank estimated that off-balance-sheet borrowings by local governments could be as much as 23.6 trillion yuan, as of the end of 2017, meaning that total is likely higher today, as governments have been forced to tap these vehicles during Beijing’s deleveraging campaign.

  The proliferation of private funds and other money-raising channels for local governments makes it difficult for economists and for Beijing to track the total amount of borrowings. Official figures pegged the sum of local and central government debt at 29.95 trillion yuan ($4.457 trillion) in 2017, roughly 36% of the economy.

  […]

  Off-balance-sheet borrowings by local governments are estimated to be nearly just as much, at 23.6 trillion yuan by 2017, according to Zhang Ming, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank. When this hidden debt is factored in, he said, total government debt is about 67% of the economy. But the proportion is much higher in some places, such as less-developed areas trying to catch up, and Mr. Zhang’s estimates don’t capture all borrowings, especially those involving private funds outside banking channels.

  Fortunately, Beijing’s latest reversal should at least reopen the taps for on-the-books debt, allowing governments to restart some of these projects, and potentially raise money to pay back the LGFVs. But whether this could work as a long-term solution is doubtful, as most see it as just another episode of can-kicking by Beijing, in the absence of real structural reforms.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Russia Slides Towards Internal Political Crisis

  Submitted by SouthFront,

  The Russia of 2019 is in a complicated economic and even political situation. Smoldering conflicts near its borders amid continued pressure from the US and NATO affect the situation in the country negatively. This is manifested in society and in national politics. The approval rating of the Russian government and personally of President Vladimir Putin has been decreasing.

  According to VCIOM, a state pollster, in January 2019, Putin’s confidence rating was only 32.8%. This is 24% less than in January 2018 when it was 57.2%. At the same time, the confidence rating of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was 7.8%. The approval rating of his cabinet is 37.7% while the disapproval rating is 38.7%. Opposition sources show data, which is far worse for the current Russian leadership.

  This tendency is not linked to the foreign policy course of the Kremlin. Rather, it’s the result of the recent series of liberal-minded economic reforms, which look similar to the approaches exercised by the Russian government in the mid-1990s. The decision to increase Value Added Tax amid the slowing Russian economy, especially in the industrial sector, and a very unpopular pension reform increasing the retirement age were both factors contributing to the further growth of discontent in the population.

  Russia’s GDP increased by 2.3% in 2018 compared to 1.6% in 2017. However, the Ministry of Economic Development, in its document entitled “Economic Picture” stated that this is linked to “one-time factors” and is not “stable”. The ministry maintained its earlier forecast stating that GDP growth in 2019 will be 1.3%. It confirmed increasing capital outflow. In this case, the repayment of funds to Western creditors by the Russian private sector is one of the causes.

  The Ministry of Economic Development also pointed out that the expendable income of the population decreased by 0.2%. Statutory charges, including the increased taxes, are named as one of the reasons. The document says that statutory charges grew by 14.8% in 2018.

  Additionally, the population is facing an increasingly restrictive administrative pressure: new fines and other penalties for minor violations in various fields and additional administrative restrictions limiting the freedom of actions of citizens. Restrictive traffic management of big cities, increasing fees for using federal highways as well as policies that are de-facto aimed at small business and self-employed persons are among its landmarks.

  Meanwhile the general population has no effective levers of pressure to affect or correct government policy. The public political sphere has become a desert. United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) is the only political party still de—facto existing in public politics. By now its ideological and organizational capabilities have become exhausted. Other “political parties and organizations” are just media constructs designed to defend the interests of a narrow group of their sponsors. It is hard to find a lawmaker in the State Duma or the Federation Council, who is not affiliated with the cliquish top political elite and oligarch clans.

  In the media sphere, the government has failed to explain its current course to the population. A vast majority of the initiatives of Medvedev’s cabinet face a negative reaction from the population. A spate of scandals involving high and middle level government officials made the situation even worse. These cases revealed blatant hypocrisy and the neglectful attitude to duties of some Russian officials.

  Some of the officials even became heroes of nationwide memes. Probably, the most prominent of these heroes are Minister of Labour and Employment of the Saratov region Natalia Sokolova and Head of Department for Youth Policy in the Sverdlov Region Olga Glatskikh.

  Sokolova advised Russian pensioners to eat “makaroshki” [a derogatory term for maccheroni] to save money and to thus become able to survive on the subsistence minimum of 3,500 RUB [about 50 USD] per month.

  “You will become younger, prettier and slimmer! Makaroshki cost is always the same!”, she said during a meeting of the regional parliamentary group on social policy in October 2018 adding that discounted products can be used to create a “balanced, but dietic” menu.

  Glatskikh became a meme hero thank to her meeting with young volunteers during the same month. Commenting on the possible financing of youth projects, she told volunteers that the government did not ask their parents “to give birth” to them. So, they should expect nothing from the state.

  In the period from 2018 to 2019, there were multiple arrests of officials caught exceeding the limits of their authority and being involved in corruption schemes. In comparison to previous periods, this number had increased by 1.5-2 times. The most recent detention took place right in the Parliament building on January 30. A 32-year-old senator, Rauf Arashukov, is suspected of being a member of a criminal group involved in the 2010 murders of two people and in pressuring a witness to one of the killings. On the same day, authorities detained his father, an adviser to the chief executive of a Gazprom subsidiary, Raul Arashukov. He is suspected of embezzling natural gas worth 30 billion rubles ($450 million).

  However, these actions do not appear to be enough to change the established media situation. After a large-scale corruption scandal in the Ministry of Defense in 2012, which led to almost no consequences for key responsible persons including former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who even continued his carrier in state-linked corporation Rostec. The general public has serious reservations about any real success of anti-corruption efforts.

  The aforementioned factors fuel the negative perception of the Medvedev government and Vladimir Putin as the head of state among Russian citizens.

  The 2014 events in Crimea showed to the Russian population that its state is ready to defend the interests of the nation and those who describe themselves as Russians even by force of arms. This was the first case when this approach was openly employed in the recent history of Russia. Therefore, the population was enthusiastic and national pride was on the rise. However, the Kremlin failed to exploit these gained opportunities and did not use them to strengthen the Russian state. In fact, up to February 2019, the policy towards eastern Ukraine has been inconsistent. At the same time, Moscow continues to lose its influence in post-Soviet states. This can be observed in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. Even, their close ally, Belarus, occasionally demonstrates unfriendly behavior and focuses its own efforts on the exploitation of economic preferences granted by Russia.

  Evaluating the current internal political situation in Russia and its foreign policy course, it’s possible to say that the Russian leadership has lost its clear vision of national development and a firm and consistent policy, which are needed for any great power. Another explanation of this is that the Russian leadership is facing pressure from multiple agents of influence, which stand against vision of a powerful independent state seeking to act as one of the centers of power on the global stage. One more factor, often pointed out by experts, is the closed crony-caste system of elites. This system led to the creation of a leadership, which pursues its own narrow clannish interests. Apparently, all of these factors influence Russian foreign and domestic policies in one way or another.

  The aforementioned large-scale anti-corruption campaign, regarding the people’s show-me attitude towards its result, could be a sign of a new emerging trend, which would lead to a purge of the corrupt elites and to strategic changes in Russian domestic policy.

  It is highly likely that Russia will face hard times in the next two years (2019-2020) and face various threats and challenges to its economy, foreign policy course and even to its statehood.

  

• Venezuela Set For More False Flags… US Puppet Guaido Better Watch His Back

  Authored by Finian Cunningham,

  The much-hyped “aid weekend” involving a US Trojan Horse fell at the first hurdle. Venezuelan government forces averted the provocation intended by US aid convoys from Colombia and Brazil.

  However, increasing frustration in Washington beckons more false flags.

  Something shocking is “needed” in order to jolt world opinion into acquiescing to Washington’s criminal agenda of “all options.” In the fiendish mind of American imperialism, it is also prudent to consider “all options” as meaning more than military aggression. The foulest moves.

  

  The torching of trucks purportedly ferrying US food and medicines across the border from Colombia was patently a planned provocation. Credible video footage and witnesses attested to the arson being carried out by supporters of the US-backed opposition figure Juan Guaido.

  The vehicles never even made it to the crossing point where Venezuelan national guards were deployed.

  Yet, at the Lima Group summit held – no coincidence – in the Colombian capital, Bogota on Monday, Guaido and US Vice President Mike Pence brazenly spouted lies that the “sadistic” Venezuelan military under President Nicolas Maduro had caused the destruction of vital aid supplies intended for “suffering people.”

  It seems obvious the whole scenario of delivering US aid into Venezuela from neighboring countries was really intended as a pretext for military intervention by Washington. The government in Caracas had warned of such a contingency in advance, as had Russia, which is allied to President Maduro’s administration. Moscow’s experience in Syria has no doubt given a lot of valuable insights into the American playbook of using false flags for justifying military aggression.

  The timing of the Lima Group summit – 12 Latin American states along with the US and Canada – was meant to capitalize on the false-flag incident over aid, as well as other deadly clashes at the weekend that resulted in dozens of casualties.

  However, the provocation did not go to plan, despite Pence and Guaido’s grandstanding assertions.

  The other downside for the US regime-change objective in Venezuela is that the Lima Group has for the moment broken ranks over the military option. Pence and Guaido stepped up the rhetoric calling for “all options” on the table – meaning military intervention.

  But the Lima Group, including US allies Colombia, Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, issued a statement after the summit Monday rejecting any military action. They are still functioning as lackeys by calling for a “peaceful transition to democracy” and are in favor of the dubious US-anointed opposition figure Guaido, recognizing him as the “interim president” of Venezuela, in accordance with Washington’s desires.

  Nevertheless, repudiation of the military option by Washington’s regional allies will be seen as a damper to the momentum for using American force to overthrow the Maduro government.

  Brazil’s Vice President Hamilton Mourão repeatedly said in interviews that his government would not allow a US military incursion into Venezuela from its territory.

  The European Union also said it was opposed to any military force being used by the US against Venezuela.

  The emerging situation therefore puts the regime-change planners in Washington in a quandary. Their sanctions pressure for blackmailing defections in the Venezuelan political and military leadership has failed. So too has the much-vaunted spectacle of delivering US aid.

  Growing frustration on the US side was evident from the obscene posting of “snuff movies” by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, comparing the bloody fate of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi with what might happen to Maduro.

  Rubio has become something of an unofficial envoy for regime change in Venezuela on behalf of the Trump administration, in the same way the late Senator John McCain performed his role in helping prompt a coup d’état in Ukraine back in 2014. As well as conveying death threats to Maduro concerning Gaddafi, who was brutally lynched by NATO-backed jihadists in October 2011, Rubio also posted images of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. Noriega was captured by US forces after they bombed and invaded his country in 1989.

  The criminality of Rubio and other senior US officials, including President Trump, openly calling for regime change against Maduro is a sign of how manic Washington has become in getting its hands on the country’s vast oil wealth. There isn’t even a hint of coyness about the criminality.

  The desperation for regime change in Venezuela by Washington has only become more frenzied as its machinations appear to be coming unstuck.

  Therefore, it can be anticipated, Washington needs a game-changing event – badly – in order to shift its lackey Lima Group, the EU and the United Nations to accepting its agenda for a military option.

  UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has strongly appealed for no violence in the stand-off between the US and Venezuela. Significantly, the UN has declined to get involved in delivering US aid to the South American country, as such involvement would be viewed as taking sides.

  Voice of America quotes Dany Bahar, a Venezuela expert at the DC think-tank the Brookings Institution, as saying that the next steps for Washington in its pressure campaign on the “Maduro regime” is “to try to get the United Nations on board, which has not happened yet.”

  Ominously, the Lima Group has issued a statement claiming to have credible evidence that Juan Guaido’s life is seriously threatened by Venezuelan state security. Pence also warned that Maduro would be held responsible for Guaido and his family’s safety. Last month, Guaido made claims that his wife’s family was menaced by state agents who allegedly visited their home. It was an unconfirmed claim, which the Venezuelan authorities denied.

  Guaido defied a travel ban to attend the summit in Bogota earlier this week. It is not clear if he will return to Venezuela as he is liable to be arrested on charges of inciting sedition and civil unrest. 

  Indeed, Washington’s game plan does not seem to be going well. Through a series of miscalculations and foolish over-reach, the gambit in Venezuela is at risk of becoming a debacle.

  That very situation, however, could tempt a desperate throw of the dice by the Trump administration to salvage its losses so far.

  A major, shocking event is needed, it may be calculated, in order to get the Latin American and European lackeys into line on regime-change policy, specifically the military option. As the Brookings Institute pundit said, “to get the United Nations on board.” Because so far, the majority of the UN members, including Russia and China, key UN Security Council veto powers, are not complying with Washington’s dictate of delegitimizing President Maduro and recognizing the US-backed puppet figure Guaido.

  What could such a shocking event entail? Somebody is telling the Lima Group that Guaido and his family are in grave danger of being assassinated. Guaido’s Popular Will party is known to engage in violent subversion and allegedly has links to the American CIA, as reported by Abby Martin and others.

  As easily as they are lionized, US puppets can be just as easily disposed of. Guaido playing the dirty game of regime change with the most criminal organization in the world – the US government – is a very dangerous game. He’d better watch his back.

  

• The California Dream Is In Nevada: Golden State Expats Flock To Las Vegas Suburb

  It’s no secret that California residents, particularly people residing in the most expensive parts of the state (SoCal, the Bay Area) are fleeing in droves, displaced by expensive rents, sky-high home prices, unbearable traffic congestion and – oh yeah – increasingly deadly wildfires. As a result, California expat communities have sprung up in Texas, Arizona, Idaho and Nevada, sun-belt states where residents can enjoy many of the benefits of California living (namely, the agreeable climate and booming economy) without the downsides.

  But in some of the most desirable communities, the influx of Californians has grown into a flood that is straining public resources – residents complain of crowded class sizes and home prices, while still lower on an absolute basis, are seeing some of the fastest increases in the country.

  

  One such community is Henderson, Nev., a suburb of Las Vegas where the Oakland Raiders recently started construction on a new practice facility in preparation for their move to Las Vegas. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Henderson has become a place where California expats can enjoy a better standard of living (and even have some money left over after paying their mortgage) while spending less time sitting in SoCal’s notoriously brutal traffic. Just ask John Falkenthal, a software engineer from San Diego, who sold his home in SD and moved to Henderson a year ago.

  “I never even considered leaving Southern California, but it took me every dime I had to buy a home there,” said the 54-year-old Mr. Falkenthal, a software engineer who moved to Henderson from San Diego last October.

  […]

  Mr. Falkenthal initially looked for a house in San Diego after selling his former home following a divorce three years ago. But his half of the proceeds, about $250,000, would have paid for only a small townhouse or condo in the coastal area where he lived, he said.

  Instead, he bought a three-bedroom, two-story house in Henderson in October for $416,000.

  “My quality of life went up the day I moved here,” said Mr. Falkenthal pointing to his pool table and his musical equipment.

  And that’s before taxes and insanely high utilities prices (which, thanks to PG&E’s bankruptcy, might climb for some residents). One Cali expat who spoke to WSJ says he saved $5,000 on his water bill alone in a year.

  Net migration out of California topped 100,000 in 2015, 2016 and 2017, according to the Census Bureau. And between 2006 and 2017, a total of 1.24 million Californians left the state, never to return, the third highest total in the country, behind only New York and Illinois. That should hardly come as a surprise in a state where buying a home is only affordable for 28% of the population, as the median home prices nearly doubled between 2012 and 2018. As more residents struggle to get away, new births and immigrants from abroad (including plenty of illegal aliens) are the only reason California’s population has continued to expand.

  

  Las Vegas, and the surrounding area, has emerged as one of the most popular destinations for these expats.

  

  More than half of new arrivals in Henderson – some 56% – between 2013 and 2017 were from California. In some of the ritzier areas, including new luxury developments, as many as 70% of the residents hailed from the Golden State.

  

  Many retirees have chosen to settle down in Nevada, instead of California, where they also enjoy being relatively close to their grandchildren. Bill and Cindy Clune, told WSJ that financial considerations were a big part of their decision to move.

  Mr. Clune, 62 years old, and his wife Cindy, 63, both retirees, persuaded their daughter and cousin, along with two other couples, to follow them to Henderson after they moved here three years ago. In addition to saving money, escaping the California traffic was a big draw. Mr. Clune said he used to spend as much as two hours each way commuting from his home in Temecula to his manufacturing business in North Hollywood.

  “Here, they complain if you have to spend 30 minutes in traffic,” Mr. Clune said.

  There are things he and his wife miss in California, though. “We have four grandkids there, and would love to see them more often,” he said. “And the beach is nice.”

  Pretty soon, retirees like the Clune might find their family members coming to stay with them instead of the other way around. Because, according to one recent survey, more than half of California’s 40 million residents wish they could escape from their own personal California nightmare.

  

• Regime Change is Urgently Needed… In Washington

  Authored by Andre Vitchek via Off-Guardian.org,

  I am surprised that no one else is saying it, writing it, shouting it at each and every corner: It is not Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Iran that are in dire and crucial need of ‘regime change’. It is the United States of America, it is the entire European Union; in fact, the entire West.

  

  And the situation is urgent.

  The West has gone mad; it has gone so to speak, bananas; mental. And people there are too scared to even say it, to write about it.

  One country after another is falling, being destroyed, antagonized, humiliated, impoverished. Entire continents are treated as if they were inhabited by irresponsible toddlers, who are being chased and disciplined by sadistic adults, with rulers and belts in their hands yelling with maniacal expressions on their faces: “Behave, do as we say, or else!”

  It all would be truly comical, if it weren’t so depressing. But… nobody is laughing. People are shaking, sweating, crying, begging, puking, but they are not chuckling.

  I see it everywhere where I work: in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

  But why?

  It is because North American and European countries are actually seriously delivering their ultimatum: you either obey us, and prostrate yourself in front of us, or we will break you, violate you, and if everything else fails, we will kill your leaders and all of those who are standing in our way.

  This is not really funny, is it? Especially considering that it is being done to almost all the countries in what is called Latin America, to many African and Middle Eastern nations, and to various states on the Asian continent.

  And it is all done ‘professionally’, with great sadistic craftsmanship and rituals. No one has yet withstood ‘regime change’ tactics, not even the once mighty Soviet Union, nor tremendous China, or proud and determined Afghanistan.

  Cuba, Venezuela, DPRK and Syria may be the only countries that are still standing. They resisted and mobilized all their resources in order to survive; and they have survived, but at a tremendous price.

  The victims keep crying. A few independent countries keep expressing their outrage. But so far, there is no grand coalition, which would be ready to fight and defend each other: “one for all, all for one”.

  Until the recent ‘rebellion’ at the UN, no one has been openly and seriously suggesting that international law should apply to all nations of the world, equally.

  People talk about ‘peace’. Many are begging the brigands to ‘to stop’, to ‘have mercy’, to show some compassion. But, neither Europe nor North America has ever shown any compassion, for long, terrible centuries. Look at the map of the beginning of the 20th century, for instance: the entire world was colonized, plundered and subjugated.

  Now it is all moving in the same direction. If the West is not stopped, our planet may not survive at all. And let us be realistic: begging, logical arguments and goodwill will not stop Washington, Paris or London from plundering and enslaving.

  Anyone who has at least some basic knowledge of world history knows that.

  So why is the world still not forging some true resistance?

  Is Venezuela going to be the last straw? And if not Venezuela, that is if Venezuela is allowed to fall, is it going to be Nicaragua, Cuba or Iran next? Is anything going to propel people into action?

  Are we all just going to look passively how, the socialist Venezuela, a country which has already given so much to the world, Venezuela which managed to create beautiful visions and concepts for our humanity, is going to be burned to ashes, and then robbed of all of its dreams, its resources and of its freedom?

  Are we all such cowards? Is this what we – human beings – have actually become; been reduced to? Cowards and cattle, selfish and submissive beings; slaves?

  All this, simply because people are too scared to confront the empire? Because they prefer to hide and to pretend that what is so obvious, is actually not taking place?

  Therefore, let me pronounce it, so at least my readers do not have that ‘luxury’ of claiming that they were not told:

  This world is being brutalized and controlled by the fascist clique of Western nations. There is no ‘democracy’ left in this world, as there is near zero respect for international law in North American and European capitals. Colonialism has returned in full force. Western imperialism is now almost fully controlling the world.

  And begging, trust me – begging and talking of peace is not going to help.

  During WWII, fascism had to be stopped. If not, it was going to devour the entire planet. In the past, tens of millions have already died fighting for freedom and for our mankind. Yes, some nations tried to compromise and negotiate with Nazi Germany, but we all know where it all ended.

  Now, the situation is the same. Or worse, perhaps much worse, because the West has nukes and a tremendous propaganda apparatus: it controls human brains all over the world with ‘mass media’, and ‘education’.

  And because the citizens of the West are now much more brainwashed than the Germans and Italians were in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s; more brainwashed, more scared, submissive and more ‘disciplined’.

  Look, seriously: are the people who are now writing those “peace essays”, in which they argue with the Western regime about who is right and who is wrong, seriously thinking that they are going to move people like Donald Trump, or Pompeo, or Abrams, or Rubio?

  Do they believe that Washington is going to stop murdering millions of people all over the world? Or that the neo-colonialist plunder would stop, after the US Congress and Senate suddenly understands that it has been at the wrong side of history?

  This is not some rhetorical question. I am serious: I demand answers!

  Does ‘peace movement’ thinks that by amassing arguments it could stop Western expansionism? Yes or no?

  Do they believe that Pompeo or Trump will suddenly hit their foreheads and exclaim: “You people are correct! We did not see this!” And call their troops, their thugs and mercenaries back?

  If not, if this is not what peace movements believe would be done by North American and European leaders, then why all those thousands of wasted pages?

  Would you go near a crocodile that is ready to devour an innocent child, and try to reason with it? Would you, seriously? Do you think it would stop, drop a few tears, wag its tail and leave?

  Sometimes I tend to believe that ‘peace movements’ in the West are making things worse. They create false hopes, and they behave as if the empire is some entity that has a soul, and understands logic. They grossly underestimate the threat; the danger.

  And they tend to analyze the Western threat from a Western perspective, using Western logic.

  It somehow gets lost in interpretation that fascism, terror, and bestiality have to be confronted and fought.

  One cannot negotiate with a group of countries which are already bathed in the blood of some 80% of the planet. If it was to happen, it would just be a mockery and it would simply humiliate everyone that is sincerely trying to stop the assassins.

  Right now, Venezuela needs solidarity. It requires direct help, actions; not words. And so do many other countries.

  Instead, it gets an endless avalanche of best wishes, as well as premature obituaries.

  The Bolivarian Revolution has gotten plenty of colorful words. But what it urgently needs is volunteers, money, and internationalist brigades!

  I know that billions of people all over the world are now cheering from their armchairs; in fact, doing absolutely nothing, while also spending zero. Their love for Venezuela is ‘platonic’.

  I have just left Syria, where I was covering the Idlib war zone. There was not one single foreigner near me, during those days. Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley usually work all over the toughest areas in Syria, but how many others do? And most of the time we work with near zero backing, just because we feel that it is our moral obligation to inform humanity.

  I am wondering, how many foreigners are fighting for Venezuela, right now?

  Who is going to face the Western spooks implanted into the Caracas and the Venezuelan borders with Colombia and Brazil? A few RT and TeleSur reporters, those true heroes, yes, but who else?

  Only direct action can save Venezuela, and the world.

  This is no time for debates.

  This is worse, much worse than the late 1930’s.

  The proverbial crocodile is here; its enormous ugly mouth open, ready to devour yet one more brilliant, proud country.

  It is time to stick a big metal rod into its mouth. Now, immediately; before it gets too late.

  Let us shout LONG LIVE VENEZUELA! But with our hands, muscles and purses, not just with our mouths.

  And let us not be scared to declare: if anywhere, it is Washington where regime change is truly and urgently needed!

  

• RaboBank: "Another Remarkable Day Of Drama"

  Submitted by Michael Every of RaboBank

  Another remarkable day of drama. Amazingly, the summit between US President Trump and North Korea’s Kim doesn’t get top billing anywhere in most media. Partly that’s the political equivalent of “the difficult second album” problem, and partly it’s what is going on elsewhere.

  In the US Congress we had three sets of remarkably testy testimony. First was Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen, who delivered allegations that in another time would have been so politically devastating no president could be expected to survive them: that Trump is a racist conman who has committed crimes while in office, and that Cohen fears he won’t leave office if he loses the 2020 presidential election. However, these are not ordinary times, this is not an ordinary president, Cohen is not an ordinary lawyer given he is facing jail as a perjurer…and a dispassionate view does not suggest there was actually anything new in any of those sometimes very wild charges.

  Crucially, even though we heard there are fresh investigations into Trump on-going in New York, there were no new smoking guns on Russia in particular, and perhaps the most explosive material was a cheque signed by Trump apparently used to reimburse Cohen for his pay-off to porn star Stormy Daniels – but even that appears to be a minor (USD35,000) campaign finance violation. In short, this was hardly a good day for Trump, but was it actually enough to say he will be impeached or fail to win again in 2020 due to it? That still looks very unlikely at this stage. At this stage, is any US voter’s opinion on Trump going to be swung either way? Really? And is there a genuine legal threat? Not until after 2020, apparently. In fact from a legal perspective this kind of backdrop deeply incentivises Trump to win again as he is in a far stronger position to face down various legal challenges while in office. Nonetheless, we can be assured that these kind of events are going to be a permanent fixture into 2020. Cohen is back tomorrow behind closed doors, for example.

  Second was US Trade Representative Lighthizer, who shot down hopes for a US-China trade deal. Lighthizer noted that plans to hike tariffs on USD200bn of Chinese goods from 10% to 25% are now suspended, which the same Wall Street Journal trade journalists that are always telling us a deal is close seems to think is again a sign that a deal is close. However, Lighthizer also said more Chinese purchases of US agri and gas are not enough and that structural issues are key. Moreover, we heard that the proposed enforcement mechanism to make sure China is “subject to corrective action should it fall short of its commitments”. Apparently this would mean monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual meetings at various levels of government, and companies would have the chance to make complaints anonymously: failure of the Chinese to address these would then see the US take appropriate unilateral action. Seriously, does anyone think Beijing is going to allow itself to be held to outside standards like this? Consider that Beijing makes crystal clear that it does not allow independent judiciaries as the Communist Party remains supreme: is it going to let US trade bureaucrats tell it what to do? Markets are still in denial about this – or at least emerging markets are. Lighthizer also stressed the importance of Congress passing the USMCA, because out of sight out of mind that hasn’t happened yet.

  Third was the Fed’s Powell, who was repeating his semi-annual testimony but didn’t generate the kind of fireworks one might have expected in Q&A from Democratic Representatives. Instead, Powell noted that QT won’t run too much further and will end this year, decried the rise in student debt, and underlined the US needs higher productivity. In short, nothing really exciting, but positive in as much as the threat of QT will end later in 2019.

  Naturally, the backdrop of India and Pakistan moving close to the brink of war pushed Trump and Kim down the news agenda too – although CNN, etc., still felt that Michael Cohen’s testimony was vastly more important. While Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has made a nudge-nudge wink-wink reference to the two countries’ nuclear weapons and has offered India a potential off-ramp from further escalation after his own military response to Indian airstrikes (and a video has shown a captured Indian pilot saying “The tea is fantastic”) it is still not assured this crisis is contained.

  Meanwhile, apart from a laudatory tweet from Trump on Vietnam’s economic dynamism, and suggestions that this is the future that is apparently on offer from the US if Kim will become its friend, we have little concrete to trade off. Apparently there will be a joint agreement signing ceremony today: will that see something dramatic? Certainly Trump could do with the good press just as much as Kim.

  And back in the UK

  What an unbelievable world we live in: even more so given that Bohemian Rhapsody won several Oscars for what was basically a high-budget school play on my viewing of it. If you want to watch Queen’s Live Aid triumph just go to YouTube: why bother with a facsimile?

  

• Ford "Quietly" Laying Off Thousands From Its China Joint Venture

  At a time when global auto sales are grinding to what feels like inevitable prolonged recession, the world is taking many of its industry cues from China. Which is why it is notable that Ford’s China JV would be laying off “thousands” of workers according to the NYT.

  Thousands of the JV’s 20,000 total workers are expected to be laid off as a result of weak auto sales in the world’s second largest economy – a sign of continuing weakness for autos (and the overall economy) heading into the second quarter of 2019. Layoffs recently “quietly begun”, according to additional reporting from Reuters.  Neither Ford nor its China JV, formed in partnership with Changan Automobile Group, had a comment on the reported layoffs Wednesday morning. 

  

  Car sales in China continued their relentless descent in January, falling 17.7%, as we recently expected would happen when discussing Europe’s tumbling January auto sales. This follows the country’s first full year slump (2018) in more than two decades and it puts further pressure on the state of the global automotive market. 

  The drop marked the eighth monthly retail sales decline in a row and was the biggest one-month drop in seven years. Gu Yatao, a Beijing-based auto analyst with Roland Berger, confirmed to Bloomberg that the “downward pressure is still there. The government isn’t adopting stimulating policies to give the market a shot in the arm.”

  

  The contraction in China comes at the same time that auto markets in Europe and North America continue to shrink as a result of car sharing services and slowing economies. As we have been reporting for months, the slowdown in China continues to be a result of the country’s slowing economy, coupled with the lagging trade war with the United States. Even discounts for the Chinese New Year, which traditionally can help spur sales, weren’t enough to keep consumers in showrooms early this year. 

  It’s a “historic slump” for China: the wholesale decline in January, to 2.02 million units, accelerated from December’s 15.8% slump. For 2018, the drop was 4.1%, marking the first decrease since the early 1990s. 

  Back in early February we reported that automakers had started off 2019 with absolutely abhorrent sales numbers in the U.S., as well.  Ford at the time – which no longer reports official monthly sales numbers, just like GM – was the one exception, rising 7% versus estimates of -1.5%, according to Bloomberg who cited “people familiar”. GM, on the other hand, fell 7% versus estimates of -3.7%.

  Japanese car giants Nissan and Toyota also both posted losses that were larger than expected and companies like Fiat Chrysler and Honda saw their meek gains falling below expectations. As was expected – and stop us if you’ve heard this one before – most companies wound up blaming the cold weather. Honda got creative and also blamed the government shutdown. 

  

  The results also indicated that the annualized industry sales rate has slowed more than estimated.

  

• Have We Already Passed World Peak Oil And World Peak Coal?

  Authored by Gail Tverberg via OurFiniteWorld.com,

  Most people expect that our signal of an impending reduction in world oil or coal production will be high prices. Looking at historical data (for example, this post and this post), this is precisely the opposite of the correct price signal. Oil and coal supplies decline because prices fall too low for producers. These producers make voluntary cutbacks because the prices they receive fall below their cost of production. There often are supply gluts at the same time.

  This strange situation arises because prices must be high enough for the producersat the same time that goods and services made by oil (and other energy products) are inexpensive enough for consumers to afford. There is a two way battle taking place:

  (1) Prices producers require tend to rise over time, because of depletion. The easiest to extract portion of any resource (such as oil, coal, copper, or lithium) tends to be removed first. What is left tends to be deeper, lower quality, or otherwise more difficult to extract cheaply.

  (2) Prices consumers can afford for discretionary goods (such as cell phones and automobiles) tend to fall for a combination of reasons:

  • Wages of many workers fall because of competition from lower cost labor in other countries.

  • Some jobs are eliminated through the use of computers or robots.

  • Young people are increasingly being required to pay for higher education (beyond that which is provided free), leaving many with loans to repay, reducing their discretionary income.

  • Changes to US healthcare law (mostly starting January 1, 2014) lead to required health insurance premiums. While some citizens find cost savings in this approach, healthy young people often experience cutbacks in discretionary income as a result.

  • Rents and home prices keep rising faster than incomes.

  When the discretionary income of the many non-elite workers of the world falls, they buy fewer finished goods and services. Finished goods and services are manufactured using commodities of many kinds, including oil, coal, copper, iron ore, and fresh water. When discretionary demand falls, commodity prices tend to fall. This is the problem we are encountering now. It tends to cause the prices of many commodities to fall below the cost of production. Eventually, producers decide to quit because production is no longer profitable. This is the issue that leads to peak oil, coal or copper.

  

  Figure 1. Illustration showing why falling affordability creates a conflict between supply and demand.

  If the Affordability Price Clash Mostly Affects Non-Elite Workers, Does It Matter?

  When I talk about non-elite workers, I am talking about workers who are in the bottom 90% of the wage distribution. Elite workers will always have enough income for the necessities of life. There are so many non-elite workers in the world that they, indeed, do make a difference.

  Also, the forces that adversely affect non-elite workers tend to have several effects:

  1. They tend to send a larger share of wages to elite workers, as the economy becomes more complex and more specialized.

  2. They tend to send more unearned income to elite workers, through capital appreciation, because elite workers can afford to buy shares of stock and expensive homes.

  3. The wealthy spend their income differently from non-elite workers. Non-elite workers tend to spend the bulk of their discretionary income on devices made using commodities, such as cell phones and automobiles. The wealthy are likely to spend their discretionary income in less energy intensive ways, such as investing in shares of stock and buying services such as private college education for their children.

  History shows that economies tend to collapse when wage and wealth disparity becomes too great. Collapse can take various forms, including revolutions by the disgruntled underclass, increased susceptibility to epidemics, or the financial collapse of governments. Wars become more likely, as one country tries to aid its citizens at the expense of citizens of other countries.

  The world today seems to be approaching a crisis point with respect to wage and wealth disparity. Young people in particular are adversely affected. Figure 2 shows a chart indicating that wage disparity seems to be back to the level it was at the time of the Great Depression of the 1930s. This was also a time of low commodity prices and gluts of food and oil.

  

  Figure 2. U. S. Income Shares of Top 1% and Top 0.1%, Wikipedia exhibit by Piketty and Saez.

  Gluts tend to occur because commodity prices rise to a level where devices made with these commodities (such as cell phones and automobiles) become too expensive for non-elite workers to afford. Elite workers can still afford the devices, but there are not enough elite workers to make up for the shortfall in non-elite buyers of these devices, so industrial output per capita tends to fall.

  Figure 3 shows the important role that the wages of non-elite workers play in generating adequate demand. If their wages are high enough, they can buy enough goods and services made with commodities to keep commodity prices high. With sufficiently high commodity prices, production can continue.

  

  Figure 3: Chart showing the important role that the wages of non-elite workers play in maintaining energy demand. With adequate demand, prices can remain high enough for production to continue.

  Why the Peak in World Oil Production Likely Occurred in 2018 

  If we look at recent oil data, we see a pattern of growing gluts in supply, as indicated by the red bars in Figure 4. Even in the most recent week, the week ending February 15, 2019, after all of the cuts begun by OPEC and other oil exporters, US crude oil stocks continue to build. This is not the impact a person would expect, if the production cuts are truly effective!

  

  Figure 4. Brent average quarterly oil price (in January 2019$), with an indication of quarters when world crude oil inventories are building. Oil prices are Brent spot oil prices, adjusted using the CPI-Urban to January 2019 prices levels. World inventory build quarters are based on indications shown in US Short Term Energy Outlook reports of various publication dates.

  This is precisely the kind of signal we would expect, if products made with oil (and using oil in their operation) are becoming increasingly unaffordable for the non-elite workers of the world. Note that these bars are becoming more frequent and are occurring at lower prices. This is the expected outcome of a clash between the falling discretionary income of non-elite workers and the rising costs of oil producers.

  When prices fall too low, producers cut back production. OPEC reports its view of the effect of recent production cutbacks in Figure 5.

  

  Figure 5. OPEC and world oil supply, in chart from OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report for February 2019.

  Given the nearly worldwide problem of falling affordability of goods by non-elite workers, we should not be surprised if the peaks in oil production in October and November 2018 ultimately prove to be the maximum production ever recorded. In fact, it seems quite likely that the year 2018 will prove to be the year with the highest-ever oil production.

  The cutback in production will appear to be voluntary. Once cutbacks start, they will tend to feed upon themselves. Unless oil prices really spike following the cutbacks (say, to $90 per barrel), exporting countries will find themselves worse off after the cutbacks, for a combination of reasons:

  • The cutback in production will reduce the number of workers directly and indirectly employed by the oil industry. Their reduced spending will lead to a need for expanded government programs.

  • Housing prices will fall in oil exporting countries. This is likely to ultimately lead to debt defaults.

  • Tax revenue that governments of oil exporters can collect on the smaller amount of oil will be lower, even though the needs of the economy will be greater.

  Ultimately, it seems likely that at least some governments of oil exporting countries will be overthrown, depressing oil production further. If the breakeven price for most OPEC members, including necessary tax revenue, was over $100 per barrel in 2014, it is hard to see how exporters can get along with much less today.

  World Coal Production: Following a Similar Pattern to Oil?

  One thing that most people don’t realize is that coal prices follow a very similar pattern to those of oil.

  

  Figure 6. Sample world coal prices, based on information from 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

  In Figure 6, coal prices experience a major peak in 2008, followed by a lower peak in the 2011 period, which peters out by 2013. Prices recently are much lower than in the 2008 period, or in the 2011 to 2013 period. This pattern is very similar to the recent pattern in oil prices.

  The similarity in the patterns of coal prices and oil prices makes perfect sense if prices of both oil and coal are based primarily on affordability, and this affordability depends heavily on the wages of non-elite workers. When countries, such as China, ramp up their debt, more non-elite workers can be hired at higher wages. These workers can make more computers, automobiles, steel ingots, and many other goods. They can also afford to buy more output of the world economy. This ramped up demand tends to raise the prices of both coal and oil.

  For many commodities, China’s demand represents close to half of the world demand. China has become the world’s number one manufacturer of goods. China needs growing energy consumption to maintain its growth of manufactured goods because it takes energy to operate machines, even computers. It even takes energy to keep the lights on.

  Unfortunately, with the recent lower prices for coal and oil, China is experiencing lower production of both coal and oil (Figure 7). Without growing energy supplies, China cannot meet the world’s growing need for manufactured goods.

  

  Figure 7. China energy production by fuel, based on 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

  The reason why China has recently reduced production of both coal and oil is the usual one: the rising cost of production conflicts with the low prices available in the marketplace, making production unprofitable for a growing share of producers.

  How about China’s total energy consumption? Do imports make up for China’s lack of local production?

  

  Figure 8. China energy production by fuel, with a line added to indicated it total energy consumption, including imports. Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 data.

  Not really. China is the world’s largest importer of coal, oil and natural gas. It is also the number one user of wind and solar (included in the tiny orange “Other Renewables” portion of the chart). Even with these huge additions to China’s energy production, its annual growth in the quantity of energy it consumes (including imports) has plummeted (Figure 9).

  

  Figure 9. China annual growth in total energy consumption. Based on 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energydata.

  China reports that its real GDP growth rate is still very high (over 6%, net of inflation), but many observers are skeptical of this claim. Certainly, going forward, its coal and oil production cannot continue to decline, or the economy will encounter huge problems. The amount of goods China will be able to manufacture will fall, as will the number of new homes it can build. Without continued growth, China is likely to run into debt default problems. China is such a large country that its problems can be expected to adversely affect the world economy as a whole.

  Figure 10 shows that China produces nearly half of the world’s total coal. If China’s coal production declines, world production is also likely to decline.

  

  Figure 10. World coal production, divided into China and Non-China, based on 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

  The only way to prop up coal production, for either China or the rest of the world, is higher prices, indirectly coming from higher demand from non-elite workers. Businesses can perhaps use rising debt to hire these non-elite workers but, if there is not a sufficient supply of buyers who can afford the additional goods and services made by these workers, the final outcome will be debt defaults.

  The Fundamental Problem Is a Physics Problem

  The fundamental problem is that the economy grows for the same reason that hurricanes, ecosystems, stars, and plants and animals grow. They are dissipative structures that grow in the presence of energy flows. In the case of hurricanes, the energy comes from the heat in the warm ocean. In the case of the economy, the energy flows are of many different types, including (among others), human energy, energy of draft animals, solar energy, fossil fuels, and wind energy.

  One key characteristic of dissipative structures is that they are not permanent. Permanent growth in a finite system is not possible. The laws of physics sets up the system in such a way that dissipative structures grow and eventually collapse. Over time, new dissipative structures form, each varying in a random way from previous dissipative structures. Those best adapted to the ever-changing circumstances tend to last the longest. This is the way that the evolution of economies takes place, just as the evolution of plants and animals takes place.

  One characteristic of economies is that physics determines how much energy is needed to manufacture and transport a particular product. It also determines how much the mix of buyers can afford to pay for finished products using this energy. Thus, physics determines the potential profitability of a particular manufacturing process, with lower energy costs tending to make production more profitable. As energy costs rise because of diminishing returns, the system eventually reaches a point where it must collapse. The cost of production rises so high, relative to wages, that many non-elite workers cannot afford the finished goods and services made by the system.

  The laws of physics also determine what wage distributions must look like, given the availability of energy and other resources. In general, if there are not enough resources to go around, some members of the economy tend to get “frozen out” by low wages. In addition, in a low-energy per capita situation, the energy that is available tends to rise to the top, to the high-earners of the economy, somewhat like heating water transforms it to its gas phase (steam), which rises to the top. With this structure, even with a severe energy shortfall, some members of the economy can be survivors.

  With today’s worldwide economy, the survivors might be some humans and businesses within the world economy. The system would need to start over, building up smaller economies from pieces that managed to stay intact, but the system, as a whole, would not die out, unless the energy shortfall were to be severe.

  Modeling the World Economy

  One issue with academic research today is that it tends to be divided into many academic “silos.” Researchers tend to know more and more about their own field, but less and less about other fields that might be peripherally related. For example, economists tend not to keep up with the physics of self-organizing networked systems. Geophysicists understand the physics that governs the extraction of fuels, but they have no insight into the fact that the laws of physics might also affect prices and wage distributions.

  Without understanding the forces that are causing the results that are being observed, it is very easy to create a model that is more misleading than helpful. For example, a simple model of the earth is the one each of us can see as we look around us.

  

  Figure 11. Source: Edrawsoft.com

  The model shown in Figure 11 is a flat map. This is a perfectly good representation of what the earth looks like, if a person is not concerned about what happens at a distance. Of course, to extend the map out, a person really needs to convert the model into a globe. A globe is a very different model.

  Economic researchers tend to have some of the same modeling issues as illustrated by the flat map model. Economists favor fitting curves to past data to forecast the future patterns. Curve fitting tends not to be good for determining turning points. When dealing with energy and other resources, we are really interested in when a turning point will happen, forcing production of energy products and resources of many kinds downward.

  Another model favored by economists is the standard two-dimensional supply and demand model (Figure 12). This model ignores the special role that energy products play because of the operation of the laws of physics. Energy products, as they work through the networked economy, affect both the supply and demand of finished goods and services, making the two dimensional model shown inappropriate.

  

  Figure 12. This standard model does not consider the special role energy plays in the economy under the laws of physics, so is not appropriate for energy products.

  With neither curve fitting nor the standard supply and demand model sounding an alarm with respect to energy prices not being able to rise forever, economists have tended to overlook this issue.

  

  Figure 13. Economic models tend to give a false sense of security because they forecast that the future will be a continuation of the past.

  Of course, policymakers are happy to hear happily-ever-after endings. Few policymakers question the reasonableness of the models. They do not consider the possibility that the falling discretionary income of non-elite workers around the world might choke off demand for goods made with energy products.

  Even geophysicists who have looked at the problem tend to get the story only half right. They understand underground physics, but they tend not to understand that prices cannot rise indefinitely. This is a different, related issue, also associated with the physics of the situation.

  “Climate Change Is Our Biggest Problem” Is a Corollary to Bad Modeling

  If a person truly believes that energy prices can and will rise forever, then it is an easy corollary to assume that all fossil fuels that we can identify within the earth’s crust will eventually become extractable. There are no limits except for the limits imposed by climate change.

  Of course, if we are really hitting price limits here and now, the situation is likely to be very different. These price limits will cause a very near-term decline in energy supply, which we essentially have no control over. Financial systems are likely to collapse; international trade will be scaled way back; world population is likely to fall. CO2 levels will, in time, adjust to this radically changed world.

  I showed earlier (in How the Peak Oil story could be “close,” but not quite right) that the models used to “prove” that wind and solar can be helpful to the system greatly overstate their benefit to the system. As a result, we don’t really have evidence that wind and solar are even helpful to the system.

  Consequently, we really have two false models working together to give an illusion that we have a huge problem which is fixable, if we just exert enough effort. Physics puts a cap on our efforts, however. The physics of the system makes the system collapse before policymakers can hope to even make a small fix.

  

  Figure 14. Two false models work together to give the illusion that climate change is the greatest problem that humans have and that we can fix the problem with fixes to the fuel system.

  The unfortunate problem is that policymakers are not really in charge: the laws of physics are in charge. Energy and other resources are no longer inexpensive enough to extract to allow the system to work. The proposed solutions (wind and solar) are not cheap enough to save the system either. We can temporarily hide the problem with more debt (indirect promises of future energy) at lower interest rates, but this does not fix the system.

  Conclusion

  Many of the problems the world economy is facing today seem to be the result of reaching the limits of energy extraction. Very few researchers understand how a self-organized networked economy really operates. As a result, the symptoms of economic health and economic illness have been confused. It looks quite possible that we have reached both Peak Oil and Peak Coal, approximately simultaneously. This is a frightening situation, because it could be an indication of collapse in the next few years. This would likely be much worse than the Depression of the 1930s.

  Of course, even with these observations, we do not know precisely what lies ahead. Somehow, multicellular animals have lived on this earth for a very long time. Amazing coincidences have happened and may continue to happen, allowing economies to flourish. We humans do not have as much control over the current situation as we would like to think that we have. Fortunately, we cannot rule out the possibility of more amazing coincidences, perhaps even caused by a literal Higher Power behind the energy flows. Thus, the result may be different from what our models seem to suggest.

  

• Will Trudeau Resign After Former AG's Explosive Testimony?

  During a day where three concurrent Congressional hearings dominated the news cycle in the US, the testimony of Canada’s former Attorney General seemed to slip under the radar. But unlike Michael Cohen’s star turn in front of the House Oversight Committee, what former AG Jody Wilson-Raybould shared with lawmakers and the Canadian public actually might cause one head of state’s carefully constructed house of cards to come crashing down – just as campaign season is ramping up.

  With roughly eight months left until an election where Canadians will decide whether to stick with – or reject – the progressive agenda of PM Justin Trudeau, a widening corruption scandal is threatening to take down the prime minister’s entire government. Two weeks ago, journalists at the Globe and Mail blew the lid off a scandal involving Trudeau and his closest aides, where the prime minister appeared to pressure Wilson-Raybould, then the attorney general, into offering a DPA to a Quebec-based engineering firm – then fired her when she refused to obey his demands. And after weeks of radio silence, she shared her side of the story during a widely watched (in Canada) Congressional hearing Wednesday afternoon.

  

  Wilson-Raybould

  Answering questions posed by a conservative MP, Wilson-Raybould said she faced intense political pressure and veiled threats from at least 11 people involved in the government – either the PMO or the Privy Council Office – related to the SNC-Lavalin affair. She also said she was warned directly by Trudeau about the negative consequences should the company face prosecution, according to CBC.  One close aide to Trudeau has already resigned over the scandal.

  Wilson-Raybould listed the people she had warned about “the inappropriate nature of these conversations” after they “hounded” her about the affair, including Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick and the (now-fired) senior senior aide to the prime minister, Gerald Butts.

  “For a period of four months from September to December 2018, I experience a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the attorney general of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with SNC-Lavalin.”

  “Within these conversations there were express statements regarding the necessity of interfering in the SNC-Lavalin matter, the potential of consequences, and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC-Lavalin,” she said.

  During a series of meetings, one of which took place on Sept. 17, Wilson-Raybould described how Trudeau and Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick tried to reason with her after she informed them that she had decided not to overturn a decision from the director of the Public Prosecution Service to proceed with criminal prosecution against SNC-Lavalin.

  After hearing her answer, Trudeau warned of potential job losses should the company choose to move, and purportedly asked her to “help out.”

  “At that point, the prime minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec, and that, ‘I am an MP in Quebec, the MP for Papineau,'” she recounted. ‘I was quite taken aback.”

  At that point, Wilson-Raybould said, she posed a direct question to Trudeau while looking him straight in the eye, asking if he was politically interfering with her role and her decision as the attorney general.

  “I would strongly advise against it,” she told the committee she warned Trudeau, who responded, “No, no, no, we just need to find a solution.”

  During another conversation, PMO senior staffer Mathieu Bouchard purportedly told Wilson-Raybould when discussing the case that “we need to get re-elected,” and proceeded to pressure her to change her ruling.

  After repeatedly refusing to yield, she was moved in January from AG to the head of the department of Veterans’ Affairs – which was widely seen as a demotion. She resigned from the cabinet soon after. It wasn’t until weeks later that reports surfaced alleging that the seemingly arbitrary move may have been carried out in retribution for her refusal to cooperate on the SNC-Lavalin case.

  And with that, calls for Trudeau to resign grow louder.

  There can’t help but be demands that Trudeau resign, now. This is extraordinary. #CDNPOLI #LavScam

  — Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) February 27, 2019

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

• Monsanto's Roundup Weed Killer Found In Top Beer And Wind Brands 

  A new report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund reveals that many beers and wine sold across the US contain toxic glyphosate from weedkiller.

  

  PIRG tested five wines, 14 beers and one hard cider for the study. The wine brands were Barefoot, Beringer, Frey (organic), Inkarri Estates (organic), and Sutter Home. The beers tested were from Budweiser, Coors, Corona, Guinness, Heineken, Miller, Peak (organic), Sam Adams, Samuel Smith (organic), Sierra Nevada, Stella Artois, Tsingtao and New Belgium. Ace Perry Hard Cider was also tested.

  The study determined that popular beers like Coors, Budweiser, and Corona Extra contained an average of roughly 28 parts per billion (ppb). Tsingtao, the outlier, contained a whopping 49.7 ppb. 

  

  Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides across the US and is the active ingredient in products such as Roundup, Rodeo Aquatic Herbicide, and Eraser. The toxic chemical is a broad-spectrum herbicide that kills plants but has also been linked to cancer in humans by the World Health Organization.

  

  Sutter Home Merlot had the highest concentrations of glyphosate of all 20 brands, at 51 ppb. Beringer Estates Moscato and Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon had slightly smaller levels of the chemical.

  This mind-numbing revelation was published on the same day as a San Francisco court began hearing arguments in the first federal civil case over whether Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer causes cancer.

  “When you’re having a beer or a glass of wine, the last thing you want to think about is that it includes a potentially dangerous pesticide,” said U.S. PIRG Education Fund’s Kara Cook-Schultz, who authored the study.

  “No matter the efforts of brewers and vintners, we found that it is incredibly difficult to avoid the troubling reality that consumers will likely drink glyphosate at every happy hour and backyard barbeque around the country.”

  The study also found that herbicides like Roundup are prohibited in the making of organic beers and wines, but somehow, glyphosate was discovered in three of the four organic alcoholic beverages tested.

  While the results are below the EPA’s risk tolerances for alcoholic beverages, at least one study noticed that as little as one part per trillion of glyphosate can trigger the growth of breast cancer cells and disrupt the endocrine system.

  The findings indicate that glyphosate contamination is widespread in over-the-counter beers and wine.

  Americans should take the appropriate action by avoiding the alcoholic beverages mentioned in the study.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Final Steps Of The Multipolar Revolution: Containing The US In Europe

  Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  We discussed in the previous article how China and Russia are using diplomatic, economic and military means in areas like Asia and the Middle East to contain the belligerence and chaos unleashed by the United States. In this analysis, we will examine the extent to which this strategy is working in Europe. In the next and final article, we will look at the consequences of the “America First” doctrine in relation to South America and the Monroe Doctrine.

  

  The United States has in the last three decades brought chaos and destruction to large parts of Europe, in spite of the common myth that the old continent has basked in the post-WWII peace of the American-led world order. This falsehood is fueled by European politicians devoted to the European Union and eager to justify and praise the European project. But history shows that the United States fueled or directed devastating wars on the European continent in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, with the conflict between Georgia and Ossetia at the beginning of the 1990s, with the war in Georgia in 2008, and in the coup in Ukraine in 2014, with the ensuing aggression against the Donbass.

  The major problem for Washington’s European allies has always been summoning the will to contain US imperialism. For many years, especially since the end of the Cold War, European countries have preferred to defer to Washington’s positions, confirming their status as colonies rather than allies. It is fundamental to recognize that European politicians have always been at the service of Washington, eager to prostrate themselves to American exceptionalism, favoring US interests over European ones.

  The wars on the European continent are a clear demonstration of how Washington used Europe to advance her own interests. The abiding goal of the neocons and the Washington establishment has been to deny any possibility of a rapprochement between Germany and Russia, something that could potentially result in a dangerous axis threatening Washington’s interests. The war of aggression against Yugoslavia represented the deathblow to the Soviet republics, an effort to banish the influence of Moscow on the continent. The subsequent war in Ossetia, Georgia and Ukraine had the double objective of attacking and weakening the Russian Federation as well as creating a hostile climate for Moscow in Europe, limiting economic and diplomatic contacts between East and West.

  In recent years, especially following the coup in Ukraine, the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation, and Kiev’s terrorist action against the Donbass, relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated to historically low levels.

  The election of Trump has sent confusing signals to the Europeans vis-a-vis Russia. Initially Trump seemed intent on establishing good relations with Putin in the face of strong opposition from European allies like France, Germany and the UK. But the possibility of a US-Russia rapprochement has been severely undermined by a combination of Trump’s inexperience, the unhelpful advisors he has appointed, and the US deep state. This geopolitical upheaval has had two primary consequences. For the Germans, first and foremost, it has deepened energy and economic cooperation with Moscow, especially in relation to the Nord Stream 2. But on the other hand, Trump has found friends in European countries hostile to Russia like Poland.

  The divergences between the US and Europe have widened with Washington’s withdrawal from a number of important treaties like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, both of which have a direct impact on Europe in terms of security and the economy. Donald Trump and his “America First” attitude has thereby afforded Europeans some space to maneuver and establish some level of autonomy, resulting in increasing synergies with Moscow and especially Beijing.

  In economic terms, China has offered Europe (with Greece as a prime example) full integration into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a project with vast possibilities for increasing trade among dozens of countries. Europe will become the main market for Chinese goods, but at the moment one of the greatest obstacles to be overcome can be seen in the freight trains, which often start their journey towards Europe full but are half-empty on their return journey to China. Beijing and the major European capitals are well aware that to make the BRI project economically sustainable, this exchange must go in both directions so that both sides gain.

  The technological interconnection between China and Europe is already happening thanks to Huawei devices that are being purchased by European companies in increasing numbers. The absence of back doors in Huawei systems, in contrast to what Snowden has shown with other Western systems, is the real reason why Washington has declared war on this Chinese company. Industrial espionage is a priceless advantage enjoyed by the United States, and the presence of backdoors on Western systems, to which the CIA and NSA have access, guarantees a competitive advantage allowing Washington to excel in terms of technology. With the spread of Huawei systems this advantage is lost, to the chagrin of Washington’s spy apparatus. European allies understand the potential advantage to be gained and are protecting themselves with the Chinese systems.

  In technological terms, Beijing’s efforts are proving very successful in Europe and are paving the way for future physical integration in the BRI. In this sense, the participation of such European countries as the UK, France, Germany and Italy in the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) also shows how the prospect of Chinese capital investments are of great interest to troubled European economies.

  In the military field, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty threatens the safety of European countries because of the measures adopted by the Russian Federation to guarantee necessary protection from US systems deployed in Europe. A proverb states that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Europe, as the potential battlefield in any great-power confrontation, has the most to lose from a renewed cold war that could turn hot. Moscow’s revelation of its new generation of weapons has caused anxiety among Europeans who worry that their lives may be sacrificed in order to please Americans who are thousands of miles away. At the same time, the Americans want to get rid of NATO while demanding that the Europeans spend more on American weapons and also limit Sino-Russian investments in Europe. It is likely that the breakdown of the INF Treaty, combined with the conventional and nuclear capabilities of Moscow, will boost diplomatic talks between Russia and Europe without the US being able to sabotage future agreements. Some European countries are keen to be rid of the policy of subordinating their interests to that of Washington, especially with regards to security.

  Russia cleverly uses two decisive instruments to limit Washington’s influence on Europe and contain the chaos produced by its foreign-policy establishment. Firstly, it has the strength of its own conventional and nuclear arsenal that acts as a deterrent against excessive provocations. Secondly, it has huge deposits of oil and LNG that it exports to the European market in considerable quantities. The combination of these two factors allows Moscow to contain the chaos unleashed by the US in such places as Georgia or Ukraine as well as limit US influence on internal European affairs, as can be seen in the case of Germany and the Nord Stream 2 project. Merkel is forced to concede that in spite of her demonisation of Moscow, Berlin cannot do away with Russia’s supply of energy. This has increased tensions between Berlin and Washington, with the US eager to replace Russian gas with its own much more expensive LNG shipped all the way across the Atlantic.

  Chinese economic power, combined with Russia’s military deterrence as well as European reliance on Russia for its energy supply, shows that Europe cannot afford to follow its American ally in acting provocatively against the Sino-Russian axis. Europe has, moreover, suffered from US wars in the Middle East and the waves of migrants brought on by this. Small shoots of strategic autonomy can be seen in the creation of the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), an alternative payment system to the dollar to work around sanctions against Iran. The little or no diplomatic support extended to Ukraine’s anti-Russia stance by France and Germany could be seen as another sign of the Europeans becoming more independent. The recent Munich Security Conference, with Poroshenko in attendance, further confirmed that Merkel intends to rely on Russian gas supplies in the interests of energy diversification.

  The combined diplomatic, military and economic actions of Russia and China in Europe are decidedly more limited and effective in Europe compared to other parts of the world like the Middle East and Asia. Political rhetoric, amplified by the media, that is against cooperation between Europe, Russia and China, only serves the interests of the United States. Russia and China are succeeding by proposing viable alternatives to Washington’s unipolar world order, extending to European countries a strategic liberty that would otherwise not be available to them in a Washington-directed unipolar world order.

  It is still not clear whether the European capitals are turning to Moscow out of anti-Trump rather than anti-American sentiment. It remains to be seen whether these changes are temporary and await the return to the US presidency of someone who believes in liberal hegemony, or whether the changes underway are the first in a series of upheavals that will progressively reshape the world order from unipolar to multipolar, with Europe clearly being one of the main poles.

  

• Cohen Tips Off NYT: Will Call Trump "Racist" , "Con Man" And "Cheat" In Wednesday Testimony

  Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen – who is soon heading to prison on eight criminal charges – one of which had to do with Donald Trump, will testify to Congress on Wednesday that President Trump is a “con man” and a cheat,” according to a copy of his opening statement given to the New York Times.

  Cohen will say that while Trump was “intoxicating” to be around, and “When you were in his presence, you felt like you were involved in something greater than yourself — that you were somehow changing the world,” that the president is actually a ‘racist, conman and a cheat.’

  

  Cohen will claim among the following (via the Times): 

  • Trump knew that Roger Stone was “talking with Julian Assange about a WikiLeaks drop of Democratic National Committee emails” (something easily confirmed by the Ecuadorian Embassy, which keeps extensive records on Assange’s communications).

  In July 2016, days before the Democratic convention, I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone. Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone,” his written remarks say. “Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of ‘wouldn’t that be great.’”

  • Trump “implicitly” instructed Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow timeline – using winks and nods instead of direct language.

  In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing,” Mr. Cohen plans to say. “In his way, he was telling me to lie.”

  • Cohen was instructed to “threaten his high school, colleges, and the College Board not to release his grades or SAT scores.

  When I say conman, I’m talking about a man who declares himself brilliant but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores. 

  • Cohen will say that Trump never said “anything in private that led me to believe he loved our nation or wanted to make it better. In fact, he did the opposite. 

  When telling me in 2008 that he was cutting employees’ salaries in half – including mine – he showed me what he claimed was a $10 million IRS tax refund, and he said that he could not believe how stupid the government was for giving “someone like him” that much money back.

  • Cohen will claim Trump is a racist who said that black people are “too stupid” to support him. 

  • Cohen will say Trump lied about bone spurs to get out of servicing in vietnam. “You think I’m stupid, I wasn’t going to Vietnam,” Cohen claims Trump said. 

  Collusion?

  Cohen says that he has no evidence of collusion with Russia surrounding the 2016 US election – but he has his “suspicions.”

  Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions

  Sometime in the summer of 2017, I read all over the media that there had been a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 involving Don Jr. and others from the campaign with Russians, including a representative of the Russian government, and an email setting up the meeting with the subject line, “Dirt on Hillary Clinton.”

  Something clicked in my mind. I remember being in the room with Mr. Trump, probably in early June 2016, when something peculiar happened. Don Jr. came into the room and walked behind his father’s desk – which in itself was unusual. People didn’t just walk behind Mr. Trump’s desk to talk to him. I recalled Don Jr. leaning over to his father and speaking in a low voice, which I could clearly hear, and saying: “The meeting is all set.” I remember Mr. Trump saying, “Ok good…let me know.” What struck me as I looked back and thought about that exchange between Don Jr. and his father was, first, that Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr. had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. And also, that Don Jr. would never set up any meeting of any significance alone – and certainly not without checking with his father.

  Read the rest below:

  

• John Pilger: The War On Venezuela Is Built On Lies

  Authored by John Pilger via ConsortiumNews.com,

  The reporter as clown – for whom the truth is too difficult to report – may be the final stage of much of mainstream journalism’s degeneration…

  Travelling with Hugo Chavez, I soon understood the threat of Venezuela.  At a farming co-operative in Lara state, people waited patiently and with good humor in the heat. Jugs of water and melon juice were passed around. A guitar was played; a woman, Katarina, stood and sang with a husky contralto.

  “What did her words say?” I asked.

  “That we are proud,” was the reply.

  The applause for her merged with the arrival of Chavez. Under one arm he carried a satchel bursting with books.  He wore his big red shirt and greeted people by name, stopping to listen.

  

  Hugo Chavez in 2004. (Franklin Reyes via Wikimedia)

  What struck me was his capacity to listen. 

  But now he read. For almost two hours he read into the microphone from the stack of books beside him: Orwell, Dickens, Tolstoy, Zola, Hemingway, Chomsky, Neruda: a page here, a line or two there. People clapped and whistled as he moved from author to author. Then farmers took the microphone and told him what they knew, and what they needed; one ancient face, carved it seemed from a nearby banyan, made a long, critical speech on the subject of irrigation; Chavez took notes.

  Wine is grown here, a dark Syrah type grape. “John, John, come up here,” said El Presidente, having watched me fall asleep in the heat and the depths of Oliver Twist.

  “He likes red wine,” Chavez told the cheering, whistling audience, and presented me with a bottle of “vino de la gente.” My few words in bad Spanish brought whistles and laughter.

  Watching Chavez with the people, la gente, made sense of a man who promised, on coming to power, that his every move would be subject to the will of the people.  In eight years, Chavez won eight elections and referendums: a world record. He was electorally the most popular head of state in the Western Hemisphere, probably in the world.

  Every major chavista reform was voted on, notably a new constitution of which 71 percent of the people approved each of the 396 article that enshrined unheard of freedoms, such as Article 123, which for the first time recognized the human rights of mixed-race and black people, of whom Chavez was one.

  Their First Champions

  One of his tutorials on the road quoted a feminist writer: “Love and solidarity are the same.” His audiences understood this well and expressed themselves with dignity, seldom with deference. Ordinary people regarded Chavez and his government as their first champions: as theirs.

  

  Crowds at the funeral of Hugo Chávez Frías, Military Academy, Caracas, March 2013. (Cancillería del Ecuador via Flickr)

  This was especially true of the indigenous, mestizos and Afro-Venezuelans, who had been held in historic contempt by Chavez’s immediate predecessors and by those who today live far from the barrios, in the mansions and penthouses of East Caracas, who commute to Miami where their banks are and who regard themselves as “white.” They are the powerful core of what the media calls “the opposition.”

  When I met this class, in suburbs called Country Club, in homes appointed with low chandeliers and bad portraits, I recognized them. They could be white South Africans, the petite bourgeoisie of Constantia and Sandton, pillars of the cruelties of apartheid.

  Cartoonists in the Venezuelan press, most of which are owned by an oligarchy and oppose the government, portrayed Chavez as an ape. A radio host referred to “the monkey.” In the private universities, the verbal currency of the children of the well-off is often racist abuse of those whose shacks are just visible through the pollution.

  Although identity politics are all the rage in the pages of liberal newspapers in the West, race and class are two words almost never uttered in the mendacious “coverage” of Washington’s latest, most naked attempt to grab the world’s greatest source of oil and reclaim its “backyard.”

  For all the chavistas’ faults — such as allowing the Venezuelan economy to become hostage to the fortunes of oil and never seriously challenging big capital and corruption — they brought social justice and pride to millions of people and they did it with unprecedented democracy.

  

  Chavez voting in 2007. (Wikimedia)

  Stellar Election Process

  “Of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored,” said former President Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Center, is a respected monitor of elections around the world, “I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” By way of contrast, said Carter, the U.S. election system, with its emphasis on campaign money, “is one of the worst.”

  In extending the franchise to a parallel people’s state of communal authority, based in the poorest barrios, Chavez described Venezuelan democracy as “our version of Rousseau’s idea of popular sovereignty.”

  In Barrio La Linea, seated in her tiny kitchen, Beatrice Balzo told me her children were the first generation of the poor to attend a full day’s school and be given a hot meal and to learn music, art and dance. “I have seen their confidence blossom like flowers,” she said.

  In Barrio La Vega, I listened to a nurse, Mariella Machado, a black woman of 45 with a wicked laugh, address an urban land council on subjects ranging from homelessness to illegal war. That day, they were launching Mision Madres de Barrio, a program aimed at poverty among single mothers. Under the constitution, women have the right to be paid as caregivers, and can borrow from a special women’s bank. Now the poorest housewives get the equivalent of $200 a month.

  

  In a room lit by a single fluorescent tube, I met Ana Lucia Fernandez, aged 86, and Mavis Mendez, aged 95. A mere 33-year-old, Sonia Alvarez, had come with her two children. Once, none of them could read and write; now they were studying mathematics. For the first time in its history, Venezuela has almost 100 percent literacy.

  This is the work of Mision Robinson, which was designed for adults and teenagers previously denied an education because of poverty. Mission Ribas gives everyone the opportunity of a secondary education, called a bachillerato. (The names Robinson and Ribas refer to Venezuelan independence leaders from the 19th century).

  In her 95 years, Mavis Mendez had seen a parade of governments, mostly vassals of Washington, preside over the theft of billions of dollars in oil spoils, much of it flown to Miami. “We didn’t matter in a human sense,” she told me. “We lived and died without real education and running water, and food we couldn’t afford. When we fell ill, the weakest died. Now I can read and write my name and so much more; and whatever the rich and the media say, we have planted the seeds of true democracy and I have the joy of seeing it happen.”

  In 2002, during a Washington-backed coup, Mavis’s sons and daughters and grandchildren and great-grandchildren joined hundreds of thousands who swept down from the barrios on the hillsides and demanded the army remained loyal to Chavez.

  “The people rescued me,” Chavez told me. “They did it with the media against me, preventing even the basic facts of what happened. For popular democracy in heroic action, I suggest you look no further.”

  
  Carmen Vásquez, 85, learning to read and write at the Misión Robinson, Isla Borracha, Anzoátegui, Venezuela,2004.(Franklin Reyes/J.Rebelde via Wikimedia)

  Saddam Hussein Incarnate

  Since Chavez’s death in 2013, his successor NicolásMaduro has shed his derisory label in the Western press as a “former bus driver” and become Saddam Hussein incarnate. His media abuse is ridiculous. Onhis watch, the slide in the price of oil has caused hyperinflation and played havoc with prices in a society that imports almost all its food; yet, as the journalist and film-maker Pablo Navarrete reported this week, Venezuela is not the catastrophe it has been painted.

  “There is food everywhere,” he wrote. “I have filmed lots of videos of food in markets [all over Caracas] … it’s Friday night and the restaurants are full.”

  In 2018, Maduro was re-elected president. A section of the opposition boycotted the election, a tactic tried against Chavez. The boycott failed: 9,389,056 people voted; 16 parties participated and six candidates stood for the presidency. Maduro won 6,248,864 votes, or 68 percent.

  On election day, I spoke to one of the 150 foreign election observers. “It was entirely fair,” he said. “There was no fraud; none of the lurid media claims stood up. Zero. Amazing really.” 

  Like a page from Alice’s tea party, the Trump administration has presented Juan Guaidó, a pop-up creation of the CIA-front National Endowment for Democracy, as the “legitimate President of Venezuela.” Unheard of by 81 percent of the Venezuelan people, according to The Nation, Guaidó has been elected by no one.

  

  “Chavez, I swear, I will vote for Maduro,” sign on wall in 2013. (Wikimedia)

  Maduro is “illegitimate,” says Donald Trump (who won the U.S. presidency with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent), a “dictator,” says demonstrably unhinged Vice President Mike Pence and an oil trophy-in-waiting, says “national security” adviser John Bolton (who when I interviewed him in 2003 said, “Hey, are you a communist, maybe
  even Labour?”)

  As his “special envoy to Venezuela” (coup master), Trump has appointed a convicted felon, Elliot Abrams, whose intrigues in the service of Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush helped produce the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s and plunge central America into years of blood-soaked misery.

  Putting Lewis Carroll aside, these  “crazies” belong in newsreels from the 1930s. And yet their lies about Venezuela have been taken up with enthusiasm by those paid to keep the record straight.

  On Channel 4 News, Jon Snow bellowed at the Labour MP Chris Williamson, “Look, you and Mr. Corbyn are in a very nasty corner [on Venezuela]!” When Williamson tried to explain why threatening a sovereign country was wrong, Snow cut him off. “You’ve had a good go!”

  In 2006, Channel 4 News effectively accused Chavez of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran: a fantasy. The then Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, allowed a war criminal, Donald Rumsfeld, to liken Chavez to Hitler, unchallenged.

  Overwhelming Bias

  Researchers at the University of the West of England studied the BBC‘s reporting of Venezuela over a 10-year period. They looked at 304 reports and found that only three of these referred to any of the positive policies of the government. For the BBC, Venezuela’s democratic record, human rights legislation, food programs, healthcare initiatives and poverty reduction did not happen.  The greatest literacy program in human history did not happen, just as the millions who march in support of Maduro and in memory of Chavez, do not exist.

  

  2016 protests against removal of Chávez and Bolivar images from National Assembly. (Wikimedia)

  When asked why she filmed only an opposition march, the BBC reporter Orla Guerin tweeted that it was “too difficult” to be on two marches in one day.

  A war has been declared on Venezuela, of which the truth is “too difficult” to report.

  It is too difficult to report the collapse of oil prices since 2014 as largely the result of criminal machinations by Wall Street. It is too difficult to report the blocking of Venezuela’s access to the U.S.-dominated international financial system as sabotage. It is too difficult to report Washington’s “sanctions” against Venezuela, which have caused the loss of at least $6 billion in Venezuela’s revenue since 2017, including $2 billion worth of imported medicines, as illegal, or the Bank of England’s refusal to return Venezuela’s gold reserves as an act of piracy.

  

  Chavez and Pilger, 2007. (johnpilger.com)

  The former United Nations Rapporteur, Alfred de Zayas, has likened this to a “medieval siege” designed “to bring countries to their knees.” It is a criminal assault, he says. It is similar to that faced by Salvador Allende in 1970 when President Richard Nixon and his equivalent of John Bolton, Henry Kissinger, set out to “make the economy [of Chile] scream.” The long dark night of Pinochet followed.

  The Guardian correspondent, Tom Phillips, has tweeted a picture of a cap on which the words in Spanish mean in local slang: “Make Venezuela fucking cool again.” The reporter as clown may be the final stage of much of mainstream journalism’s degeneration.

  Should the CIA stooge Guaidó and his white supremacists grab power, it will be the 68th overthrow of a sovereign government by the United States, most of them democracies. A fire sale of Venezuela’s utilities and mineral wealth will surely follow, along with the theft of the country’s oil, as outlined by John Bolton.

  Under the last Washington-controlled government in Caracas, poverty reached historic proportions. There was no healthcare for those could not pay. There was no universal education; Mavis Mendez, and millions like her, could not read or write. How cool is that, Tom?

  

• Bubble Warning: Property Prices In Dubai Continue To Plummet

  The strategy of investing in Dubai property in the hope of doubling or even tripling your money is now over, according to a new report.

  The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Property Report by Savills Middle East has revealed that home prices in the Dubai-Sharjah-Ajman metropolitan area fell in 2018 as inventory flooded the market.

  

  Prices plummeted in Downtown Dubai, down 16%, prices at the world’s tallest building Burj Khalifa, known as the Burj Dubai, down nearly 12% and the Palm Jumeirah and Dubai Marine down by 5% to 7%.

  

  Steven Morgan, chief executive officer of Savills Middle East, said the UAE government has addressed the housing slowdown and made some policy changes to stimulate growth.

  “There is no doubt that 2018 was a challenging year for the global economy, so it was perhaps inevitable that the UAE would feel a certain ripple effect of pressures beyond its own borders,” he said.

  “The real estate industry in the UAE is very much a place of opportunity for the committed investor. The various proactive measures adopted by the Government in 2018 will have a positive impact on housing demand and help the maturing real estate market,” he explained.

  “Along with mainstream investors comprising Emiratis, Indians, Pakistanis and British, we anticipate demand from other nationalities such as Chinese, Americans and others to increase on the back of Dubai Land Department’s investor outreach programme,’ he added.

  The report also shows that two-bedroom condo prices in Business Bay crashed 18%, while three bedroom condos in The Greens declined by 11%, as did one-bedroom condos in Downtown Dubai.

  

  There was also a decline in the single-family home and townhouse markets. Four-bedroom homes in Al Furjan and three bedroom townhouses in Springs dropped by 9%, while prices fell by 8% for three bedroom townhouses in Mira. The price of four bedroom homes in Arabian Ranches fell by 8%.

  

  Home sales in Dubai also collapsed, with a decline of 22% YoY in 2018, with the report indicating that buyers are sidelined – waiting for the housing market too trough.

  According to another report from Property Finder, UAE government data shows there are currently 3,680 remaining real estate brokerages that “stand strong in a market that is consolidating,” which represents an 11% drop YoY in 2018.

  “This is a sign of much-needed consolidation in the industry,” said Lukman Hajje, Property Finder’s chief commercial officer. “Fly-by-night operators who realised that their business model is no longer viable have been weeded out.”

  Lynette Abad, Property Finder’s research director, said the consolidation of brokerages is a sign of a maturing market in Dubai.

  “We have always had an exorbitant number of agencies in this market,” he added. “Therefore the fact that the number of agencies is reducing is a positive sign, leaving opportunity for the more experienced and professional companies to grow.”

  Dubai is in danger of another real estate bubble imploding. Real estate prices are once again over-inflated as the world is on the cusp of a trade recession. Back in 2009 to 2010, prices crashed by more than 50%.

  

• The Age Of Tyrannical Surveillance: We're Being Branded, Bought, & Sold For Our Data

  Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about… Your digital identity will live forever… because there’s no delete button.”

  – Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt

  Uncle Sam wants you.

  Correction: Big Brother wants you.

  

  To be technically accurate, Big Brother—aided and abetted by his corporate partners in crime—wants your data.

  That’s what we have been reduced to in the eyes of the government and Corporate America: data bits and economic units to be bought, bartered and sold to the highest bidder.

  Those highest bidders include America’s political class and the politicians aspiring to get elected or re-elected. As the Los Angeles Times reports, “If you have been to a political rally, a town hall, or just fit a demographic a campaign is after, chances are good your movements are being tracked with unnerving accuracy by data vendors on the payroll of campaigns.”

  Your phones, televisions and digital devices are selling you out to politicians who want your vote.

  Have you shopped at Whole Foods? Tested out target practice at a gun range? Sipped coffee at Starbucks while surfing the web? Visited an abortion clinic? Watched FOX News or MSNBC? Played Candy Crush on your phone? Walked through a mall? Walked past a government building?

  That’s all it takes for your data to be hoovered up, sold and used to target you.

  This is the age of surveillance capitalism.

  Incredibly, once you’ve been identified and tracked, data brokers can travel back in time, digitally speaking, to discover where you’ve been, who you’ve been with, what you’ve been doing, and what you’ve been reading, viewing, buying, etc.

  Once you’ve been identified in this way, you can be tracked endlessly.

  “Welcome to the new frontier of campaign tech — a loosely regulated world in which simply downloading a weather app or game, connecting to Wi-Fi at a coffee shop or powering up a home router can allow a data broker to monitor your movements with ease, then compile the location information and sell it to a political candidate who can use it to surround you with messages,” writes journalist Evan Halper.

  No one is spared.

  In this regard, we are all equals: equally suffering the indignity of having every shred of privacy stripped away and the most intimate details of one’s life turned into fodder for marketers and data profiteers.

  This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—makes the NSA’s surveillance appear almost antiquated in comparison.

  What’s worse, this for-profit surveillance capitalism scheme is made possible with our cooperation.

  All those disclaimers you scroll though without reading them, the ones written in minute font, only to quickly click on the “Agree” button at the end so you can get to the next step—downloading software, opening up a social media account, adding a new app to your phone or computer—those signify your written consent to having your activities monitored, recorded and shared.

  Think about it.

  Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to influence and/or control you.

  On any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency is listening in and tracking your behavior.

  With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time.

  The technology has advanced so far that marketers (political campaigns are among the worst offenders) can actually build “digital fences” around your homes, workplaces, friends and family’s homes and other places you visit in order to bombard you with specially crafted messages aimed at achieving a particular outcome.

  If anyone else stalked us in this way—tailing us wherever we go, tapping into our calls, reading our correspondence, ferreting out our secrets, profiling and targeting us based on our interests and activities—we’d call the cops.

  Unfortunately, the cops (equipped with Stingray devices and other Peeping Tom technologies) are also in on this particular scam.

  It’s not just the surveillance and the buying and selling of your data that is worrisome.

  The ramifications of a government—any government—having this much unregulated, unaccountable power to target, track, round up and detain its citizens is beyond chilling.

  Imagine what a totalitarian regime such as Nazi Germany could have done with this kind of unadulterated power.

  Imagine what the next police state to follow in Germany’s footsteps will do with this kind of power. Society is definitely rapidly moving in that direction.

  We’ve made it so easy for the government to watch us.

  Government eyes see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

  Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

  If you’re an activist and you simply like or share this article on Facebook or retweet it on Twitter, you’re most likely flagging yourself as a potential renegade, revolutionary or anti-government extremist—a.k.a. terrorist.

  Yet whether or not you like or share this particular article, simply by reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties is enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities. The corporate state must watch and keep tabs on you if it is to keep you in line.

  Chances are, as the Washington Post has reported, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat assessment score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

  In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals (so they can be rounded up and detained in times of distress) who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

  The government has the know-how.

  As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.

  It’s happening already in China.

  Millions of Chinese individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have now been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train. Among the activities that can get you labeled unworthy are taking reserved seats on trains or causing trouble in hospitals.

  Get ready, because all signs point to China serving as the role model for our dystopian future.

  When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

  Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace.

  In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs.

  It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters.

  Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin 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, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare.

  This is the kind of oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick.

  Remember, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

  The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

  In the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.

  Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands, especially when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home—add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence.

  This is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.

  It turns out that we are Soylent Green.

  The 1973 film of the same name, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.

  Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder, who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, soylent green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”

  Oh, how right he was.

  Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us.

  We, too, are being bred like cattle but not for food.

  Rather, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re being bred, branded, bought and sold for our data.

  As the insidious partnership between the U.S. government and Corporate America grows more invasive and more subtle with every passing day, there’s virtually no way to opt out of these assaults on your digital privacy short of being a modern-day Luddite, completely disconnected from all technology.

  Indeed, George Orwell’s description of the world of 1984 is as apt a description of today’s world as I’ve ever seen: “You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

  What we desperately lack and urgently need is an Electronic Bill of Rights that protects “we the people” from predatory surveillance and data-mining business practices.

  Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights in the electronic realm, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.

  

• Is The FTC Planning To Break Up Big Tech? 

  President Trump has made no secret of the fact that he believes tech behemoths like Amazon are anti-competitive, job-killing monstrosities that should be broken up or at least see their influence curbed by regulators. And now, after stocking the FTC with critics of big tech, it appears the committee might be taking the first steps toward breaking up the big tech firms – or at least ensuring that they can’t get any bigger.

  

  With the committee still prepping what will reportedly be a “record breaking fine” over Facebook’s failure to uphold a guarantee to safeguard user data, Bureau of Competition Director Bruce Hoffman and FTC Chairman Joe Simons announced the formation of a new task force that will scrutinize mergers in the tech space – and even review consummated deals.

  The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition announced the creation of a task force dedicated to monitoring competition in U.S. technology markets, investigating any potential anticompetitive conduct in those markets, and taking enforcement actions when warranted.

  To create the Technology Task Force, the Bureau of Competition will draw upon existing staff and expertise to enhance the Bureau’s focus on technology-related sectors of the economy, including markets in which online platforms compete. The creation of this task force is modeled on the FTC’s successful Merger Litigation Task Force, launched in 2002 by then-Bureau of Competition Director Joe Simons. The 2002 task force reinvigorated the Commission’s hospital merger review program, and also sharpened the agency’s focus on merger enforcement in retail industries, particularly regarding matters involving food, beverages, and supermarkets.

  Given the ever-expanding role of technology in the lives of Americans, the committee said it would make sense to ensure any future tie-ups “ensure consumers benefit from free and fair competition.”

  “The role of technology in the economy and in our lives grows more important every day,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “As I’ve noted in the past, it makes sense for us to closely examine technology markets to ensure consumers benefit from free and fair competition. Our ongoing Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century are a crucial step to deepen our understanding of these markets and potential competitive issues. The Technology Task Force is the next step in that effort.”

  But – and this is key – the commission won’t focus solely on proposed deals. Completed mergers might also come under the microscope, something that brings to mind the commission’s investigation into Facebook’s 2012 purchase of Instagram. Indeed, Amazon, Facebook and Google parent Alphabet are responsible for much of the M&A activity in Silicon Valley. 

  “Technology markets, which are rapidly evolving and touch so many other sectors of the economy, raise distinct challenges for antitrust enforcement,” said Bureau Director Bruce Hoffman. “By centralizing our expertise and attention, the new task force will be able to focus on these markets exclusively – ensuring they are operating pursuant to the antitrust laws, and taking action where they are not.”

  In addition to examining industry practices and conducting law enforcement investigations, the Technology Task Force will, among other things, coordinate and consult with staff throughout the FTC on technology-related matters, including prospective merger reviews in the technology sector and reviews of consummated technology mergers.

  The task force will consist of 17 lawyers who will work to “identify and investigate potential anticompetitive conduct”. If nothing else, the formation of the task force has certainly put big tech on notice.

  

• Nomi Prins: Survival Of The Richest

  Authored by Nomi Prins via TomDispatch.com,

  All are equal, except those who aren’t…

  Like a gilded coating that makes the dullest things glitter, today’s thin veneer of political populism covers a grotesque underbelly of growing inequality that’s hiding in plain sight. And this phenomenon of ever more concentrated wealth and power has both Newtonian and Darwinian components to it.

  In terms of Newton’s first law of motion: those in power will remain in power unless acted upon by an external force. Those who are wealthy will only gain in wealth as long as nothing deflects them from their present course. As for Darwin, in the world of financial evolution, those with wealth or power will do what’s in their best interest to protect that wealth, even if it’s in no one else’s interest at all.

  In George Orwell’s iconic 1945 novel, Animal Farm, the pigs who gain control in a rebellion against a human farmer eventually impose a dictatorship on the other animals on the basis of a single commandment:

  “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

  In terms of the American republic, the modern equivalent would be:

  “All citizens are equal, but the wealthy are so much more equal than anyone else (and plan to remain that way).”

  Certainly, inequality is the economic great wall between those with power and those without it.

  As the animals of Orwell’s farm grew ever less equal, so in the present moment in a country that still claims equal opportunity for its citizens, one in which three Americans now have as much wealth as the bottom half of society (160 million people), you could certainly say that we live in an increasingly Orwellian society. Or perhaps an increasingly Twainian one.

  After all, Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner wrote a classic 1873 novel that put an unforgettable label on their moment and could do the same for ours. The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today depicted the greed and political corruption of post-Civil War America. Its title caught the spirit of what proved to be a long moment when the uber-rich came to dominate Washington and the rest of America. It was a period saturated with robber barons, professional grifters, and incomprehensibly wealthy banking magnates. (Anything sound familiar?) The main difference between that last century’s gilded moment and this one was that those robber barons built tangible things like railroads. Today’s equivalent crew of the mega-wealthy build remarkably intangible things like tech and electronic platforms, while a grifter of a president opts for the only new infrastructure in sight, a great wall to nowhere.

  In Twain’s epoch, the U.S. was emerging from the Civil War. Opportunists were rising from the ashes of the nation’s battered soul. Land speculation, government lobbying, and shady deals soon converged to create an unequal society of the first order (at least until now). Soon after their novel came out, a series of recessions ravaged the country, followed by a 1907 financial panic in New York City caused by a speculator-led copper-market scam.

  From the late 1890s on, the most powerful banker on the planet, J.P. Morgan, was called upon multiple times to bail out a country on the economic edge. In 1907, Treasury Secretary George Cortelyou provided him with $25 million in bailout money at the request of President Theodore Roosevelt to stabilize Wall Street and calm frantic citizens trying to withdraw their deposits from banks around the country. And this Morgan did — by helping his friends and their companies, while skimming money off the top himself. As for the most troubled banks holding the savings of ordinary people? Well, they folded. (Shades of the 2007-2008 meltdown and bailout anyone?)

  The leading bankers who had received that bounty from the government went on to cause the Crash of 1929. Not surprisingly, much speculation and fraud preceded it. In those years, the novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald caught the era’s spirit of grotesque inequality in The Great Gatsby when one of his characters comments: “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” The same could certainly be said of today when it comes to the gaping maw between the have-nots and have-a-lots.

  Income vs. Wealth

  To fully grasp the nature of inequality in our twenty-first-century gilded age, it’s important to understand the difference between wealth and income and what kinds of inequality stem from each. Simply put, income is how much money you make in terms of paid work or any return on investments or assets (or other things you own that have the potential to change in value). Wealth is simply the gross accumulation of those very assets and any return or appreciation on them. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to have a higher annual income.

  Let’s break that down. If you earn $31,000 a year, the median salary for an individual in the United States today, your income would be that amount minus associated taxes (including federal, state, social security, and Medicare ones). On average, that means you would be left with about $26,000 before other expenses kicked in.

  If your wealth is $1,000,000, however, and you put that into a savings account paying 2.25% interest, you could receive about $22,500 and, after taxes, be left with about $19,000, for doing nothing whatsoever.

  To put all this in perspective, the top 1% of Americans now take home, on average, more than 40 times the incomes of the bottom 90%. And if you head for the top 0.1%, those figures only radically worsen. That tiny crew takes home more than 198 times the income of the bottom 90% percent. They also possess as much wealth as the nation’s bottom 90%. “Wealth,” as Adam Smith so classically noted almost two-and-a-half-centuries ago in The Wealth of Nations, “is power,” an adage that seldom, sadly, seems outdated.

  A Case Study: Wealth, Inequality, and the Federal Reserve

  Obviously, if you inherit wealth in this country, you’re instantly ahead of the game. In America, a third to nearly a half of all wealth is inherited rather than self-made. According to a New York Times investigation, for instance, President Donald Trump, from birth, received an estimated $413 million (in today’s dollars, that is) from his dear old dad and another $140 million (in today’s dollars) in loans. Not a bad way for a “businessman” to begin building the empire (of bankruptcies) that became the platform for a presidential campaign that oozed into actually running the country. Trump did it, in other words, the old-fashioned way — through inheritance.

  In his megalomaniacal zeal to declare a national emergency at the southern border, that gilded millionaire-turned-billionaire-turned-president provides but one of many examples of a long record of abusing power. Unfortunately, in this country, few people consider record inequality (which is still growing) as another kind of abuse of power, another kind of great wall, in this case keeping not Central Americans but most U.S. citizens out.

  The Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank that dictates the cost of money and that sustained Wall Street in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-2008 (and since), has finally pointed out that such extreme levels of inequality are bad news for the rest of the country. As Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said at a town hall in Washington in early February, “We want prosperity to be widely shared. We need policies to make that happen.” Sadly, the Fed has largely contributed to increasing the systemic inequality now engrained in the financial and, by extension, political system. In a recent research paper, the Fed did, at least, underscore the consequences of inequality to the economy, showing that “income inequality can generate low aggregate demand, deflation pressure, excessive credit growth, and financial instability.”

  In the wake of the global economic meltdown, however, the Fed took it upon itself to reduce the cost of money for big banks by chopping interest rates to zero (before eventually raising them to 2.5%) and buying $4.5 trillion in Treasury and mortgage bonds to lower it further. All this so that banks could ostensibly lend money more easily to Main Street and stimulate the economy. As Senator Bernie Sanders noted though, “The Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world… a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”

  The economy has been treading water ever since (especially compared to the stock market). Annual gross domestic product growth has not surpassed 3%in any year since the financial crisis, even as the level of the stock market tripled, grotesquely increasing the country’s inequality gap. None of this should have been surprising, since much of the excess money went straight to big banks, rich investors, and speculators.  They then used it to invest in the stock and bond markets, but not in things that would matter to all the Americans outside that great wall of wealth.

  The question is: Why are inequality and a flawed economic system mutually reinforcing? As a starting point, those able to invest in a stock market buoyed by the Fed’s policies only increased their wealth exponentially. In contrast, those relying on the economy to sustain them via wages and other income got shafted. Most people aren’t, of course, invested in the stock market, or really in anything. They can’t afford to be. It’s important to remember that nearly 80% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck.

  The net result: an acute post-financial-crisis increase in wealth inequality — on top of the income inequality that was global but especially true in the United States. The crew in the top 1% that doesn’t rely on salaries to increase their wealth prospered fabulously. They, after all, now own more than half of all national wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds, so a soaring stock market disproportionately helps them. It’s also why the Federal Reserve subsidy policies to Wall Street banks have only added to the extreme wealth of those extreme few.  

  The Ramifications of Inequality

  The list of negatives resulting from such inequality is long indeed. As a start, the only thing the majority of Americans possess a greater proportion of than that top 1% is a mountain of debt. 

  The bottom 90% are the lucky owners of about three-quarters of the country’s household debt. Mortgages, auto loans, student loans, and credit-card debt are cumulatively at a record-high $13.5 trillion.

  And that’s just to start down a slippery slope. As Inequality.org reports, wealth and income inequality impact “everything from life expectancy to infant mortality and obesity.” High economic inequality and poor health, for instance, go hand and hand, or put another way, inequality compromises the overall health of the country. According to academic findings, income inequality is, in the most literal sense, making Americans sick. As one study put it, “Diseased and impoverished economic infrastructures [help] lead to diseased or impoverished or unbalanced bodies or minds.”

  Then there’s Social Security, established in 1935 as a federal supplement for those in need who have also paid into the system through a tax on their wages. Today, all workers contribute 6.2% of their annual earnings and employers pay the other 6.2% (up to a cap of $132,900) into the Social Security system. Those making far more than that, specifically millionaires and billionaires, don’t have to pay a dime more on a proportional basis. In practice, that means about 94% of American workers and their employers paid the full 12.4% of their annual earnings toward Social Security, while the other 6% paid an often significantly smaller fraction of their earnings.

  According to his own claims about his 2016 income, for instance, President Trump “contributed a mere 0.002 percent of his income to Social Security in 2016.” That means it would take nearly 22,000 additional workers earning the median U.S. salary to make up for what he doesn’t have to pay. And the greater the income inequality in this country, the more money those who make less have to put into the Social Security system on a proportional basis. In recent years, a staggering $1.4 trillion could have gone into that system, if there were no arbitrary payroll cap favoring the wealthy.

  Inequality: A Dilemma With Global Implications

  America is great at minting millionaires. It has the highest concentration of them, globally speaking, at 41%. (Another 24% of that millionaires’ club can be found in Europe.) And the top 1% of U.S. citizens earn 40 times the national average and own about 38.6% of the country’s total wealth. The highest figure in any other developed country is “only” 28%.

  However, while the U.S. boasts of epic levels of inequality, it’s also a global trend. Consider this: the world’s richest 1% own 45% of total wealth on this planet. In contrast, 64% of the population (with an average of $10,000 in wealth to their name) holds less than 2%. And to widen the inequality picture a bit more, the world’s richest 10%, those having at least $100,000 in assets, own 84% of total global wealth.

  The billionaires’ club is where it’s really at, though. According to Oxfam, the richest 42 billionaires have a combined wealth equal to that of the poorest 50% of humanity. Rest assured, however, that in this gilded century there’s inequality even among billionaires. After all, the 10 richest among them possess $745 billion in total global wealth. The next 10 down the list possess a mere $451.5 billion, and why even bother tallying the next 10 when you get the picture?

  Oxfam also recently reported that “the number of billionaires has almost doubled, with a new billionaire created every two days between 2017 and 2018. They have now more wealth than ever before while almost half of humanity have barely escaped extreme poverty, living on less than $5.50 a day.” 

  How Does It End?

  In sum, the rich are only getting richer and it’s happening at a historic rate. Worse yet, over the past decade, there was an extra perk for the truly wealthy. They could bulk up on assets that had been devalued due to the financial crisis, while so many of their peers on the other side of that great wall of wealth were economically decimated by the 2007-2008 meltdown and have yet to fully recover.

  What we’ve seen ever since is how money just keeps flowing upward through banks and massive speculation, while the economic lives of those not at the top of the financial food chain have largely remained stagnant or worse. The result is, of course, sweeping inequality of a kind that, in much of the last century, might have seemed inconceivable.

  Eventually, we will all have to face the black cloud this throws over the entire economy. Real people in the real world, those not at the top, have experienced a decade of ever greater instability, while the inequality gap of this beyond-gilded age is sure to shape a truly messy world ahead. In other words, this can’t end well.

  

  

• Trust In Media Hits Rock Bottom: 60% Of Americans Think Journalists Pay Their Sources

  While this might not come as a surprise to readers of our humble website, a survey conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review recently confirmed that trust in the American media has hit a new low.

  According to the survey of 4,214 American adults, which was carried out by Reuters/Ipsos, the media ranked dead last in a list of most trustworthy Washington institutions, behind Congress, the military and – get this – the executive branch.

  

  Of course, the idea that Americans don’t trust the press has been well established for a long time. What the survey purported to show is exactly what it is about the process of journalism – from the use of anonymous sources to the role that money plays in the relationship between source and journalist – that Americans find so deeply unsettling.

  For example, 60% of respondents said they believed journalists paid their sources.

  

  The survey also confirmed the death of print media by showing that most Americans get their news from television, the Internet and social media.

  

  And perhaps most tellingly, of all the demographic groups broken down in the survey, only Democrats said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the press.

  

  The report – particularly the findings about journalists paying their sources – was met with shock and incredulity by members of the Washington media establishment, who simply couldn’t believe that any American would be so ill-informed as to suspect that any self-respecting journalist would ever offer to pay their sources (can you even imagine?).

  Wow. To make it absolutely clear – real journalists do NOT get paid by sources. https://t.co/H4vmg0BPPf

  — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) February 26, 2019

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

  How the f— do 60 percent of the people in this poll think this? https://t.co/AZb1zTzSAr pic.twitter.com/6zw2BDkAJC

  — Michael Kruse (@michaelkruse) February 26, 2019

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

  MYTH: Journalists get paid by their sources
  REALITY: Keeping my wallet on the table throughout coffee with a source so that I can lunge for my card to pay at any moment https://t.co/AjbQcmb2RD

  — Dara Lind (@DLind) February 26, 2019

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

  Though instead of questioning the intelligence of the readers who have been turned off by their hyper-partisan coverage – as always, carried out under the auspices of “objective reporting” – maybe they would be better served by examining what they might do to shift these perceptions.

  

• Colorado Moves To Bypass Electoral College To Stop Trump: Will Assign Electoral Votes To Popular Vote Winner

  Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

  Certain political elements within the United States simply can’t deal with the fact that our Founders created a voting system that ensured limitations on mob rule stemming from a handful of cities throughout the country. To protect the rights of all Americans, including those living in smaller rural counties, they came up with the electoral college, a method by which all Americans from varying backgrounds and ideologies can be represented during a Presidential election.

  In 2016, Hillary Clinton officially won the Popular Vote, garnering more total votes than Donald Trump, but because of an Electoral College victory, Trump ultimately became President.

  Every time a Republican happens to win a Presidency, Democrats argue that the Electoral College is an archaic election method not representative of a democratic government.

  Up until now there was nothing they can do about it, but Colorado has come up with a plan that, at the very least, will likely wind up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  In the next election, Colorado aims to assign all electoral votes to the winner of the national Popular Vote, rather than then to the individual who brings in the most votes in their State, essentially invalidating the will of their own State citizens. Somehow, this makes sense to Colorado governor Jared Polis:

  “I’ve long supported electing the president by who gets the most votes,” Polis told The Hill. “It’s a way to move towards direct election of the president.”

  Colorado will become the 12th state to join the national popular vote interstate compact. Those 12 states and the District of Columbia, which has also passed a popular-vote bill, account for 181 electoral votes, just under 90 shy of the 270 votes a presidential candidate needs to win the White House.

  The compact will not go into effect until the coalition includes states that add up to 270 electoral votes or more. Once it does go into effect, states that are part of the coalition would award their electoral votes en masse to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

  Source: The Hill

  Eleven more states are currently working through similar legislation. If successful, some 261 electoral college votes would end up being decided by the national popular vote rather than the traditional electoral voting system used in previous elections.

  While the U.S. Constitution establishes the Electoral College as the method by which a President is elected, it does not specify how each state chooses to assign its Electoral votes.

  This will likely lead to Constitutional challenges from both sides.

  Our view: This is how a Republic dies, should the Supreme Court fail to uphold current laws surrounding how votes are assigned and calculated.

  

  (Pictured: 2016 Electoral map by county)

  The electoral map above shows exactly why Democrats, once again, have to move the goal posts to win.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Militarization Of Xi Jinping's China: "Recovering" Areas They Have Never Ruled

  Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The People’s Liberation Army is arming fast, and that development is triggering alarm. Beijing has always claimed its military is for defensive purposes only, but no country threatens territory under China’s control. The buildup, therefore, looks like preparation for aggression.

  • Chinese leaders – not just Xi Jinping – believe their domains should be far larger than they are today. The concern is that, acting on their own rhetoric, they will use shiny new weapons to grab territory and occupy, to the exclusion of others, international water and airspace.

  • Moreover, in the 1930s the media publicized the idea that Japan was being surrounded by hostile powers that wished to prevent its rise. Eri Hotta in Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy writes that the Japanese “talked themselves into believing that they were victims of circumstances rather than aggressors.” That is exactly what the Chinese are doing at this moment.

  • Unfortunately, this tragic pattern is evident today in a Beijing where Chinese, wearing stars on their shoulders, look as if they want to repeat one of the worst mistakes of the last century.

  

  Much of the equipment that China’s People’s Liberation Army is acquiring — aircraft carriers, amphibious troop carriers, and stealth bombers — is for the projection of power, not homeland defense. Pictured: China’s Type 001A aircraft carrier, in 2017. (Image source: GG001213/Wikimedia Commons)

  “Be ready for battle.” That’s how the South China Morning Post, the Hong Kong newspaper that increasingly reflects the Communist Party line, summarized Xi Jinping’s first order this year to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Xi, in his own words, which were broadcasted nationwide, demanded this: “prepare for a comprehensive military struggle from a new starting point.”

  China’s bold leader has been threatening neighbors and the United States with frequency during the last several months. “Xi is not just toying with war,” Victor Mair of the University of Pennsylvania wrote on the Fanell Red Star Rising listserve this month. “He’s daring himself to actually start one. He’s in a dangerous frame of mind.”

  Dangerous indeed. From Washington to New Delhi, policymakers wonder whether China will begin history’s next great conflict. Beijing of course wants to “win without fighting,” but the actions Xi Jinping are taking could lead to fighting nonetheless. One particularly disturbing development in this regard is the Chinese military gaining power in Beijing’s political circles.

  The PLA, as the Chinese military is known, is arming fast, and that development is triggering alarm. Beijing has always claimed its military is for defensive purposes only, but no country threatens territory under China’s control. The buildup, therefore, looks like preparation for aggression. Much of the equipment the People’s Liberation Army is acquiring — aircraft carriers, amphibious troop carriers, and stealth bombers — is for the projection of power, not homeland defense.

  Chinese leaders — not just Xi Jinping — believe their domains should be far larger than they are today. The concern is that, acting on their own rhetoric, they will use shiny new weapons to grab territory and occupy, to the exclusion of others, international water and airspace.

  The Chinese — leaders and others — certainly have the world’s worst case of irredentism as they seek to “recover” areas they have in fact never ruled, but they do not necessarily envision military conquest as the means of acquiring vast “lost territories.” They believe they can intimidate and coerce and then take without force.

  The fast rearmament also has other objectives. Speaking of China, Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania told Gatestone Institute:

  “I think her goal is to increase her awesomeness in the eyes of the world, so her buildup is therefore to be understood as an attempt to become strong enough to flout the international system without consequences.”

  Despite the rhetoric, the Chinese know the “imponderables” of actually going to war. For centuries, they have not been very good at it, enduring defeat after defeat and invasion after invasion.

  Their military record during the tenure of the People’s Republic is similarly unimpressive. Yes, the Chinese grabbed control of the Paracel Islands and specks in the Spratlys in the South China Sea in a series of skirmishes with various Vietnamese governments, but these incidents were minor compared to the setbacks.

  Mao Zedong sustained perhaps 600,000 killed — including his son, Mao Anying — to obtain a draw in Korea in the early 1950s. His successor, Deng Xiaoping, launched an incursion in 1979 “to teach Vietnam a lesson” and instead suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of his small communist neighbor.

  Despite its undistinguished record, China causes grave concern. Xi was already beholden to the generals and admirals, who form the core of his political support in Communist Party circles, and they have gotten even more powerful as the Chinese people have become more restive.

  As Willy Lam of the Chinese University of Hong Kong told Gatestone this month, “the top leadership is paranoid about massive social unrest” and so has given the military and police “extra power to tighten internal security… Xi understands very well that it is the army and the police that are keeping the Party alive.”

  Xi has tried to bring the military under control with both “anti-corruption” efforts — in reality a series of political purges — and, as June Teufel Dreyer of the University of Miami told Gatestone, “a sweeping military organization.”

  Yet those efforts have not been entirely successful. That is why Xi is trying, in the words of Waldron, to be viewed as the “martial emperor.” He knows the power of the PLA as “kingmaker,” able to back and depose civilian leaders. “The current Chinese focus on the military undoubtedly has internal political roots and is not related to changes in the security environment,” Waldron said. Xi, in order to curry favor, has to accede to the flag officers.

  Just because the process is internally driven does not make it less dangerous. Xi has sponsored overly large military budgets and has allowed senior officers to have outsized roles in formulating provocative external policies. The November 2013 declaration of the East China Sea Air-Defense Identification Zone, an audacious attempt to control the skies off its shores, is a clear example of the military influence. The seizure of Scarborough Shoal in early 2012 and the reclamation and militarization of features in the Spratly chain in the South China Sea are other destabilizing events.

  Military influence in the Chinese capital means that hostility never goes out of fashion. Twice in December, senior PLA officers publicly threatened unprovoked attacks on the U.S. Navy. “The United States is most afraid of death,” said Rear Admiral Luo Yuan in the second of the outbursts.

  “We now have Dong Feng-21D, Dong Feng-26 missiles. These are aircraft carrier killers. We attack and sink one of their aircraft carriers. Let them suffer 5,000 casualties. Attack and sink two carriers, casualties 10,000. Let’s see if the U.S. is afraid or not?”

  Everyone, not just the U.S., should be afraid, in part because of the parallels between China’s military today and Japan’s in the 1930s.

  In the 1930s, Japan’s military officers, as Dreyer told Gatestone, took “drastic action to force the government into a war footing, even assassinating Japanese politicians who opposed such moves.”

  Then, the Japanese military, like the Chinese one today, was emboldened by success and ultra-nationalism. Then, like now, civilians controlled Asia’s biggest army only loosely. Then, like today, Asia’s largest military is full of assertion and belligerence.

  Moreover, in the 1930s the media publicized the idea that Japan was being surrounded by hostile powers that wished to prevent its rise. Eri Hotta in Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy writes that the Japanese “talked themselves into believing that they were victims of circumstances rather than aggressors.” That is exactly what the Chinese are doing at this moment.

  “If we ask, ‘Did they want war?’ the answer is yes; and if we ask ‘Did they want to avoid war?’ the answer is still yes,” noted Maruyama Masao, a leading postwar political scientist, as recounted by Hotta.

  “Though wanting war, they tried to avoid it; though wanting to avoid it, they deliberately chose the path that led to it.”

  Unfortunately, this tragic pattern is evident today in a Beijing where Chinese, wearing stars on their shoulders, look as if they want to repeat one of the worst mistakes of the last century.

  

• The Suicide Of Europe

  Europe is committing suicide. How did this happen?

  

  Douglas Murray explains the two major causes of Europe’s impending downfall…

  

• India And Pakistan Rattle Their Nuclear Sabres

  Authored by Eric Margolis,

  While Americans were obsessing over a third-rate actor’s fake claims of a racial assault, old foes India and Pakistan were rattling their nuclear weapons in a very dangerous crisis over Kashmir. But hardly anyone noticed that nuclear war could break out in South Asia.

  

  India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed, have fought four wars over divided Kashmir since 1947, the lovely mountain state of forests and lakes whose population is predominantly Muslim. India controls two thirds of Kashmir; Pakistan and China the rest. This bitter dispute, one of the world’s oldest confrontations, has defied all attempts to resolve it.

  The United Nations called on India to hold a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future, but Delhi ignored this demand, knowing it would probably lose the vote.

  Muslim Kashmiris have been in armed revolt against harsh Indian occupation since the 1980’s. Some 70,000 civilians, mostly Muslims, have died to date. Today, India stations a million soldiers and paramilitary forces in Kashmir to repress popular demands by Muslim Kashmiris for either union with neighboring Pakistan or an independent Kashmiri state.

  India’s human rights groups accuse Delhi of grave human rights violations, including torture, murder, rape and collective punishment. Delhi says it is protecting Kashmir’s Hindus and Sikhs from Muslim reprisals, and blames the uprising on what it calls ‘cross border terrorism’ initiated by old enemy, Pakistan.

  Last week, a Kashmiri ‘mujahidin’ rammed his explosive-laden car into a bus filled with paramilitary Indian troops at Pulwama, killing over 40 and provoking outrage across India.

  Unable to crush the decades-old uprising in Kashmir, India threatens major reprisal attacks on Pakistan. However, Kashmir is mountainous, offering poor terrain for India’s overwhelming superiority in tanks and artillery. So Indian commanders have long pressed Delhi to allow them to attack further south on the flat plains of Punjab.

  Powerful Indian armored strike corps are poised to slice into vulnerable Pakistan and chop it up into pieces. India has also considered heavy air strikes into Pakistani Punjab and even a naval blockade to cut off Pakistan’s oil imports.

  Outnumbered and outgunned six to one by India, Pakistan has developed a potent arsenal of nuclear weapons that can be delivered by aircraft, short and medium-ranged missiles and artillery. Pakistan says it will riposte almost immediately with tactical nuclear weapons to a major Indian attack. Both sides’ nuclear forces are on a hair-trigger alert, greatly increasing the risks of an accidental nuclear exchange.

  More detail on this threat scenario may be found in my ground-breaking book on the region’s many dangers, ‘War at the Top of the World.’ Rand Corp estimated a decade ago that an Indo-Pak nuclear exchange would kill two million immediately and 100 million in ensuing weeks. India’s and Pakistan’s major water sources would be contaminated. Clouds of radioactive dust would blow around the globe.

  India is deeply frustrated by its inability to crush the independence movement in Kashmir, labeling it ‘terrorism.’ True enough, Pakistan’s crack intelligence service, ISI, has links to the many Kashmiri mujahidin groups. But the uprising is also due to often brutal, corrupt Indian rule over Kashmir and the desire by Muslims for self-rule. As I have often written, every people has a god-given right to be misruled by their own people.

  Right now, India is debating a major punitive strike against Pakistan. India national elections are imminent. The Hindu nationalist government in Delhi fears being accused of being soft on Pakistan. It was during a similar crisis in the 1980’s that Pakistan’s tough leader, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, flew to Delhi in a surprise visit and averted a war being planned by India.

  If India does launch attacks they will likely be large in scale and involve heavy use of tactical air power. If units on either side become bogged down in fighting, commanders may call for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Far outgunned Pakistan has been clear about such recourse. The urge to be first to strike with nuclear arms will be powerful.

  Once again, the bitter Kashmir dispute endangers the rest of the world. The great powers should be pressing both India and Pakistan to reach a compromise on this problem. But India has long opposed internationalization of the issue, saying it is a domestic Indian matter. It is difficult to imagine the current Hindu nationalist government in Delhi backing down over Kashmir. But India must be very cautious because behind Pakistan stands its ally China which shares a long, often poorly-defined border with India. Kashmir, not Korea, is the world’s most dangerous border.

  

• This Small Texas Town Has 1,000 Registered Aircraft But No Airport 

  WFAA, an ABC-affiliated television station licensed to Dallas, Texas, has revealed a secret in a small East Texas town called Onalaska, has more than 1,000 registered aircraft – and no airport.

  The investigation found planes were registered to two standard post office boxes in Onalaska.

  According to the most recent government data, the town had a population of 2,755, indicating that there were enough registered aircraft for nearly 37% of its residents.

  

  Considering the median income for a household in the area was $28,750, it is kind of difficult to fathom that a considerable number of residents owned a plane.

  WFAA said Onalaska had more registered planes than New York, San Antonio, Seattle, and San Diego.

  The report said most of the aircraft owners were not based in Texas nor the US but were foreigners.

  WFAA learned Onalaska is the epicenter for a practice that allows foreigners to register their planes anonymously; a former FAA official warns this practice allows drug dealers, terrorists, and other criminals to register aircraft in the US quickly.

  “When you can conceal the true ownership of a plane, you’re putting a lot of people in jeopardy,” said Joe Gutheinz, a former Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) special agent. “If you’re a terrorist and you have a way of concealing your secret ownership of a plane in the United States, you’re going to do it.”

  Industry leaders told WFAA that foreign multinational corporations often use trusts to register a plane because the FAA demands registrations have a US citizen on file.

  

  To register an aircraft, owners are required to be a US citizen. However, there is a loophole. The FAA allows foreigners to register their planes by transferring a title to a US Trustee.

  It only costs $5 for an owner to register a plane with the FAA. Once the clearing process is complete, the FAA will assign the aircraft a tail code that starts with an “N.” If that insignia was not present, the plane would have difficulty transversing across the US border and could be intercepted by US Air Force fighter jets.

  

  WFAA said it examined “trust companies” that handled registrations for foreign owners, and some of the trusts told the television station there was a vigorous vetting process that each foreign owner went through.

  “We shouldn’t require less information to…to register a car than to register an aircraft,” U.S. Representative Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, said. “If you are a foreign national…you can register an aircraft here and the government doesn’t know anything about it. Come one. It’s laughable.”

  A 2013 audit by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Transportation said there were about 5,600 aircraft across the US that “lacked key information” about ownership.

  

  In another audit of the five major trust companies, federal investigators found the companies “could not or would not provide” the identities of 75% of the foreign owners requested.

  One trustee told federal agents that they would need to subpoena the information.

  “Without collecting and maintaining complete and accurate aircraft data, FAA increases the risk of not meeting its aviation safety mission,” the audit found.

  Lynch said trustees are now required to handle over critical information to the FAA relating to foreign owners within 48-hours.

  “That is not a good policy,” said Lynch, who chairs the House National Security Subcommittee. “We shouldn’t be into accident re-construction. At that point we’re too late in the game.”

  According to the WFAA report, there have been several incidents involving aircraft registered by trusts that raised significant red flags:

  • In 2006, A U.S. bank became a trustee on an aircraft for a Lebanese politician who turned out to be “backed by a well-known U.S. Government-designated terrorist organization.” “It wasn’t until the bank found out that they were affiliated with Hezbollah that the relationship ended,” Lynch told WFAA.
  • In 2010, an airplane registered to a trust approached the Tripoli International Airport with no landing permit just hours before the U.N. Security Council met to approve a “no-fly zone” over Libya. The owner of a foreign oil corporation had registered the plane through a trust but sold a “large percentage” of his company to a Chinese company.
  • In 2012, an FAA inspector was unable to find out who was flying a Boeing 737 registered on behalf of a foreign owner. When the FAA contacted the foreign owner, officials were told the airplane had been leased to a United Arab Emirates-based rental company. The foreign owner couldn’t “provide the inspector” with information about who was flying the plane.

  

• The $32 Trillion Push To Disrupt The Entire Oil Industry

  Authored by Cyril Widdershoven via Oilprice.com,

  Global oil and gas companies are increasingly facing an uphill battle as global warming policies are taking their toll. Most analysts and market watchers are focusing on peak oil demand scenarios, but the reality could be much darker. International oil companies (IOCs) are likely to face a Black Swan scenario, which could end up being a boon for state-owned oil companies (NOCs).

  

  Increased shareholder activism, combined with global warming policies of institutional investors and NGOs, are pushing IOCs in a corner, constricting financing options for oil companies. 

  The first signs of a green revolution in the shareholder-investors universe are there, as investors have forced Dutch oil and gas major Shell to officially change its strategy, investing in more renewable energy and energy storage. The Dutch IOC wasn’t forced by to do so because of mismanagement or a lack of reserves but due to a well-orchestrated investor/stakeholder offensive. Several other peers, such as BP, ENI or Total, are expected to experience comparable situations.

  And it has become clear that not only oil and gas giants are being targeted, after one of the world’s largest mining and commodity trading companies, Glencore, decided to put a limit on its thermal coal investment. The group stated that this was done after it was confronted by a largely unknown shareholder network called Climate Action 100+, which claims to be backed by more than 300 investors, managing assets of around $32 trillion. The group was founded a little over a year ago but has already forced oil majors’ boardrooms to take radical decisions.

  The above shows that international hydrocarbon and mining sectors are facing a new obstacle, being confronted by large groups of socially and environmentally engaged shareholders, which are no longer looking at commercial value only. A combination of activist institutional investors, international pension funds and NGOs, is a new force to be dealt with. Stock-exchanged listed companies will need to address the will of their shareholders, especially with regards to climate change policies or decarbonization of the economy. After decades of having focused on creating maximum shareholder returns, things have changed dramatically, but maybe not for the better.

  For Climate Action 100+, which includes investors such as Calpers, Allianz SE, and HSBC Global Asset Management, making profitable investments remains a top priority, but they will no longer look accept a passive stance towards climate change. Without complying with the demands of NGOs and socially engaged investors, access to new capital for new oil and gas upstream projects will be reduced. Some even expect that the role of Western IOCs could decline in the next couple of years, due to political shareholder engagement policies. To force IOCs, such as Shell or BP, to comply with policies that would halve their “net carbon footprint” by 2050 could result in a death-wish for these companies in the long-run.

  The demise of IOCs, as we know them right now, could come sooner than many may expect. This will, of course, come at a cost for energy-hungry regions or consumers. With a net demand growth for oil and gas in the coming years, the world will need all hands on deck to support upstream investments to bring the hard-needed oil and gas reserves and volumes to the market. With less financing options for IOCs, and also oilfield services, the already existing investment gap in upstream investment worldwide will only grow wider. In contrast to what some media sources are suggesting, oil and gas demand will not diminish, on the contrary, oil and gas prices will rise due to a lack of supply.

  That this picture is not a future nightmare scenario but is already the reality, is shown by the fact that a growing amount of smaller oil and gas companies have become insolvent. The latter is partly caused by “global warming constraints” and lower oil prices in general. The first casualties are falling in Europe, mainly the UK, where 16 companies went bankrupt in 2018, in comparison to zero in 2012. British accountancy firm Moore Stephenson stated that lower prices were the main cause. At the same time, increased costs (North Sea decommissioning) and lower oil price expectations are doing the rest. If the international financial markets are going to take over the doomsday scenarios presented by pressure groups and NGOs, independent oil and gas companies are going to be hit extremely hard. No investor is willing to invest in a sector or company that looks to hit rock-bottom in the next decade. Stranded reserves reports, as presented by the Bank of England and others, are not helping at all to change perceptions.

  Western consumers and politicians, however, should not already start to cheer a green revolution and the end of the oil era. The future is different and could be even less positive than currently is assessed. Financial pressure on IOCs is opening up a Pandora’s Box. By removing market-oriented oil and gas giants from global markets, the only way to gain access to oil and gas will be the national oil companies (NOCs). Not only are they the real owners of the overwhelming majority of hydrocarbon reserves in the world, but NOCs are also not constrained by shareholder activism or NGO pressure.

  The main driver for NOCs is to support the sustainable economic growth of their home country or government. In stark contrast to IOCs, which are fully focused on shareholder value and profits, NOCs have a long-term national approach, in which other factors are playing a role. Saudi Aramco and its peers are not only the sole owner of the reserves but also of most of the value chain. The ongoing downstream focus of NOCs can be seen as a push to gain control of the entire value chain, from exploration to sales. 

  This position is still of value to institutional investors and national financial institutions, as the combination of long-term access, ownership and extensive value chain control, is very attractive. The Fitch AA+ rating of Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC shows that NOCs have become very attractive, even more than IOCs at present.

  Mainstream investors, hedge- and pension funds, are and will be interested in financing NOCs, as long as demand and profits are there. Western consumers and the industry should however also realize that a transformation of power to NOCs will also mean that market fundamentals will change, and possible unexpected hiccups in supply will occur at the will of governments, not due to market fundamentals. NOCs are still controlled and owned by national governments.

  Supply risks will increase if IOCs see their influence in the hydrocarbon sector diminish. Destruction of knowledge, technical capabilities and additional financing, could constrain the hard-needed push for new oil and gas production.

  

  (Click to enlarge)

  Political and environmental pressure groups should realize that pushing too hard for change could produce a boomerang effect of unwanted-order. To force IOCs to change their investment strategies, and abandon highly profitable upstream projects, while investing in renewables, could be more destabilizing than anticipated. Between 2014 and 2018, upstream oil and gas investments have been hit hard, leaving a $1 trillion investment gap. This development will impact the market within the next 24 months. Lower oil supply will push up prices if demand continues to grow.

  

• Most Economists See Recession By 2021, Stocks Don't Care

  Once again, economists are attempting to talk out of both sides of their mouths and hope no one is paying attention to the smoke and mirrors behind the curtain.

  

  Bloomberg reports that more than three-quarters of business economists expect the U.S. to enter a recession by the end of 2021. This confirms the surging probability of recession implied by none other than the NY Fed’s model…

  

  Ten percent saw a recession beginning this year, 42 percent project one next year, while 25 percent expect a contraction starting in 2021, according to a semiannual National Association for Business Economics survey released Monday. The rest expect a recession later than 2021 or expressed no opinion, the Jan. 30-Feb. 8 poll of nearly 300 members showed.

  At the same time, a majority still estimate the Fed will continue raising interest rates this year (even if the market has entirely priced that out)…

  

  The gap between forecasts and market-implied expectations is dramatic to say the least.

  “There is a schism between what the NABE panel and the markets think about the Fed’s rate path and the shrinking of its balance sheet,” said Megan Greene, chief economist at Manulife Asset Management and chair of the survey.

  “Markets are pricing in no more interest-rate hikes in 2019, whereas a majority of the NABE panel expects one or two rate hikes.”

  And it seems no one is paying attention to the fact that as cyclical growth hopes get priced back in to stocks…

  

  …then that raises the probability that The Fed will indeed follow the economists’ forecast trajectory and bank a few more rate-hikes before the big one hits in 2020 or 2021. And no one is expecting that!

  

  Of course, for now, stocks don’t care.

  

• The Brutal Truth About The CARNET: The Venezuelan Biometric ID Also Known As The Fatherland Card

  Authored by Daisy Luther and J. G. Martinez D. via THe Organic Prepper blog,

  If you want a totalitarian regime, you have to take extra steps to control the populace. And that’s just what Venezuela has done with the advent of a biometric ID called Carnet, loosely translated as The Fatherland Card. Carnet is closely related to the dystopian Chinese social credit program and in fact, uses much of the same technology to track and spy on citizens.

  

  And it’s been in the works for a long time.

  In April 2008, former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dispatched Justice Ministry officials to visit counterparts in the Chinese technology hub of Shenzhen.

  Their mission, according to a member of the Venezuela delegation, was to learn the workings of China’s national identity card program…

  …Once in Shenzhen, though, the Venezuelans realized a card could do far more than just identify the recipient.

  There, at the headquarters of Chinese telecom giant ZTE Corp, they learned how China, using smart cards, was developing a system that would help Beijing track social, political, and economic behavior.

  Using vast databases to store information gathered with the card’s use, a government could monitor everything from a citizen’s personal finances to medical history and voting activity…

  …10 years after the Shenzhen trip, Venezuela is rolling out a new, smart-card ID known as the “carnet de la patria,” or “fatherland card.”

  …And ZTE, whose role in the fatherland project is detailed here for the first time, is at the heart of the program.

  As part of a $70 million government effort to bolster “national security,” Venezuela last year hired ZTE to build a fatherland database and create a mobile payment system for use with the card, according to contracts reviewed by Reuters.

  A team of ZTE employees is now embedded in a special unit within Cantv, the Venezuelan state telecommunications company that manages the database, according to four current and former Cantv employees. (source)

  Without this card, just to name a few things, Venezuelans cannot access services like healthcare, they can’t purchase food, and they are unable to vote in elections.

  What exactly is the Carnet?

  Although the media has only been talking about it being launched in 2017, there have been predecessors to the current ID, which you’ll hear about in a moment.

  Although it existed before, it was rolled out with fanfare in 2017.

  The National Radio of Venezuela (Radio Nacional de Venezuela, RNV), the government’s public radio station, reports that in January 2017, the government of Venezuela launched the homeland card, a [translation] “tool” to “broaden the policies to protect the people, increase efficiency and efficacy, and increase the deployment capacity of the national government” (RNV [2017]). The Ministry of People’s Power for Communications and Information (Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Comunicación y la Información, MIPPCI) indicates that the homeland card is a [translation] “‘means for social justice and inclusion that connects the people directly with their President; without red tape, bureaucracy, intermediaries and corruption’” (source)

  So, long story short, to get any desperately needed government aid, you had to get this card.

  One of its most powerful tools is the Carnet de la Patria (Homeland Card). This is an identity card ostensibly meant to improve the efficiency of government social programmes by linking everyone who requests and receives services and handouts to their government records. But, in reality, the card’s main function is to keep a tight grip on the state’s 2.8memployees and also the millions of people seeking government assistance, many of whose livelihoods depend on it.

  Because 15m people are registered for the Homeland Card, it’s an effective means of controlling the poor population and ensuring their obedience.

  Without registering for the card, Venezuelans cannot access public healthcare, universities, or much-needed subsidised food provided in the Comités Locales de Abastecimiento y Producción (CLAP) box, a food package containing basic products such as rice, pasta, lentils, corn flour and oil.

  Because most of Venezuela’s productive farming and food production industries have been expropriated, nationalised – and thereafter poorly managed or closed – this fertile country is struggling to produce enough food for domestic consumption. As a result, the basic foodstuffs in the CLAP box come from Mexico under a contract run by a company owned by Nicolás Maduro. (source)

  To get a “Carnet” you have to provide biometric data – your fingerprint. To ensure you are who you say you are, you may have to scan your fingerprint in order to purchase food, vote, access healthcare, etc.

  So what is the reality of living with the Carnet system? I talked to Jose about it.

  Here’s how Carnet was instituted.

  It seems to have started out with employees who were forced to get the card. Jose writes:

  As a former oil worker, we were forced by the corporation to go to a temporary office so they could take a digital picture (I believe I remember my right thumb and index were digitally scanned just like at election time) and print it on a carnet. Oddly, the code of this card had just one or two digits more than my national ID card. We were notified by our supervisors that everyone up to the last member of the personnel was under the obligation to get the Carnet.

  Those who refused to get it were going to be severely punished. I know this perhaps sounds exaggerated, but it is the truth. Some people were even fired. Without any serious institution to go to, those who were fired had nothing to do to reclaim their rights. This kind of stuff had happened before, indeed. Former candidates used to buy votes from the poor people by providing them with cement blocks, rebar, roofing materials, and some other similar stuff to improve their hutches in the barrios. And this under “democratic” governments, go figure. So people were somewhat used to blackmail.

  Of course, it didn’t stop with employees of big corporations.

  Soon, people who refused to get the Carnet were denied basic needs.

  It spread to public employees next.

  The approach of these twisted people that were given authority through democratic ways to make decisions in the economy harmed severely the already stressed productive means of Venezuela. Our population is (was) mostly young, and with a vibrant, growing fertility rate. Therefore, the need for food was increased at a much faster rate than the accompanying growth of the food and services industry.

  The tyrants then decided to seize the production media (once they started to lose popularity) and ration whatever production they could put their paws on. The result was the mess that we are seeing now. One of the social control means was the FORCING of this card into every public employee. The refusing of getting into that system allowed them to clean whatever reluctant opposition they could have in the public management system. Now, this very same sector is screaming for food in the own Maduro’s doors.

  The carnet would supposedly provide access to medicines, food, and housing programs. I know that the military personnel even would get cars, in a country where the new car production was seized for the socialist party elite…just like Russia, Cuba, North Korea and such. No one can get a new car there and it has been like this for years. Prices in dollars are twice what they are in other countries.

  Oh and I forgot to mention that subsidized gasoline is available for those holding the carnet. Mostly they would fill their tanks in the border cities like San Cristobal, get that gasoline in some jerry cans, and would sell it or trade it for food in Colombia. Without cars passing through the bridge now, chances are that this gasoline is going through the bushes. Without any means to get food, medicines at affordable prices (we are talking about prices here, people holding the carnet could barely make a living some time ago), or even gasoline, people without the carnet were better off leaving the country. Those most affected are the elders. Payment of pensions was to be made through this system, forcing poor older people to make rows for 8 or 10 hours to receive a pack of money barely enough to buy a dozen eggs. But without the carnet, even this handout was impossible to get for them. Of course, those elder people who have refused to get the carnet in these last 3 years have died like flies. By the thousands.

  I do know that Nico sold this as the big socialist achievement in history. He even issued bonuses for proven single, pregnant women with more than 2 children, encouraging them to have more children because they would receive an allowance for every one of the babies. Of course, they would receive money throughout the carnet de la patria.

  JEEZ-CHRIST, people.

  It’s even embarrassing mentioning this!

  Does this sound familiar?

  A lot has been written on this website about the advent of personal microchips and how they might be forced upon people at some point in the not so distant future. Of course, it will be done with our “convenience” in mind and then at some point, it will be nearly impossible to function in society without being chipped. Basically everyone, according to some experts, will get chipped.

  And so it is in Venezuela too, that functioning without the Carnet is nearly impossible. And functioning with the Carnet is nearly impossible too unless you toe the Maduro party line.

  Of course, this restriction of resources is entirely against our Constitution. Ironically, the Constitution that Hugo left behind him.

  After the election process, the people holding the carnet was instructed to immediately go to some data collection points called “red points” where they had to register themselves and were asked an entire series of questions about what programs they received, like housing, pensions, medication or feeding. If they voted against Maduro, they would be rejected from those programs. I know this first hand because I was there.

  However, things have changed. They will try (perhaps that will change soon once Maduro is no longer in place) only payment means can be done with this carnet. I don’t know because never used it to receive any money, or make some payments, nor even to get some gasoline. I left before this implementation was fully achieved. I do have my carnet, though…as a memory of the infamy of these years.

  At the present, the menaces have made more effect that the carnet itself, which has only been used to receive bonuses and pensions, and the access to some different programs that have not still gone dry because lack of funding…something that will run entirely dry because it is Pres. Guaido now who holds the checkbook.

  But used as a psychological tool, its impact has been huge. Of course, China has much more advances in this area. They use it effectively to control political activity and to forbid access to public transportation and even to schools. To provide a little of our Venezuelan style, and that we have some good hackers around there, when they used the carnet in the first voting to choose the fraudulent constituent assembly, Nico was the first to vote…just to receive a screen message that said his carnet had been revoked or did not exist….on national TV, embarrassing him in front of tens of thousands of followers. Quite funny. One of my best memories regarding that stuff indeed.

  And this has worked against them, too, because it is totally against our Constitution. It has been used as a means of EXCLUSION AND BLACKMAIL of the most vulnerable population. This is a crime.

  This is a case study in control.

  Years ago, back in 2014, I wrote about this card although, at the time, I didn’t know the name of it. I wrote about the fingerprint registry that was required to buy food so that the Venezuelan government could prevent the “crime” of food “hoarding.”  This is when people were really beginning to see that things were going downhill fast in the country.

  People were told things would be better for them with the card, and many welcomed it, thinking it would solve the problems of food shortages. I could easily see certain groups of people here in the United States greeting such a move with open arms, blithely oblivious to where it was heading. (I’m talking to you, “AOC” and friends.)

  Back in 2014, I wrote:

  The AP reports that in an effort to crack down on “hoarding” that ID cards will be issued to families.  These will have to be presented before foodstuffs can be purchased.

  President Nicolas Maduro’s administration says the cards to track families’ purchases will foil people who stock up on groceries at subsidized prices and then illegally resell them for several times the amount…

  Registration began Tuesday at more than 100 government-run supermarkets across the country. Working-class shoppers who sometimes endure hours-long lines at government-run stores to buy groceries at steeply reduced prices are welcoming the plan.

  “The rich people have things all hoarded away, and they pull the strings,” said Juan Rodriguez, who waited two hours to enter the government-run Abastos Bicentenario supermarket near downtown Caracas on Monday, and then waited another three hours to check out.

  Checkout workers at Abastos Bicentenario were taking down customers’ cellphone numbers Monday, to ensure they couldn’t return for eight days. Shoppers said employees also banned purchases by minors, to stop parents from using their children to engage in hoarding, which the government calls “nervous buying.”

  Rodriguez supports both measures.

  “People who go shopping every day hurt us all,” he said, drawing approving nods from the friends he made over the course of his afternoon slowly snaking through the aisles with his oversized cart.

  Reflecting Maduro’s increasingly militarized discourse against opponents he accuses of waging “economic war,” the government is calling the new program the “system of secure supply.”

  Patrons will register with their fingerprints, and the new ID card will be linked to a computer system that monitors purchases. On Tuesday, Food Minister Felix Osorio said the process was off to a smooth start. He says the system will sound an alarm when it detects suspicious purchasing patterns, barring people from buying the same goods every day. But he also says the cards will be voluntary, with incentives like discounts and entry into raffles for homes and cars.

  Expressionless men with rifles patrolled the warehouse-size supermarket Monday as shoppers hurried by, focusing on grabbing meat and pantry items before they were gone.  (source)

  Last year in Venezuela, it became a crime to “hoard” food, and the country’s Attorney General called upon prosecutors to crack down on “hoarders” by imprisoning them for the “crime”.

  Is it just me or do you see the future unless something changes dramatically?

  

• On Friday The Debt Ceiling Returns, And The Treasury Runs Out Of Cash 6 Months Later

  While president Trump may have postponed one of the two major events scheduled to hit this Friday, March 1, the second one is still set to proceed as scheduled: that’s when the US debt limit suspension expires and the US debt ceiling will again return (incidentally the current debt ceiling was suspended when total debt was $1.5 trillion lower!), prompting Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to draw upon extraordinary measures to keep the government within its statutory borrowing capacity for some time beyond March 1.

  

  Which means that rates traders are wearily looking at the T-Bill curve to determine when analysts expect the Treasury to exhaust its extraordinary measures, at which point another debt ceiling crisis will become a very hot topic. And as the following chart of the infamous “kink” in bill yields shows, where the curve dislocation approximate the timing of the D-Date, the market believes that the US will run out of extenuating measures some time in the last week of August.

  

  Making an accurate D-Date forecast problematic, this year the changes to the Treasury’s tax code has created additional uncertainty around IRS tax receipts.

  That said, with at least six months to go until politicians once again repeat the debt ceiling charade, there has already been soft demand for six-month bill auctions in recent weeks.

  There are other ways this Friday’s debt ceiling return will impact markets, most notably with a sharp decline in the Treasury’s cash balance which currently stands at $331 billion, and is set to plunge as low as $200 billion over the next few days, as by Friday the cash balance should be at or below the level it was at when the current suspension went into effect in February 2018. And since the commercial banking system will be on the receiving end of that liquidity, this development should lead to sharp drop in Libor/OIS…

  

  … while also work potentially serving to depress the USD over the next 60-90 trading days (due to the excess USD liquidity which will be released by the Treasury.)

  But a bigger question is how will negotiations between Trump and the democrats play out heading into the August D-Date. Should trump fold in the current negotiations with China just to see his precious stock market gain another several hundred points, his core constituency – some of whom are already fuming over his border wall concession, when Trump decided to fund government and keep it open – will demand that Trump hold tough on this last point of leverage with the Democrat-controlled House. Should Trump fold here too, he will burn through much of his remaining political capital. On the other hand, the alternative is a US technical default. Which is why we urge traders not to rush to schedule their summer vacation plans: if the past is any indication, late August will be anything but a peaceful time.

  

• China Plans To Build Space Solar Station

  Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via Oilprice.com,

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

  

  China has already started to build an early experimental space power plant in the city of Chongqing, The Sydney Morning Herald reported, citing an article in China’s Science and Technology Daily.

  The space solar station, planned to orbit the Earth at 36,000 kilometers (22,370 miles) could provide “an inexhaustible source of clean energy for humans,” according to Pang Zhihao, a researcher at the China Academy of Space Technology Corporation.

  Such solar power technology could supply reliable energy 99 percent of the time and have six times the intensity of the solar farms that work on the earth, the scientist says.

  China will start by launching small solar stations between 2021 and 2025, while a possible next step would be a Megawatt-level station planned to be built in 2030.

  The energy from the space solar station would be converted into a microwave or laser beam that would be sent to the earth.

  However, the project has two major hurdles to overcome in order to become a practical solution. One is the weight of a space solar station, expected to be more than two times the weight of the International Space Station. The other is the safety impact of laser or microwave beams sent to the earth.

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

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

  According to Caltech’s research, “Collecting solar power in space and transmitting the energy wirelessly to Earth through microwaves enables terrestrial power availability unaffected by weather or time of day. Solar power could be continuously available anywhere on earth.”

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Watch Deep-Sea Iranian Sub Carry Out First Cruise Missile Test-Launch

  Yesterday, we published some commentary written by author Steven Metz where he argued that a US-orchestrated military intervention in Iran would be “one of the worst blunders in American history.”

  And while Venezuela has continued to attract most of the media attention and speculation that the US could launch a full-scale proxy civil war in that country as it seeks to oust the Maduro regime (using any tools necessary, including a false flag attack, to justify the incursion), thousands of miles away in the Persian Gulf, tensions between the US and Iran are quietly escalating.

  

  As RT reported Sunday, an Iranian submarine successfully carried out its first cruise missile deep-sea launch during a naval drill in the waters south of Iran. The drill was interpreted as a warning to the US following the return of US aircraft carriers to the region after a long absence, but it also took place within the context of wider Iranian naval drills in the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Sea of Oman.

  Iranian Navy commander Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi told local media on Sunday that a Ghadir-class sub fired an anti-ship cruise missile from underwater for the first time earlier in the day.

  Clips of the launch were circulated to Iranian television.

  Persian Gulf War Games: Iran Successfully Fires Missile from Submarine for First Time pic.twitter.com/XQipaMvWuy

  — Fars News Agency (@EnglishFars) February 24, 2019

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

  Iranian Navy Drills in High Seas pic.twitter.com/Obcy08lxt0

  — Fars News Agency (@EnglishFars) February 24, 2019

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

  The launch was part of Iran’s “Veleyat-97” naval exercises, a series of war games that are taking place in the area around the Gulf.

  Here’s more from RT:

  It happened during the ongoing large-scale naval drill, ‘Veleyat-97.’ The war games are taking place in the area from the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz to the Sea of Oman and the northern parts of the Indian Ocean. The navy fired numerous cruise missiles from ships and coastal ground-based systems during the exercise. Tehran used the drill to showcase its newest frigate, ‘Sahand,’ and its Fateh-class submarines that military officials say can also carry cruise missiles.

  The massive naval maneuvers are being staged amid heightened tensions between Iran and the US. In December, the Pentagon deployed its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS ‘John C. Stennis’ to the Persian Gulf. It became the first American warship of its type to cross the Strait of Hormuz since US President Donald Trump unilaterally pulled the nation out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program last year.

  As we said on Saturday, expect tensions between the two countries to continue to escalate as the US nears a decision on whether to extend, or end, the waivers on Iranian crude sanctions.

  

• How America's Dictatorship Works

  Authored by Eric Zuesse via Off-Guardian.org,

  Trump could not have become America’s President if he had not won the “vote” of his nation’s second-largest political donor in 2016, casinos-owner Sheldon Adelson.

  

  In publicly recorded donations, as of 25 December 2018, Adelson and his wife donated$82,522,800 to Republican candidates in 2016, and this amount doesn’t include any of the secret money. Of that sum, it’s virtually impossible to find out how much went specifically to Trump’s campaign for President, but, as of 9 May 2017, the Adelsons were publicly recorded as having donated $20.4 million to Trump’s campaign.

  Their impact on the Presidential contest was actually much bigger than that, however, because even the Adelsons’ non-Trump-campaign donations went to the Republican Party, and the rest went to Republican pro-Trump candidates, and the rest went to Republican PACS — and, so, a large percentage (if not all) of that approximately $60 million non-Trump-campaign political expenditure by the Adelsons was boosting Trump’s Presidential vote.

  The second-largest Republican donor in 2016 was the hedge fund manager Paul Singer, at $26,114,653. It was less than a third, 31.6%, as large as the Adelsons’ contribution. Singer is the libertarian who proudly invests in weak entities that have been sucked dry by the aristocracy and who almost always extracts thereby, in the courts, far larger returns-on-investment than do other investors, who have simply settled to take a haircut on their failing high-interest-rate loans to that given weak entity.

  Singer hires the rest of his family to run his asset-stripping firm, which is named after his own middle name, “Elliott Advisors,” and he despises any wealthy person who won’t (like he does) fight tooth-and-nail to extract, from any weak entity, everything that can possibly be stripped from it. His Elliott Advisors is called a “vulture fund,” but that’s an insult to vultures, who instead eat corpses. They don’t actually attack and rip apart vulnerable struggling animals, like Singer’s operation does.

  So, that’s the top two, on the Republican Party side.

  On the Democratic Party side, the largest 2016 donor was the largest of all political donors in 2016, the hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer, $91,069,795. The second-largest was hedge fund manager Donald S. Sussman, $41,841,000. Both of them supported Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, and then against Donald Trump.

  As of 23 January 2019, the record shows that Trump received $46,873,083 in donations larger than $200, and $86,749,927 in donations smaller than $200. Plus, he got $144,764 in PAC contributions. Hillary Clinton received $300,111,643 in over-$200 donations, and $105,552,584 in under-$200 donations. Plus, she got $1,785,190 in PAC donations. She received 6.4 times as much in $200+ donations as Trump did. She received 1.2 times as much in under-$200 donations as he did. Clearly, billionaires strongly preferred Hillary.

  So, it’s understandable why not only America’s Democratic Party billionaires but also many of America’s Republican Party billionaires want President Trump to become replaced ASAP by his V.P., President Pence, who has a solid record of doing only whatever his big donors want him to do. For them, the wet dream would be a 2020 contest between Mike Pence or a clone, versus Hillary Clinton or a clone (such as Joe Biden or Beto O’Rourke). That would be their standard fixed game, America’s heads-I-win-tails-you-lose ‘democracy’.

  On 18 January 2018 was reported that, “Trump pulled in $107 million in individual contributions, nearly doubling President Barack Obama’s 2009 record of $53 million.”

  However, in both of those cases, the figures which were being compared were actually donations to fund the inaugural festivities, not the actual campaigns. But Adelson led there, too: “Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson was [the] most generous [donor], giving $5 million to the inaugural committee.”

  The second-biggest donor to that was Hushang Ansary of Stewart & Stevenson, at $2 million. He had previously been the CEO of the National Iranian Oil Company until the CIA-appointed dictator, the brutal and widely hated Shah, was overthrown in 1979 and replaced by Iran’s now theocratically overseen limited democracy. The US aristocracy, whose CIA had overthrown Iran’s popular and democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953, installed the Shah to replace that elected head-of-state, and they then denationalized and privatized Iran’s oil company, so as to cut America’s aristocrats in on Iran’s oil.

  Basically, America’s aristocracy stole Iran in 1953, and Iranians grabbed their country back in 1979, and US billionaires have been trying to get it back ever since. Ansary’s net worth is estimated at “over $2 billion,” and, “By the 1970s, the CIA considered Ansary to be one of seventeen members of ‘the Shah’s Inner Circle’ and he was one of the Shah’s top two choices to succeed Amir Abbas Hoveyda as Prime Minister.”

  But, that just happened to be the time when the Shah became replaced in an authentic revolution against America’s dictatorship. Iran’s revolution produced the country’s current partially democratic Government. So, this would-be US stooge Ansary fled to America, which had been Iran’s master during 1953-79, and he was welcomed with open arms by Amerca’s and allied aristocracies.

  Other than the Adelsons, the chief proponents of regime-change in Iran since 1979 are the US-billionaires-controlled CIA, and ‘news’-media, and Government, and the Shah’s family, and the Saud family, and Israel’s apartheid regime headed by the Adelsons’ protégé in Israel, Netanyahu. America’s billionaires want Iran back, and the CIA represents them (the Deep State) — not the American public — precisely as it did in 1953, when the CIA seized Iran for America’s billionaires.

  In the current election-cycle, 2018, the Adelsons have thus far invested $123,208,200, all in Republicans, and this tops the entire field. The second-largest political investor, for this cycle, is the former Republican Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, at $90,282,515, all to Democrats. Is he a Republican, or is he a Democrat? Does it actually make any difference? He is consistently a promoter of Wall Street. The third-largest donor now is Tom Steyer, at $70,743,864, all to Democrats. The fourth-largest is a Wisconsin libertarian-conservative billionaire, Richard Uihlein, at $39,756,996.

  Back on 19 March 2018, Politico reported that “Uihlein and his wife, Elizabeth, are currently the biggest Republican donors of the 2018 midterm elections, having given $21 million to candidates for federal office and super PACs that will support them. And that doesn’t include their funding of state candidates.” On 1 October 2016, International Business Times had listed the top ten donors to each of the two Parties, and the Uihleins at that time were #4 on the Republican side, at $21.5 million.

  Of course, all of the top donors are among the 585 US billionaires, and therefore they can afford to spend lots on the Republican and/or Democratic nominees. Open Secrets reported on 31 March 2017 that “Of the world’s 100 richest billionaires, 36 are US citizens and thus eligible to donate to candidates and other political committees here. OpenSecrets Blog found that 30 of those [36] [or five sixths of the total 36 wealthiest Americans] actually did so, contributing a total of $184.4 million — with 58 percent [of their money] going to Republican efforts.” Democratic Party nominees thus got 42%; and, though it’s not as much as Republican ones get, it’s usually enough so that if a Democrat becomes elected, that person too will be controlled by billionaires.

  For example, in the West Virginia Democratic Presidential primary in 2016, Bernie Sanders won all 55 counties in the state but that state’s delegation to the Democratic National Convention handed 19 of the state’s 37 votes at the Convention to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, who got more money from billionaires than all other US Presidential candidates combined. The millions of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton were voting for the billionaires’ favorite, and she and her DNC stole the Party’s nomination from Sanders, who was the nation’s most-preferred Presidential candidate in 2016; and, yet, most of those voters still happily voted, yet again, for her, in the general election — as if she hadn’t practically destroyed the Party by prostituting it to its billionaires even more than Obama had already done.

  Of course, she ran against Trump, and, for once, the billionaires were shocked to find that their enormous investment in a candidate had been for naught. That’s how incompetent she was. But they still kept control over both of the political Parties, and the Sanders choice to head the DNC (the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party itself) lost out to the Obama-Clinton choice, so that today’s Democratic Party is still the same: winning is less important to them than serving their top donors is.

  This means that America’s winners of federal elections represent almost entirely America’s 585 billionaires, and not the 328,335,647 Americans (as of noon on 23 January 2019). Of course, there is a slight crossover of interests between those two economic classes, since 0.000002 of those 328,335,647, or 0.0002% of them, are billionaires. However, if 0.0002% of federal office-holders represent the public, and the remaining 99.9998% represent the billionaires, then is that actually a bipartisan Government? If instead 99.9998% represented 328,335,062 Americans, and 0.0002% represented the 585 billionaires; then, that, too, wouldn’t be bipartisan, but would it be a democratic (small “d”) government? So, America is not a democracy (regardless of whether it’s bipartisan); it is instead an aristocracy, just like ancient France was, and the British empire, etc. The rest of America’s population (the 328,335,062 other Americans) are mere subjects, though we are officially called ‘citizens’, of this actual aristocracy.

  The same is true in Israel, the land that the Adelsons (the individuals who largely control America) are so especially devoted to. On 8 November 2016, Israel’s pro-Hillary-Clinton and anti-Netanyahu Ha’aretz newspaper headlined “The Collapsing Political Triangle Linking Adelson, Netanyahu and Trump”, and reported that Ha’aretz’s bane and top competitor was the freely distributed daily Israeli newspaper, Israel Hayom, and:

  Israel Hayom was founded by Adelson nine years ago, in order to give Netanyahu – who has been rather harshly treated by the Israeli media throughout his political career – a friendly newspaper. Under Israeli law, the total sum an individual can donate to a politician or party is very limited, and corporate donations are not allowed.

  Israel Hayom has been a convenient loophole, allowing Adelson to invest the sort of money he normally gives American politicians on Netanyahu’s behalf. It has no business model and carries far fewer ads than most daily newspapers. While the privately owned company does not publish financial reports, industry insiders estimate that Adelson must spend around $50 million annually on the large team of journalists and the printing and distribution operations.

  Distributed for free, in hundreds of thousands of copies the length and breadth of the country, Israel Hayom … clings slavishly to the line from Netanyahu’s office – praising him and his family to the heavens while smearing his political rivals, both on the left and the right.

  A billionaire can afford to use his or her ‘news’-media in lieu of political campaign donations. Lots of billionaires do that. They don’t need to make direct political donations. And ‘making money’ by owning a ‘news’-medium can even be irrelevant, for them. Instead, owning an important ’news’-medium can be, for them, just another way, or sometimes their only way, to buy control over the government. It certainly works. It’s very effective in Israel.

  Adelson is #14 on the 2018 Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans, all having net worths of $2.1 billion or more, his being $38.4 billion, just one-third as large as that of Jeff Bezos. Bezos is the owner of around 15% of Amazon Corporation, whose profits are derived almost entirely from the Amazon Web Services that are supplied to the US Pentagon, NSA, and CIA. So, he’s basically a ‘defense’ contractor.

  Bezos’s directly owned Washington Post is one of America’s leading neoconservative and neoliberal, or pro-invasion and pro-Democratic Party, media; and, so, his personal ownership of that newspaper is much like his owning a one-person national political PAC to promote whatever national policies will increase his fortune. The more that goes to the military and the less that goes to everything else, the wealthier he will become. His newspaper pumps the ‘national security threats’ to America.

  Adelson controls Israel’s Government. Whereas he might be a major force in America’s Government, that’s actually much more controlled by the world’s wealthiest person, the only trillionaire, the King of Saudi Arabia. He has enough wealth so that he can buy almost anybody he wants — and he does, through his numerous agents. But, of course, both Israel’s Government and Saudi Arabia’s Government hate Iran’s Government at least as much as America’s Government does.

  In fact, if Russia’s Government weren’t likely to defend Iran’s Government from an invasion, then probably Iran would already have been invaded. Supporters of America’s Government are supporters of a world government by America’s billionaires, because that’s what the US Government, in all of its international functions (military, diplomatic, etc.) actually represents: it’s America’s global dictatorship.

  They throw crumbs to America’s poor so as to make it a ‘two-party’ and not merely a ‘one-party’ government and so that one of the Parties can call itself ‘the Democratic Party’, but America’s is actually a one-party government, and it represents only the very wealthiest, in both Parties. The aristocracy’s two separate party-organizations compete against each other. But their real audience is the aristocracy’s dollars, not the public’s voters. This “two-Party” dictatorship (by the aristocracy) is a different governing model than in China and some other countries.

  The great investigative journalist Wayne Madsen headlined on January 24th “Trump Recognition of Rival Venezuelan Government Will Set Off a Diplomatic Avalanche” and he reported the possibility of a war developing between the US and Russia over America’s aggression against Venezuela. US media even have pretended that the US Government isn’t the one that customarily perpetrates coups in Latin America, and pretended that Russia’s and Cuba’s Governments are simply blocking ‘democracy’ from blossoming in Venezuela.

  On January 24th, Middle East Eye reported that Morgan Stanley’s CEO James Gorman had just told the World Economic Forum, in Davos, that the torture-murder of Saudi Crown Prince Salman’s critic and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was “unacceptable,” “But what do you do? What part do you play in the process of economic and social change?” and the report continued: “Gorman said he did not judge any country’s attempts to root out corruption,” and Gorman and a French tycoon joined in throwing their “weight behind Riyadh’s economic and social direction, by saying, ‘it is quite difficult and brave what the kingdom is doing’,” by its ‘reforms’. It was all being done to ‘root out corruption, and to spread democracy’. Sure.

  There’s “a sucker born every minute,” except now it’s every second. That seems to be the main way to win votes.

  On January 26th, Trump appointed the fascist Elliott Abrams to lead this ‘democratization of Venezuela’, by overthrowing and replacing the elected President by the second-in-line-of succession (comparable in Venezuela to removing Trump and skipping over the Vice President and appointing Nancy Pelosi as America’s President, and also violating the Venezuelan Constitution’s requirement that the Supreme Judicial Trbunal must first approve before there can be ANY change of the President without an election by the voters).

  It’s clearly another US coup that is being attempted here. Trump, by international dictat, says that this Venezuelan traitor whom the US claims to be installing is now officially recognized by the US Government to be the President of Venezuela. Bloomberg News reported that Abrams would join Trump’s neocon Secretary of State on January 26th at the UN to lobby there for the UN to authorize Trump’s intended Venezuelan coup. The EU seemed strongly inclined to follow America’s lead. On the decisive U.N. body, the Permanent Security Council, of China, France, Russia, UK, and US, the US position was backed by three: US, France, and UK. Russia and China were opposed.

  In the EU, only France, Germany, Spain, and UK, came out immediately backing the US position. On January 25th, Russia’s Tass news agency was the first to report on the delicate strategic situation inside Venezuela. It sounded like the buildup to Obama’s successful coup in Ukraine in February 2014, but in Venezuela and under Trump. In fact, at least two commentaors other than I have noted the apparent similarities: Whitney Webb at “Washington Follows Ukraine, Syria Roadmap in Push for Venezuela Regime Change” and RT at “‘Venezuela gets its Maidan’: Ukrainian minister makes connection between regime change ops”.

  Abrams’s career has been devoted to “regime-change,” and is as unapologetic about it as is John Bolton. Also like Bolton, he’s an impassioned supporter of Jewish apartheid. He wrote in his 1997 book Faith or Fear, that “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart — except in Israel — from the rest of the population.”

  Israel is, in this and the view of many billionaires, the whole world’s ghetto, and ‘real’ Jews don’t belong anywhere else than there. And, according to that, nobody else does belong there, except people who accept being ruled by Jewish Law – the Torah. So, on 25 June 2001, George W. Bush, as the main representative of America’s billionaires, made Abrams the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations at the National Security Council.

  Of course, Abrams was gung-ho for Americans to conquer Iraq, because Iraqis didn’t like Israel. And the current US President hires that same agent of Israel, Abrams, now to sell internationally America’s current coup to grab Venezuela for America’s billionaires. Abrams, for years, had been courting Trump’s favor by having declined to include himself among the many Republican neoconservatives, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. He thereby has now won his new job, on the real-world sequel to The Apprentice, which is known as President Trump’s Administration. Another such winner, of course, is John Bolton, who likewise had declined to endorse Hillary.

  Perhaps the US regime thinks that testing the resolve of Russia’s Government, regarding Venezuela, would be less dangerous than testing it over the issue of Iran. But Big Brother says that this imposition of America’s corruption is instead merely a part of rooting out corruption and spreading democracy and human rights, throughout the world.

  The US has managed to get Venezuela in play, to control again. Some American billionaires think it’s a big prize, which must be retaken. The largest oil-and-gas producers — and with the highest reserves of oil-and-gas in the ground — right now, happen to be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Russia, Venezuela, and US. So, for example, Venezuela is a much bigger prize than Brazil.

  All of those countries have an interest in denying the existence of human-produced global warming, and in selling as much of their product as quickly as possible before the world turns away from fossil fuels altogether. High-tech doesn’t drive today’s big-power competition nearly so much as does the fossil-fuels competition — to sell as much of it as they can, as fast as they can. The result of this competition could turn out to be a nuclear winter that produces a lifeless planet and thus prevents the planet from becoming lifeless more slowly from global burnout — the alternative outcome, which would be produced by the burnt fossil fuels themselves. Either way, the future looks bleak, no matter what high-tech produces (unless high-tech produces quickly a total replacement of fossil fuels, and, in the process, bankrupts many of the billionaires who are so active in the current desperate and psychopathic global competition).

  This is what happens when wealth worldwide is so unequally distributed that the “World’s Richest 0.7% Own 13.67 Times as Much as World’s Poorest 68.7%”. According to economic theory (which has always been written by agents for the aristocracy), the distribution of wealth is irrelevant. This belief was formalized by a key founder of today’s mathematized economic theory, Vilfredo Pareto, who, for example, in his main work, the 1912 Trattato di Sociologia Generale, wrote (# 2135), that, though “the lover of equality will assign a high coefficient to the utility of the lower classes and get a point of equilibrium very close to the equalitarian condition, there is no criterion save sentiment for choosing between the one [such equality of wealth] and the other [a single person — whom he called “superman” — owning everything].”

  The article on Pareto in the CIA’s Wikipedia doesn’t even so much as mention this central feature of Pareto’s thinking, the feature that’s foundational in all of the theory of “welfare” in economics. Pareto was also the main theoretician of fascism, and the teacher of Mussolini. This belief is at the foundation of capitalism as we know it, and as it has been in economic theory ever since, actually, the 1760s. Pareto didn’t invent it; he merely mathematized it.

  So, we’ve long been in 1984, or at least building toward it. But US-allied billionaires wrote this particular version of it; George Orwell didn’t. And it’s not a novel. It’s the real thing. And it is now becoming increasingly desperate.

  If, in recognizing this, you feel like a hog on a factory-farm, then you’ve got the general idea of this reality. It’s the problem that the public faces. But the publics in the US and its allied regimes are far less miserable than the publics in the countries that the US and its allied regimes are trying to take over — the targeted countries (such as Syria). To describe any realistic solution to this systematic global exploitation would require an entire book, at the very least — no mere article, such as here. The aristocracy anywhere wouldn’t publish such a book. Nobody would likely derive any significant income from writing it. That’s part of the reality, which such a book would be describing.

  However, a key part of this reality is that for the billionaires — the people who control international corporations or corporations that even are aspiring to grow beyond their national market — their nation’s international policies are even more important to them than its domestic affairs (such as the toxic water in Flint, Michigan; or single-payer health insurance — matters that are relatively unimportant to billionaires), and, therefore, the most-censored and least-honestly reported realities on the part of the aristocracy’s ‘news’-media are the international ones. And, so, this is the field where there is the most lying, such as about “Saddam’s WMD,” and about all foreign countries.

  However, when a person is in an aristocracy’s military, deception of that person is even more essential, especially in the lower ranks, the troops, because killing and dying for one’s aristocracy is far less attractive than killing or dying in order honestly to serve and protect an authentic democracy. Propagandizing for the myth that the nation is a democracy is therefore extremely important in any aristocracy.

  Perhaps this is the reason why, in the United States, the military is consistently the institution that leads above all others in the public’s respect. It’s especially necessary to do that, in the nation that President Barack Obama repeatedly said is “the one indispensable nation”. This, of course, means that every other nation is “dispensable.” Any imperial nation, at least since ancient Rome, claimed the same thing, and invaded more nations than any other in the world when it was the leading imperial nation, because this is what it means to be an empire, or even to aspire to being one: imposing that given nation’s will upon other nations — colonies, vassal states, or whatever they are called.

  When soldiers know that they are the invaders, not the actual defenders, their motivation to kill and die is enormously reduced. This is the main reason why the ‘news’-media in an imperial nation need to lie constantly to their public. If a news-reporting organization doesn’t do that, no aristocrat will even buy it. And virtually none will advertise in it or otherwise donate to it. It will be doomed to remain very small and unprofitable in every way (because the “World’s Richest 0.7% Own 13.67 Times as Much as World’s Poorest 68.7%”). Billionaires donate to ‘news’-organizations that might report accurately about domestic US problems, but not to ones that report accurately about international affairs, especially about important international affairs. Even liberal ‘news’-media are neoconservative, or favorable toward American invasions and coups. In order to be a significant player in the ‘news’-business in the United States, one has to be.

  So: this is how America’s dictatorship works. This is not America’s exceptionalism: it is America’s ordinariness. America’s Founders had wanted to produce something not just exceptional but unique in its time: a democratic republic. But what now exists here is instead a dictatorial global empire, and it constitutes the biggest threat to the very existence of the United Nations ever since that body’s founding in 1945. If that body accepts as constituting the leader of Venezuela the person that America’s President declares to be Venezuela’s leader, then the U.N. is effectively dead.

  This would be an immense breakthrough for all of the US regime’s billionaires, both domestically and throughout its allied countries (such as in France, Germany, Spain, and UK). It would be historic, if they win. It would be extremely grim, and then the U.N. would immediately need to be replaced. The US and its allies would refuse to join the replacement organization. That organization would then authorize economic sanctions against the US and its allies. These will be reciprocated. The world would break clearly into two trading-blocs. In a sense, the UN’s capitulation to the US on this matter would create another world war, WW III. It would be even worse than when Neville Chamberlain accepted Hitler’s offer regarding the Sudetenland. We’d be back to the start of WW II, with no lessons learned since then. And with nuclear weapons.

  

• India-Pakistan War: Pakistan Army Prepares For Conflict, Tells Hospitals To Be Ready

  The Pakistan military is preparing to defend against future attacks by India, and would respond with “full force,” the army’s spokesman announced Friday, amid worries of retaliation from India after the Pulwama terror incident, reported Reuters. 

  “We have no intention to initiate war, but we will respond with full force to full spectrum threat, that would surprise you,” Major General Asif Ghafoor said.

  “Don’t mess with Pakistan.”

  “We do not wish to go to war. If it is imposed on us, we have the right to respond,” Major General Ghafoor told journalists during a news conference in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, one week after a Pakistani-based terror organization claimed responsibility for the Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian policemen in the Kashmir region. 

  

  The Times of India has obtained new government documents, one by the Pakistani military and another from local authorities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), which suggests the Pakistani military is preparing for an upcoming conflict on the Line of Control (LOC), a military control line between the Indian and Pakistani controlled parts of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.

  

  Pakistan Army based in Headquarters Quetta Logistics Area in Quetta Cantonment sent a letter to Jilani Hospital on February 20 to prepare for medical support in the event of war. 

  “In case of emergency war on the eastern front, Quetta logistics area is expected to receive injured soldiers from civil and military hospitals of Sindh and Punjab. After initial medical treatment, these soldiers are planned to be shifted from military and civil public sector to the civil hospital in Balochistan till the period of availability of beds in CMHs (civil-military hospitals),” the letter to Jilani hospital’s Abdul Malik by one Asia Naz, force commander, HQLA, said.

  “The Logistics Area has a comprehensive medical support plan encompassing all military and civil hospitals in the province. In case of an eventuality besides bed expansion of the military hospital, civil hospitals have already been assigned the responsibility to reserve and earmark 25% of their bedding capacity for the injured soldier.”

  On Thursday, PoK authorities urged local officials in Neelum, Jehlum, Rawalkot, Haweli, Kotli and Bhimbher regions along the LoC to publish warnings for residents of an imminent attack by the Indian Army.

  The PoK also advised residents to take “safe routes whenever commuting” besides avoiding congregation. “Those residing near the LoC and (those who) do not have bunkers should get one made immediately,” it said.

  

  Yesterday, Pakistan PM Imran Khan authorized the military to “respond decisively and comprehensively to any aggression or misadventure” by India, reported PTI.

  Bilateral ties between both countries collapsed after the Pulwama attack. Pakistan is preparing for an imminent attack by India, as one of the most dangerous rivalries on the plant is heating up in the first half of 2019. 

  

• How To Successfully Achieve Denuclearization For North Korea

  Authored by William Craddick via DisobedientMedia.com,

  The fact that American President Donald Trump was able to sit down face to face with North Korea’s Chairman Kim Jong Un in Singapore was met with amazement by many government and private parties, who have for decades been hoping to break the stagnation that has characterized attempts to reach a breakthrough in relations between United States (US) and the Koreas. The efforts of President Trump, Chairman Kim, and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in have been truly commendable and will genuinely merit the Nobel Peace Prize should their intended plans reach fruition.

  

  To seal the deal and reach a conclusive agreement when Trump and Kim meet in Hanoi for a second summit on February 27th and 28th, all parties must be prepared to approach the negotiations from the perspective of the North Koreans. The United States must make an exceptional offer that will help Chairman Kim transform the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in a process that will become a talking point for dispute resolution specialists for decades to come.

  The North Korean Perspective On Nuclear Weapons

  North Korea’s incentive to develop nuclear capabilities was borne from a latent fear that without them they would be invaded by the United States. In practice, North Korea’s nuclear arsenal has placed it in the middle of a very tricky situation between the United States and China, both of whom are also armed with nuclear weapons.

  The Korean War serves as a stark reminder that due to understandings in place between various nations in the region, any conflict between North Korea and the United States would lead to the direct military involvement of China. Studies of American nuclear policy during the Korean War show that a current confrontation involving North Korea would almost certainly lead to not only the destruction of the entire Peninsula but also Japan due to factors such as diplomatic agreements and the position of military assets.

  The prioritization of the pursuit of nuclear weapons has involved considerable sacrifices by North Korea. This has created a sunk-cost dilemma that actually places the DPRK in a worse position geo-strategically. An outbreak of war will inevitably cause them to deploy nuclear arms and trigger in-kind responses from the US and China. It seems that Chairman Kim is aware of this predicament based on comments he was purported to have made to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a diplomatic visit in April 2018.

  The United States’ Offer

  The historic diplomatic approach of China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and the United States has been to surround the DPRK with troops in an effort to hedge them in. The new approach must be to inundate the DPRK with opportunities for economic growth to the point that continued possession of nuclear weapons is no longer an attractive option. These efforts could involve not only the Six Party nations but others throughout Asia and the wider region as well.

  Basic elements of the American offer must include:

  • North Korea to become a signatory to a denuclearization agreement that includes any necessary outside assistance with the process.

  • An Armistice between North and South Korea to formally end the Korean War.

  • Guarantees from the United States that they will not attack or invade North Korea after denuclearization along with tangible promises to assist with economic development.

  The time to reach an agreement is now. A suitable offer from the US should have the intended effect of causing the North Koreans to feel that an agreement will help maximize their potential as a nation in a way that the possession of nuclear weapons never can.

  Follow Up From The International Community

  Although the process so far has been due largely to the commendable collaboration of Chairman Kim, President Trump and President Moon, the long term integration of North Korea after years of hermit-like isolation will require the full efforts of the international community. This will include not only practical advice from relevant nations but also participation from all over the region to show North Korea that they have a role to play should they choose to follow the path of peace.

  Leaders with experience in transforming a state from a decrepit, communist style system to an economically stable power can explain to Chairman Kim how the process will work and give invaluable counsel that will inform efforts in North Korea. There is no one better suited for this role than Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who has taken Russia from the chaos of the 1990’s to its current position today.

  The DPRK will also need assistance with learning to conduct diplomacy both regionally and internationally with players that previously were hostile to North Korea. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be one such figure who has extensive experience working in a nation that has prospered beyond expectations and successfully cultivated relationships both internationally and with its neighbors. Lastly, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzō Abe could provide valuable insight into the ways in which his country has become an international player despite the lack of either overwhelming military clout or nuclear weapons.

  States from all over Asia and the South Pacific should be prepared to make North Korea feel welcomed and supported on the world stage in the aftermath of an agreement to denuclearize. The ideal approach to dealing with the DPRK is to treat them as one individual would another – with encouragement for the strides they are taking to secure a bright future. Emphasize the positive in contrast to the negative of a past that will now be left behind.

  Conclusion: Strike While The Iron Is Hot

  Within the period of just a few years, North Korea has gone from being a nation whose moves others watched with trepidation to a party that other countries would be ready to greet with open arms and a handshake. The astounding success of the peace process has already shocked observers from all over the world. The rapport between Trump and Kim has truly caused North Korea prove pundits and experts of every color wrong. There has never been a better moment to make such a significant change.

  It is time for North Korea to shed the past and move into a new era. Kim Jong Un is young and has an unprecedented opportunity to bring his country, his people and his family into a golden age and secure a legacy built on accomplishments that outshine all of his predecessors. With empathy that allows all parties to understand each other’s perspectives, a generous and fair offer from the United States at the negotiation table and proper assistance from the international community this vision for North Korea does not need to remain a conceptual dream.

  

• Army Signs $174 Million Deal For Smart Artillery Shells

  Alliant Techsystems Operations LLC., known as ATK, was awarded a $174 million contract to turn existing artillery shells into smart weapons.

  A statement from the US Department of Defense (DoD) indicates the contract will be fulfilled at ATK’s manufacturing facilities in Plymouth, Minnesota, with an estimated completion date of November 2022.

  

  The M1156 Precision Guidance Kit (PGK), formerly XM1156, is a US Army-designed precision guidance system that turns conventional unguided M549A1 155 mm artillery shells into precision-guided munition.

  

  The PGK guidance kit screws onto the back of a 155 mm artillery shell, can be fired from M109A6 Paladin and M777A2 Howitzer artillery systems. Miniature aerodynamic fins allow the GPS to steer the shell to within 160 feet of the target, compared to a conventional unguided shell that has a circular error probability of 876 feet. A protective function in the PGK will decide if it will strike the target five seconds after launch, if the shell thinks its circular error probability is wider than 490 feet, it will not explode on impact.

  

  The PGK turns the Army’s current stockpile of conventional 155 mm artillery shells into precision projectiles while simultaneously decreasing the potential for collateral damage to friendly troops and non-combatants on the modern battlefield.

  

  In June 2015, the PGK passed acceptance testing and was approved for low-rate production. The test showed 41 out of 42 PGK shells fired from an M109A6 Paladin performed reliably, a 97% success rate.

  By mid-2016, 4,779 PGK guidance kits had been produced under low-rate production, with full-rate production expected to commence this year.

  With the Army’s acquisition of this technology, the smart shells will be proven, cost-effective, and a low-risk solution in America’s future conflicts.

  

• Pepe Escobar: Putin Rattles Sabre As Nuclear Pact Collapses

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  Russian President warns West that deploying missile launchers in Europe could ignite ‘tit for tat’ response…

  

  President Putin’s state of the nation address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow this week was an extraordinary affair. While heavily focused on domestic social and economic development, Putin noted, predictably, the US decision to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and clearly outlined the red lines in regard to possible consequences of the move.

  It would be naïve to believe that there would not be a serious counterpunch to the possibility of the US deploying launchers “suitable for using Tomahawk missiles” in Poland and Romania, only a 12-minute flight away from Russian territory.

  Putin cut to the chase:

  “This is a very serious threat to us. In this case, we will be forced – I want to emphasize this – forced to take tit-for-tat steps.”

  Later that night, many hours after his address, Putin detailed what was construed in the US, once again, as a threat.

  “Is there some hard ideological confrontation now similar to what was [going on] during the Cold War? There is none. We surely have mutual complaints, conflicting approaches to some issues, but that is no reason to escalate things to a stand-off on the level of the Caribbean crisis of the early 1960s”.

  This was a direct reference to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when President Kennedy confronted USSR’s Nikita Khrushchev over missiles deployed off the US mainland.

  The Russian Defense Ministry, meanwhile, has discreetly assured that conference calls with the Pentagon are proceeding as scheduled, every week, and that this bilateral dialogue is “working”.

  In parallel, tests of state-of-the-art Russian weaponry such as the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile and the hypersonic Khinzal also proceed, alongside mass production of the hypersonic Avangard. The first regiment of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces will get the Avangard before the end of this year.

  And then there’s the Tsircon, a hypersonic missile capable of reaching US command centers in a mere five minutes – leaving the whole range of NATO military assets exposed.

  What Putin meant in his address about Russia targeting “centers for decision-making” was fundamentally related to NATO, not the American mainland.

  And once again, it’s crucial to underline that none of these disturbing developments mean that Russia would engage in a pre-emptive strike against the deployment of US missiles in Eastern Europe. Putin was adamant that there’s no need for it. Moreover, Russian nuclear doctrine forbids any sort of pre-emptive strikes, not to mention a nuclear first strike.

  House of the Rising (Nuclear) Sun

  To allow this new paradigm to sink in, I went on a long walk across Zamoskvorechye – “behind the Moskva river” – stopping on the way back in front of the Biblioteka Lenina to pay my respects to the Grandmaster Dostoevsky. And then it hit me; this was entirely connected to what had happened the day before.

  The day before Putin’s state of the union address I went to visit Alexander Dugin at his office in the deliciously Soviet, art nouveau building of the former Central Post Office. Dugin, a political analyst and strategist with a refined philosophical mind, is vilified in Washington as Putin’s ideologue. He has also been targeted by US sanctions.

  I was greeted in the lobby by his multi-talented daughter Daria – active in everything from philosophy and music to geopolitics. Dugin was being interviewed by RAI correspondent Sergio Paini. After the wrap-up, the three of us immediately engaged in a discussion on populism, Salvini, the Italian politician, and the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests in France), in Italian. (Dugin is fluent in many languages).

  Then we picked up on what we had left behind, when I was in Moscow last December and talked extensively with Daria. Dugin was in Shanghai teaching an international relations course at Fudan University (see here and here), and gave lectures at Tsinghua and Peking University. He returned quite impressed by Chinese academia’s interest in populism, plus German philosopher Martin Heidegger and the Gilets Jaunes, as well as the evolving paths of Russia and China’s strategic partnership.

  Eurasia debate

  So inevitably we delved into Eurasianism – and strategies towards Eurasian integration. Dugin sees China applying a sort of remixed Spykman outlook to the “Road” component of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is maritime, along the rimland. He privileges the “Belt” component, which is overland, with one of the main corridors going through Russia via the upgraded Trans-Siberian railway. I tend to view it as a mix of Halford Mackinder, the famed English academic, and the influential American political scientist Nicholas Spykman; China advancing on the West, simultaneously in the heartland and the rimland.

  Dugin’s office has the atmosphere of a revolving think tank. I was trying to inform him on how Brazil – under the ‘leadership’ of Steve Bannon, who walks and talks like he runs the Bolsonaro presidential clan – has been dragged to the frontline in the US in contrast to the Eurasian integration chessboard. Suddenly, none other than Alastair Crooke drops in. Serendipity or synchronicity? 

  Alastair, with his consummate diplomatic flair, is, of course, one of the world’s foremost experts in the Middle East and Europe – and much else. He’s in Moscow as a guest for one of the Valdai Club’s famed discussions, on the Middle East, along with key figures from Syria and Iran.

  Soon the three of us are engaged in an absorbing conversation on the soul of Islam, the purity of Sufism, the Muslim Brotherhood (those fabled friends of the Clinton machine), what President Erdogan and the Qataris are really up to, and the sterility – intellectual and spiritual – of the Wahhabi House of Saud and the Emirates.

  We tend to agree that discussions like this, going on in Moscow – and in Tehran, Istanbul, Shanghai – would greatly profit from the presence of a progressive Steve Bannon, capable of organizing and promoting a running, non-ideological debate on multipolarity.

  A day before Putin’s stark reminder against any slip towards nuclear Armageddon, we were also discussing the post-INF world, but with emphasis on post-Mackinder (and post-Brzezinski) Eurasian integration. And that includes Russian and Chinese intellectual elites acutely aware that they can’t afford to be isolated by American hyperpower.

  I walked Alastair to his hotel, past a gloriously illuminated Bolshoi. I kept going, and as Lubyanka disappeared from view, a sidewalk busker was playing ‘House of the Rising Sun’, the Animals version. In Russian.

  Hopefully, it will not feature a rising nuclear sun.

  

• Albert Edwards: "I Was Quite Shocked By My Last Visit To San Francisco"

  When it comes to foreigners visiting the US, while the general reaction is overall favorable, it appears that one city tends to draw a reaction of sheer shock if not disgust: San Francisco.

  Recall two weeks ago, when discussing his latest “luxury ski trip”, the UK’s Bill Blain said that he hopes his American hosts will forgive him for raising this, “but the squalor we saw in The City was frightful. San Francisco has always been one of favourite US cities, but the degree of homelessness, mental illness and drug abuse we saw on this trip was truly shocking. Walking round SF on a Sunday Morning and we saw sights we couldn’t believe. This must be one of the richest cities in the world – home to 4 of the 10 richest people on the planet according to Wiki. I asked friends about it, and they shrugged it off.. “The City has always attracted the homeless because of the mild weather,”.. “It’s a drug thing”.. “its too difficult”… “you get used to it..” Well, I didn’t.”

  

  Now, it is the turn of another prominent financial strategist to lament the increasingly sordid reality of everyday life in the liberal capital of the West.

  In his latest note to client, “Stoned on free money”, SocGen’s Albert Edwards picks up where Blain left off, and writes the he too “was really quite shocked by my visit last year to San Francisco by the sheer quantities of men (yes it is virtually 100% men) who were clearly off their heads on drugs (and drink) and putting both themselves and other road users at risk.” Edwards continues his lurid recollection of his trip to this liberal utopia overrun by homeless people and junkies:

  I have been a regular visitor to San Francisco for 30 years and maybe it is because I only visit once every couple of years that I notice the change.

  Most surprising was the pungent smell of cannabis skunk that pervaded the streets almost everywhere – something that isn’t the case in somewhere like Amsterdam where legal consumption of marijuana is mainly confined to designated cafes. But the smell doesn’t seem to bother everyone. In a startling admission, the UK’s most senior police officer and head of London’s Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, admitted she could not smell the pungent aroma of skunk – link. Like San Francisco, the area of London I live in, Bethnal Green, also has a heavy smell of skunk as drugs are sold and consumed openly on the streets, despite residents’ best efforts to shame the authorities into action.

  Having bashed San Francisco and its generous drug culture, Edwards then turns to a totally different topic: surging pedestrian fatalities and the “epidemic” of marijuana use that is allegedly behind them: “I was shocked to see the latest data showing US pedestrian fatalities have soared some 25% since 2012! Very few stats surprise me, but this is one of them (see chart below, H/T to Nick Glydon at Redburn)…

  

  “But why has this happened?” Edwards ponders, and then provides the following answer:

  The annual Spotlight on Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities, explores potential reasons for the surge in fatalities, considering factors including the dramatic growth in smartphone use and state legalization of recreational marijuana. The report notes, ““The seven states (Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington) and DC that legalized recreational use of marijuana between since 2012 reported a collective 16.4% yoy rise in pedestrian fatalities, whereas all other states reported a collective 5.8% yoy decrease in pedestrian fatalities.”” It appears the US is gripped by an epidemic of stoned pedestrians stepping into traffic. The same might be said for investors befuddled by QE, for the risk is they are about to step off the sidewalk in front of a rapidly deteriorating economic cycle.

  The surprised Edwards then goes on to add that he also found the report “quite shocking” most especially “because of the very clear evidence that the surge in fatalities is primarily due to the legalisation of marijuana in some states.”

  Because most pedestrian fatalities occur in urban areas, the study also examined changes in the number of pedestrian fatalities for the 10 most populous U.S. cities. In the largest city, New York, deaths were unchanged yoy. But in the US’s second biggest city, Los Angeles, deaths rose 50%, while they fell 10% in the third largest city, Chicago. There is a clear causal relationship between surging fatalities of pedestrians and legalising marijuana.

  Of course, there is a word for the pedestrians’ state of mind (right before they are mowed down by an income vehicle): comfortably numb. And we were hardly surprised to learn that the skeptical SocGen strategist is hardly a fan of “altered” mind states. As he admits “as a former part-time magistrate and member of a mental health appeals panel (for compulsory detained patients), I have strong views on the legalisation of drugs – but those views are not for these pages. Clients though will know I will opine on most topics in face-to-face meetings. I do though find this article an interesting contribution from the perspective of a former UK undercover drugs cop, who became disillusioned with the ‘war on drugs.“

  So what is the common theme behind Edwards’ highlighting of exploding drug use in San Francisco and high pedestrians getting killed in increasing numbers?  According to the SocGen strategist, the point is that “investors, like marijuana users, are high once again on the promise of renewed monetary injections. But with their senses now numb to the reality around them, investors could miss the fact that the economic cycle is deteriorating sufficiently rapidly that it is about to crush their equity portfolios.”

  Edwards then concludes by pointing out the current “goldilocks” state of the economy where on one hand the Fed recently capitulated on its tightening bias, while at the same time the US economy appears to be slowing – with inflation once again rolling over – but not slowing enough to prompt fears of an imminent recession. Or maybe not: remember that as we noted a few weeks ago, “the last three recessions all took place with 3 months of the first rate cut after a hiking cycle.” The SocGen strategist echoes this observation and adds that “the end of the Fed tightening cycle is more often than not, a prelude to recession.”

  Meanwhile, always one to highlight the risks of a growing economic slowdown, Edwards is hardly on the “no recession in 2019” bandwagon, noting that “where investors could easily be caught out is in dismissing recent weak US economic data as due to one-off factors such as the very cold weather or the government shutdown.” To substantiate his point that a recession may be inevitable, he adds that “what seems to better predict recessions is when the separate Household Survey measure of employment begins to stall. In contrast to the strong 304,000 rise in the Establishment Survey of payroll employment, the Household Survey showed both a weak employment in January and an uptick in the unemployment rate. It is this latter event in particular, that traditionally precedes recessions (see chart below).”

  

  Edwards also is quick to note that it is not payrolls that are part of the official US Leading Indicator, but Initial Unemployment
  Claims:

  “these too have been creeping up in recent weeks and are a clear recession warning. Dismissing these trends as due to the US government shutdown reminds me of the one-off factors that were supposed to account for the slowdown in the German economic data over the autumn, only for the economy to subsequently splutter to a total halt in Q4. The excellent David Rosenberg of Gluskin Sheff notes that in addition to rising initial unemployment claims, December’s shocking 1.2% mom decline in retail sales is another recessionary straw in the wind (see chart below).

  

  David believes that weak retail sales are not an aberration as they tie in with the recent drop in retail hours worked from the employment report. He calculates that large declines in retail sales of this magnitude are associated with recessions 80% of the time.

  Tying it all together – San Francisco hobos, stoned people getting peeled off the sidewalks, and the US economy – Albert has some advice for his readers: “Free money may have numbed our senses, but at this very late stage of the economic cycle, think very hard before stepping off the sidewalk.”

  He may be right eventually, but for now the market is once again happy to reward “traders” such as the one pictured below.

  

  

• Trump Delays March 1 China Tariff Deadline

  After a long week of optimistic, market-pumping trade-deal headlines, updates over the weekend didn’t offer any of the specifics that analysts are so desperate to hear (so long as they affirm the narrative that talks are going – as President Trump put it – “very, very well”). To wit, little detail has been provided regarding last week’s big “breakthrough” (Beijing ceding to US demands to “stabilize” the yuan), and it’s still unclear how such an arrangement would be enforced.

  And the information that has dribbled out – including a report about a growing rift between Trump and Trade Czar Robert Lighthizer – suggests that maybe the market’s euphoric reaction to Trump’s not-at-all-consistent performance on Friday was somewhat premature.

  However, before the market even had a chance to reassess the implications of Friday’s exasperating public spat between Trump and Lighthizer with this newfound context, Trump announced Sunday night (just 20 minutes before futures opened) that he would be delaying the March 1 tariff deadline following “substantial progress” in the weekend talks, and would plan a summit with president Xi at Mar-a-Lago to conclude an agreement – news that should help pump the S&P 500 back over 2,800 as algos first buy the rumor, and then – just to be safe- buy the news too.

  I am pleased to report that the U.S. has made substantial progress in our trade talks with China on important structural issues including intellectual property protection, technology transfer, agriculture, services, currency, and many other issues. As a result of these very……

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2019

  ….productive talks, I will be delaying the U.S. increase in tariffs now scheduled for March 1. Assuming both sides make additional progress, we will be planning a Summit for President Xi and myself, at Mar-a-Lago, to conclude an agreement. A very good weekend for U.S. & China!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2019

  While the market rejoiced at the delay, one twitter wit offered this troubling analogy:

  Timing by Trump delaying tariffs 15 minutes before futures open reminds me of all the times good news was pushed out on Sundays during 2008 crisis —

  — north hero fx (@northherofx) February 24, 2019

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

  While many were initially puzzled by the brief argument over relying on MoUs in the negotiations (it was later revealed by WSJ that Trump was simply parroting an argument by Fox News host Lou Dobbs that an MoU “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”), Bloomberg published an anonymously sourced report on Sunday revealing that the rift between Trump and Lighthizer has been growing for some time.

  

  And that Lighthizer’s display of impertinence on Friday might have been the last straw for Trump.

  President Donald Trump and his top trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, have grown increasingly frustrated with each other as a China trade deal stays elusive with a key deadline less than a week away, said people inside and close to the administration.

  After Friday’s exchange, said two people familiar with the events, the president complained that Lighthizer had embarrassed him by publicly correcting him in front of the Chinese delegation and the press. The president also expressed frustration that Lighthizer hadn’t yet stitched up a deal that Trump views as increasingly important.

  Talks between Lighthizer and other senior U.S. officials and Xi’s special envoy, Liu He, continued on Saturday and were due to resume on Sunday. In a post on Twitter, the president said Sunday that the weekend talks have been “very productive.”

  Friday’s public disagreement wasn’t the first indication that Trump and Lighthizer might not be on the same page. Earlier this month, reports surfaced suggesting that Lighthizer – who had insisted that the March 1 tariff deadline was a “hard deadline” – had opposed extending the trade deadline (though that’s out the window now).

  Very productive talks yesterday with China on Trade. Will continue today! I will be leaving for Hanoi, Vietnam, early tomorrow for a Summit with Kim Jong Un of North Korea, where we both expect a continuation of the progress made at first Summit in Singapore. Denuclearization?

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2019

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

  The reason Lighthizer and other China hawks in the administration are putting so much pressure on Trump to stick to his guns when it comes to structural reforms and IP theft is that they’re afraid he might squander the leverage he has built up with his tariffs, which have had an asymmetric impact on China’s economy.

  The way they see it, Trump has China on the ropes. Now is not the time to start pulling punches. But they fear that Trump’s fear of upsetting the market would be massive tactical mistake in the long term.

  Other China hawks in the administration and in Congress, however, have been more open about their frustration.

  They worry that, having built up considerable leverage through his tariffs, Trump has become too focused on cutting a deal to calm financial markets, and that any agreement may fail to address core issues such as intellectual property theft. The concern is that a deal could end up seeing only a short-term increase in Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural and energy products.

  “No matter how many tons of soybeans they buy if China gets to keep cheating & stealing trade secrets it won’t be a good deal for America, our workers or our national security,” Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted on Friday after Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said China offered to buy 10 million tons of soybeans as talks continued.

  Citing an anonymous source with close ties to the administration, BBG revealed some new details about the genesis of the conflict between Trump and Lighthizer that are extremely germane to what’s happening today. During the days after Trump’s landmark meeting with President Xi in Buenos Aires – where the two leaders first agreed on the trade truce – Trump tasked Lighthizer with managing the talks. At first, Lighthizer rejected the assignment, telling the president he didn’t think the Chinese were ready.

  Trump promptly ignored Lighthizer’s objections, and insisted that a deal had to be made. 

  On the flight back from the leaders’ Dec. 1 dinner in Argentina, at which a 90-day truce was agreed, the president tasked Lighthizer with getting a China deal. When Lighthizer told him that he believed Beijing wasn’t ready to make meaningful concessions, Trump insisted a resolution had to be found, according to one person briefed on the exchange.

  Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow have been making the case to the president that investors expect a deal, and not getting one would cause U.S. stock markets, which have started the year strongly on trade optimism, to stumble again, according to people familiar with internal deliberations.

  They’ve also advised Trump to hold off on issuing an executive order that would ban Huawei Technologies Co. and other Chinese telecoms equipment from U.S. networks for fear taking action against Chinese companies would undermine the trade negotiations.

  Assuming the report is accurate and that conversation really did happen, it’s unlikely that Trump has changed his mind over the past two months. Because that conversation took place before the explosion of cross-asset volatility that made 2018 the worst year for financial markets since the crisis. And during the weeks that have followed, Mnuchin and Kudlow have had plenty of time to scare Trump into hardening his position, by warning that failure to secure a deal would be disastrous for the stock market, which Trump sees as a gauge of his performance.

  In summary, as the divide between Lighthizer (who wants the best deal or no deal) and Trump (who would be willing to accept any deal that would allow him to save face) widens, and Trump grows increasingly frustrated with his trade rep’s perceived overzealousness, a serious conflict is inevitable.

  But regardless of what comes next, it’s still worth considering:  How would markets react if Trump relegates Lighthizer to a secondary role in managing the talks, and elevates Mnuchin or Kudlow in his stead? Or better yet, if Trump fires Lighthizer in a fit of pique? While an initial bout of panic would be understandable given the market’s sensitivity to anything that seriously challenges its preferred narrative of optimism, would traders quickly come around to the notion that, by removing Lighthizer, Trump has removed the biggest obstacle to deal?

  

• 5 Ways To Make Money With Your Body (Legally)

  Authored by Nilus Mattive via The Daily Reckoning,

  Could you use some extra cash? Donating body materials can be akin to a part-time job. And the pay is often better than driving for a ride-sharing company or working as a retail clerk. 

  

  We’ll start with the easiest way to earn money with your body and work our way to the more complex.

  1. Hair – up to $1,500… or more!

  Buyers want healthy, attractive hair for wigs, extensions, and art projects. Hair that has never been dyed is the most popular. The longer the better — at least 15-35 inches. 
  Color is also important. Redheads fetch the biggest bucks followed by natural blondes and brunettes. Not much demand for gray.

  You can get an idea on how much your hair is worth here. Once you have that, there are online markets such as HAIRSELLON.com and BuyAndSellHair.com where you can post your locks for sale. 

  2. Blood plasma – up to $400 per month

  Plasma is the light-yellow liquid portion of blood that remains after it is separated by a machine. 

  Donating is like giving blood, and you can do it up to two times a week. 

  Plasma therapies help people with genetic, chronic conditions such as hemophilia and Kawasaki disease lead healthier and more productive lives.

  And patients need a lot of it … 

  For instance, it takes more than 1,200 plasma donations to treat one hemophilia patient.  

  Red Cross and similar organizations won’t pay for your plasma. But pharmaceutical companies will. 

  There are licensed and International Quality Plasma Program (IQPP) certified plasma collection centers throughout the U.S. You can search for one in your area by clicking here. 

  3. Sperm – $500 to $2,000 per month 

  Guys, this isn’t as simple as going to a clinic and handing over a mason jar containing your sperm. 

  The qualifications are tough because sperm seekers are paying big bucks. And they want the perfect specimen …

  They’re looking for men who are healthy, well-educated, and maybe even a minimum height. 

  Once you pass the initial screening, you’ll have to provide your family’s medical history, undergo STD testing, submit a sample to measure the quality, and undergo genetic testing.

  A longer-term consideration is that with the rise of more DNA testing services, the offspring you helped create could one day look you up.

  Click here to find a sperm bank directory in your area. And if you’re married, I suggest you check with your wife first. 

  4. Eggs – $6,000 to $8,000 or more

  Egg donation is a complex process in which an egg is surgically removed from a fertile woman and donated to another woman in order to help her conceive.

  A series of screenings, tests for diseases, counseling, and genetic tests are required and take about two months.

  This isn’t for everyone … generally fertility centers are looking for healthy donors age 21 to 35. Potential participants who smoke, use drugs, have a high body mass index, or have mental health issues aren’t eligible.  

  Another thought to keep in mind …

  While some donors might get satisfaction knowing they’ve created a new life, others may find that giving up a child is psychologically troubling. And like sperm donors, there’s the possibility that the children you helped create may someday try to contact you.

  If this is of interest, fertility centers are in almost every community. You could also check with your gynecologist. 

  5. Surrogate – $35,000 to $53,000 or more 

  Carrying a couple’s sperm and egg until a child is born is a long-term commitment … 15 to 18 months.

  Also, the screening process is much more intense. It can include medical and psychological evaluations, criminal background check, home visits, and even financial status. 

  You may also be required to follow a certain diet and lifestyle. 

  For instance, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, paid a surrogate $45,000 to carry their third child. 

  They stipulated that their surrogate could not smoke, drink, or do drugs during the pregnancy and had to refrain from going in hot tubs, handling cat litter, and applying hair dye. Nor could she eat raw fish or drink more than one caffeinated beverage a day. 

  The legality can be an issue since some states ban surrogacy contracts. So you might want to obtain legal representation beforehand. 

  Bottom Line

  A final point when making the decision to sell your body’s materials…

  It’s not only about the extra cash you’ll receive, there’s the altruistic point…

  You might make a chemo patient feel better about herself, create a life when helping a childless-couple become parents, or save a life when your donation is for the research needed to treat a rare disease.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• America: "Indispensable Nation" No More?

  Authored by Andrew Bacevich via The American Conservative,

  Rather than seeing ‘far into the future,’ American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week…

  

  “Only those of us who were born under Queen Victoria,” wrote Ronald Knox, “know what it feels like to assume, without questioning, that England is permanently top nation, that foreigners do not matter, and that if worst comes to the worst, Lord Salisbury will send a gunboat.”

  Knox offered this trenchant observation, redolent with irony and perhaps tinged with regret, not as a policymaker or strategic thinker, but from the vantage point of a clergyman. From the 1920s through the 1950s, Monsignor Knox was the most famous and influential Catholic priest in all of Great Britain. As such, he entertained a distinct perspective on what actually qualifies as permanent and what merely offers the appearance.

  While perhaps using different terms—our preference is for dispatching nuclear aircraft carriers rather than gunboats—Americans born after World War II came into adulthood imbued with precisely the same sentiment about their own country. From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we—not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians—were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history’s verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C.

  If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.

  Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright’s justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). 

  “If we have to use force,” Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, “it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.”

  Back then, it was Albright’s claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright’s insistence that “we see further into the future.” 

  

  In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright’s “we” napping. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington’s belated and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that wrong.

  Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment’s formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing.

  Yet in 2016, Trump’s critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump’s half-baked formula for Making America Great Again—building “the wall,” provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat—is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don’t help.

  So the nation today finds itself in an interesting predicament. The media elites that drive the national conversation have reached the conclusion that nothing surpasses in importance Trump’s removal from office. The midterm elections that returned the Democrats to power in the House have heightened expectations of the Trump era coming to an end. This has injected into the early maneuvering for the 2020 presidential election a palpable sense of urgency. Sensing opportunity, candidates rush to join the competition. The field promises to be a crowded one.

  Among progressives, the presence of women, people of color, and at least one gay person in the race suggests that something of epic importance is about to unfold. Maybe so. But here’s one thing that’s likely to be missing: any serious assessment of the costs and consequences of recent policies formulated pursuant to the insistence that the United States is, as Monsignor Knox put it, “permanently top nation.” 

  The gatekeepers of the orthodoxy, united in denouncing Trump, will not permit any such assessment. So the coming campaign will no doubt be entertaining. In some respects, it may also be enlightening. But in all likelihood, it will leave untouched the basic premises of U.S. policy—the bloated military budget, the vast empire of bases, the penchant for interventionism, all backed by the absurd claims of American exceptionalism voiced by the likes of Madeleine Albright and her kindred spirits.

  When Ronald Knox was born, Queen Victoria presided over an empire on which the sun never set. By the time he died during the reign of Victoria’s great-great-granddaughter, that empire had vanished. Funny how quickly these things can happen.

  

• Navy's New "Robot Wolfpack" Of Orca Submarines Will Be Ready For War

  In a modernization effort, the US Navy is adding a fleet of autonomous submarines with the purchase of four of Boeing’s Orca Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (XLUUVs) that will become multi-mission for the service, according to the US Naval Institute.

  

  Last Wednesday, the Navy awarded Boeing a $43 million deal to manufacture four of the 51-foot Orca XLUUVs capable of traveling 6,500 nautical miles unaided.

  

  The service is eyeing the submarine for “robot wolfpacks” of remotely-operated vessels to conduct anti-submarine warfare, electronic warfare, mine countermeasures, and strike missions.

  “We are pleased with the Navy’s decision to award Boeing a contract to build and deliver four Orca Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicles, and are committed to providing this important autonomous undersea capability to meet the Navy’s unique mission needs,” the company said in a Thursday statement to USNI News.

  The Orca is a fully autonomous diesel-electric submarine launched and recovered from a naval port. With a range of 6,500 nautical miles, the vessel can run for weeks at a time. The sub is enormous, in terms of a robot submarine, measures 51 by 8.5 by 8.5 feet and weighs 50 tons.

  The sub features a high-tech inertial navigation system, depth sensors, and can surface to transmit data back to base. The vessel can dive to a maximum depth of 11,000 feet and has a top speed of eight knots.

  

  One crucial piece of the sub is the payload system that allows it to haul up to eight tons in an internal cargo bay that measures 34 feet.

  Popular Mechanics points out, the sub’s modular design and cheap price tag make the vessel a potential game-changer for the Navy.

  Orca could even pack a  Mk. 46 lightweight torpedo to take a shot at an enemy sub itself. It could also carry heavier  Mk. 48 heavyweight torpedoes  to attack surface ships, or even conceivably anti-ship missiles. Orca could drop off cargos on the seabed, detect, or even lay mines. The modular hardware payload system and open architecture software ensures Orca could be rapidly configured based on need.

  This sort of versatility in a single, low-cost package is fairly unheard of in military spending. The nearest rough equivalent is the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, which  costs $584 million each  and has a crew of 40. While LCS is faster, has the benefit of an onboard crew, and carries a larger payload, Orca is autonomous—and cheaper by orders of magnitude.

  The purchase of these robot subs comes amid a push into autonomous vessels for the service. Last month, the Navy’s autonomous Sea Hunter ship, conducted its first surveillance mission from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and back without a crew onboard.

  

• Homeless Encampments And Luxury Apartments: Our Long Strange Boom

  Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

  The cold truth is homelessness and soaring rents are the only possible outputs of central bank policies that inflate asset bubbles.

  

  It’s been a long, strange economic boom since the nadir of the Global Financial Meltdown in 2009. A 10-year long boom that saw the S&P 500 rise from 666 in early 2009 to 2,780 and GDP rise by 43% has been slightly more uneven for most participants.

  First and most importantly, household income hasn’t risen by the same percentages as assets, GDP or costs of big-ticket expenses such as rent, healthcare and college tuition. The broadest measure of income, median household income, has registered a 23% increase in the past decade, roughly half of GDP gains and a mere fraction of stock market and housing gains.

  It’s well known income gains have skewed to the top, as revealed by Census Bureau data: Historical Income Tables: Household (US Census Bureau).

  The bottom quintile (20%) registered income gains of 20% from 2009 to 2017, while the middle quintile (roughly speaking, the middle class) gained 25.5% and the top 5% enjoyed a 31.6% gain.

  The raw numbers tell the story in a slightly more visceral fashion:

  Upper limit of bottom quintile: $24,638 up 20% since 2009

  Upper limit of middle quintile: $77,552 up 25.5% since 2009

  Lower limit of top 5%: $237,034 up 31.6% since 2009
  (the median household income is much higher–around $350,000 according to Household Income Quintiles the Tax Policy Center.)

  So the top 5% earn at a minimum 10 times the lowest quintile income and around 4 or 5 times the middle quintile income.

  Here in Northern California, this has manifested in rapidly expanding homeless encampments a stone’s throw away from new luxury rental apartments charging $3,000 and up for one-bedroom flats and $4,000 and up for two-bedroom flats.

  Meanwhile, the streets are filled with potholes and cracks. Maintaining streets–presumably one of the core missions of local government–is simply not being done in a timely manner. Major streets are in such disrepair that local businesses have taken to raising banners demanding “pave our street now.”

  Let’s look at three charts of the long, strange boom from 2009: median household income (up 23%), national rents (up 31%) and rent in the San Francisco Bay Area (up 52.4%). Rents are double the gains in median household income in many cities.

  

  

  

  The tens of thousands of pricey rentals being built in the region assume an endless expansion of well-paid techie jobs filled by young techies who are happy to sacrifice all hope of ever owning a home in the region ($900,000 for a 100-year old bungalow on a 5,000 square foot lot) or having a family unless they cash in on an IPO or marry a techie who already cashed in.

  Sadly, the affordable housing fees collected by cities (up to $10 million per project) are not enough to address the unprecedented need for affordable housing and low-cost housing solutions for the homeless and near-homeless.

  What’s behind the soaring cost of housing? It’s really pretty simple: the extended near-zero interest rates and unlimited liquidity pushed by the Federal Reserve as the “solution” for recession have impoverished the bottom 80% and put ownership of capital out of reach for all but the top 5%.

  Though the mainstream media punditry and the political class will deny this, the cold truth is homelessness and soaring rents are the only possible outputs of central bank policies that inflate asset bubbles that inevitably outpace the wages needed to pay the soaring cost of rent and housing.

  *  *  *

  Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

  

• Video: Iran Hacks Into CENTCOM, Crashes MQ-9 Reaper Drone 

  Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh revealed on Thursday that several American unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) flying above Syria and Iraq were remotely commandeered by the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

  “Seven to eight drones that had constant flights over Syria and Iraq were brought under our control and their intel was monitored by us and we could gain their first-hand intel,” General Hajizadeh said in the Western Iranian city of Hamedan on Thursday.

  Fars News Agency published a three-minute video taken on several different occasions by UAVs. Half of the content shows a General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper hacked by IRGC electronic warfare forces, then flown into the ground. The last segment of the video shows an American air strike targeting the crashed UAV.

  The footage below shows IRGC’s penetration into United States Central Command, could be seen as evidence that supports General Hajizadeh’s claims.

  Iran has a long history of pioneering UAV technology. The country has manufactured UAVs since the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s.

  Fars News Agency explains that drone technology in the country soared when it downed a US army RQ-170 Sentinel in Eastern Iran in 2011. One quarter later, Iran started production of its RQ-170 stealth aircraft after it reverse engineered the downed UAV. The Iranian RQ-170 conducted its official flight in late 2014.

  The original RQ-170 was a stealth UAV manufactured for surveillance operations, while the Iranian version of the RQ-170 is armed with missiles.

  In 2013, General Hajizadeh said Iran jumped three decades ahead in UAV technology after it reverse engineered American UAVs.

  Fars News Agency said Iran has acquired a vast collection of downed American UAVs, including Scan Eagle, Raptor, M-Q9 surveillance. All drones have since been reverse engineered into new advance drones that are currently being deployed in Iran and in Syria.

  The statement from General Hajizadeh and the video published by Fars News Agency came amid reports that the US had accelerated a top-secret program to destroy Iran’s missile program.

  

• Mapping the American War On Terror

  Authored by Stephanie Savell via TomDispatch.com,

  In September 2001, the Bush administration launched the “Global War on Terror.” Though “global” has long since been dropped from the name, as it turns out, they weren’t kidding…

  

  When I first set out to map all the places in the world where the United States is still fighting terrorism so many years later, I didn’t think it would be that hard to do. This was before the 2017 incident in Niger in which four American soldiers were killed on a counterterror mission and Americans were given an inkling of how far-reaching the war on terrorism might really be. I imagined a map that would highlight Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria – the places many Americans automatically think of in association with the war on terror – as well as perhaps a dozen less-noticed countries like the Philippines and Somalia. I had no idea that I was embarking on a research odyssey that would, in its second annual update, map U.S. counterterror missions in 80 countries in 2017 and 2018, or 40% of the nations on this planet (a map first featured in Smithsonian magazine).

  As co-director of the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, I’m all too aware of the costs that accompany such a sprawling overseas presence. Our project’s research shows that, since 2001, the U.S. war on terror has resulted in the loss — conservatively estimated — of almost half a million lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone. By the end of 2019, we also estimate that Washington’s global war will cost American taxpayers no less than $5.9 trillion already spent and in commitments to caring for veterans of the war throughout their lifetimes.

  In general, the American public has largely ignored these post-9/11 wars and their costs. But the vastness of Washington’s counterterror activities suggests, now more than ever, that it’s time to pay attention. Recently, the Trump administration has been talking of withdrawing from Syria and negotiating peace with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Yet, unbeknownst to many Americans, the war on terror reaches far beyond such lands and under Trump is actually ramping up in a number of places. That our counterterror missions are so extensive and their costs so staggeringly high should prompt Americans to demand answers to a few obvious and urgent questions: Is this global war truly making Americans safer? Is it reducing violence against civilians in the U.S. and other places? If, as I believe, the answer to both those questions is no, then isn’t there a more effective way to accomplish such goals?

  Combat or “Training” and “Assisting”?

  The major obstacle to creating our database, my research team would discover, was that the U.S. government is often so secretive about its war on terror. The Constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility to declare war, offering the citizens of this country, at least in theory, some means of input. And yet, in the name of operational security, the military classifies most information about its counterterror activities abroad.

  This is particularly true of missions in which there are American boots on the ground engaging in direct action against militants, a reality, my team and I found, in 14 different countries in the last two years. The list includes Afghanistan and Syria, of course, but also some lesser known and unexpected places like Libya, Tunisia, Somalia, Mali, and Kenya. Officially, many of these are labeled “train, advise, and assist” missions, in which the U.S. military ostensibly works to support local militaries fighting groups that Washington labels terrorist organizations. Unofficially, the line between “assistance” and combat turns out to be, at best, blurry.

  Some outstanding investigative journalists have documented the way this shadow war has been playing out, predominantly in Africa. In Niger in October 2017, as journalists subsequently revealed, what was officially a training mission proved to be a “kill or capture” operation directed at a suspected terrorist.

  Such missions occur regularly. In Kenya, for instance, American service members are actively hunting the militants of al-Shabaab, a US-designated terrorist group. In Tunisia, there was at least one outright battle between joint U.S.-Tunisian forces and al-Qaeda militants. Indeed, two U.S. service members were later awarded medals of valor for their actions there, a clue that led journalists to discover that there had been a battle in the first place.

  In yet other African countries, U.S. Special Operations forces have planned and controlled missions, operating in “cooperation with” — but actually in charge of — their African counterparts. In creating our database, we erred on the side of caution, only documenting combat in countries where we had at least two credible sources of proof, and checking in with experts and journalists who could provide us with additional information. In other words, American troops have undoubtedly been engaged in combat in even more places than we’ve been able to document.

  Another striking finding in our research was just how many countries there were — 65 in all — in which the U.S. “trains” and/or “assists” local security forces in counterterrorism. While the military does much of this training, the State Department is also surprisingly heavily involved, funding and training police, military, and border patrol agents in many countries. It also donates equipment, including vehicle X-ray detection machines and contraband inspection kits. In addition, it develops programs it labels “Countering Violent Extremism,” which represent a soft-power approach, focusing on public education and other tools to “counter terrorist safe havens and recruitment.”

  Such training and assistance occurs across the Middle East and Africa, as well as in some places in Asia and Latin America. American “law enforcement entities” trained security forces in Brazil to monitor terrorist threats in advance of the 2016 Summer Olympics, for example (and continued the partnership in 2017). Similarly, U.S. border patrol agents worked with their counterparts in Argentina to crack down on suspected money laundering by terrorist groups in the illicit marketplaces of the tri-border region that lies between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay.

  To many Americans, all of this may sound relatively innocuous — like little more than generous, neighborly help with policing or a sensibly self-interested fighting-them-over-there-before-they-get-here set of policies. But shouldn’t we know better after all these years of hearing such claims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where the results were anything but harmless or effective?

  Such training has often fed into, or been used for, the grimmest of purposes in the many countries involved. In Nigeria, for instance, the U.S. military continues to work closely with local security forces which have used torture and committed extrajudicial killings, as well as engaging in sexual exploitation and abuse. In the Philippines, it has conducted large-scale joint military exercises in cooperation with President Rodrigo Duterte’s military, even as the police at his command continue to inflict horrific violence on that country’s citizenry.

  The government of Djibouti, which for years has hosted the largest U.S. military base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier, also uses its anti-terrorism laws to prosecute internal dissidents. The State Department has not attempted to hide the way its own training programs have fed into a larger kind of repression in that country (and others). According to its 2017 Country Reports on Terrorism, a document that annually provides Congress with an overview of terrorism and anti-terror cooperation with the United States in a designated set of countries, in Djibouti, “the government continued to use counterterrorism legislation to suppress criticism by detaining and prosecuting opposition figures and other activists.”

  In that country and many other allied nations, Washington’s terror-training programs feed into or reinforce human-rights abuses by local forces as authoritarian governments adopt “anti-terrorism” as the latest excuse for repressive practices of all sorts.

  A Vast Military Footprint

  As we were trying to document those 65 training-and-assistance locations of the U.S. military, the State Department reports proved an important source of information, even if they were often ambiguous about what was really going on. They regularly relied on loose terms like “security forces,” while failing to directly address the role played by our military in each of those countries.

  Sometimes, as I read them and tried to figure out what was happening in distant lands, I had a nagging feeling that what the American military was doing, rather than coming into focus, was eternally receding from view. In the end, we felt certain in identifying those 14 countries in which American military personnel have seen combat in the war on terror in 2017-2018. We also found it relatively easy to document the seven countries in which, in the last two years, the U.S. has launched drone or other air strikes against what the government labels terrorist targets (but which regularly kill civilians as well): Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. These were the highest-intensity elements of that U.S. global war. However, this still represented a relatively small portion of the 80 countries we ended up including on our map.

  In part, that was because I realized that the U.S. military tends to advertise — or at least not hide — many of the military exercises it directs or takes part in abroad. After all, these are intended to display the country’s global military might, deter enemies (in this case, terrorists), and bolster alliances with strategically chosen allies. Such exercises, which we documented as being explicitly focused on counterterrorism in 26 countries, along with lands which host American bases or smaller military outposts also involved in anti-terrorist activities, provide a sense of the armed forces’ behemoth footprint in the war on terror.

  Although there are more than 800 American military bases around the world, we included in our map only those 40 countries in which such bases are directly involved in the counterterror war, including Germany and other European nations that are important staging areas for American operations in the Middle East and Africa.

  To sum up: our completed map indicates that, in 2017 and 2018, seven countries were targeted by U.S. air strikes; double that number were sites where American military personnel engaged directly in ground combat; 26 countries were locations for joint military exercises; 40 hosted bases involved in the war on terror; and in 65, local military and security forces received counterterrorism-oriented “training and assistance.”

  A Better Grand Plan

  How often in the last 17 years has Congress or the American public debated the expansion of the war on terror to such a staggering range of places? The answer is: seldom indeed.

  After so many years of silence and inactivity here at home, recent media and congressional attention to American wars in Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen represents a new trend. Members of Congress have finally begun calling for discussion of parts of the war on terror. Last Wednesday, for instance, the House of Representatives voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, and the Senate has passed legislation requiring Congress to vote on the same issue sometime in the coming months.

  On February 6th, the House Armed Services Committee finally held a hearing on the Pentagon’s “counterterrorism approach” — a subject Congress as a whole has not debated since, several days after the 9/11 attacks, it passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump have all used to wage the ongoing global war. Congress has not debated or voted on the sprawling expansion of that effort in all the years since. And judging from the befuddledreactions of several members of Congress to the deaths of those four soldiers in Niger in 2017, most of them were (and many probably still are) largely ignorant of how far the global war they’ve seldom bothered to discuss now reaches.

  With potential shifts afoot in Trump administration policy on Syria and Afghanistan, isn’t it finally time to assess in the broadest possible way the necessity and efficacy of extending the war on terror to so many different places? Research has shown that using war to address terror tactics is a fruitless approach. Quite the opposite of achieving this country’s goals, from Libya to Syria, Niger to Afghanistan, the U.S. military presence abroad has often only fueled intense resentment of America. It has helped to both spread terror movements and provide yet more recruits to extremist Islamist groups, which have multiplied substantially since 9/11.

  In the name of the war on terror in countries like Somalia, diplomatic activities, aid, and support for human rights have dwindled in favor of an ever more militarized American stance. Yet research shows that, in the long term, it is far more effective and sustainable to address the underlying grievances that fuel terrorist violence than to answer them on the battlefield.

  

  All told, it should be clear that another kind of grand plan is needed to deal with the threat of terrorism both globally and to Americans — one that relies on a far smaller U.S. military footprint and costs far less blood and treasure. It’s also high time to put this threat in context and acknowledge that other developments, like climate change, may pose a far greater danger to our country.

  

• Trump And Kim Jong Un Impersonators Arrested Ahead Of Vietnam Nuclear Summit

  Two men known for impersonating Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un were arrested by Vietnamese authorities ahead of next week’s nuclear summit between the two world leaders in the capital city of Hanoi, reports the Independent. 

  Kim lookalike Howard X claimed 15 officers had questioned him and Trump lookalike Russell White for almost three hours, warning them to drop their imitation act.

  The pair have been making public appearances in Hanoi over the past few days, talking to media and taking pictures with amused onlookers. –Independent

  

  The Hong-Kong born Australian Kim impersonator, whose real name is Lee Howard Ho Wun, explained what happened in a lengthy Facebook post, detailing their arrest shortly after shooting a segment for a local TV station. Authorities arrived at the station and detained the two men for a “mandatory” interrogation – essentially telling them to stop doing their act. 

  “We were taken to different parts of the room where we were interviewed separately and were asked to present our passports in regards to our visas, how we managed to obtain them, who we obtained them from and what our plans were for the duration of our stay. They then said that this was a very sensitive time in the city due to the Trump/Kim summit and that our impersonation was causing a “disturbance” and he suggested that we do not do the impersonation in public for the duration of our stay as these presidents have many enemies and that it was for our own safety” –Facebook

  

  The two men were driven back to their hotel and told to remain there until authorities decide what to do about them. 

  “Although I am not surprised that I got detained for doing my impersonation in Vietnam, it’s still pretty annoying. What it shows is that Vietnam has a long way to go before they will be a developed country and I wonder if they ever will under these conditions,” wrote Lee. 

  “Trump,” whose real name is Russell White, confirmed that the two had been threatened with deportation, and were told to “stop doing the impersonation or we will kick you out of the country,” according to AFP. 

  Howard X was also questioned by Singaporean immigration authorities when he and his colleague appeared in the city-state for the first Kim-Trump summit last June.

  He also showed up at the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, where he danced in front of an appalled North Korean cheer squad before security officials hauled him away. –Independent

  The real Trump and Kim will meet in Hanoi on February 27 and 28 where they will discuss North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. 

  

• US Military's Anti-Drug Campaign In Afghanistan Ends In Failure

  Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

  Hundreds of airstrikes failed to curb opium trade…

  

  The Trump Administration’s attempt to curb the Afghanistan opium trade with hundreds of military strikes against “drug labs” has come to an end a little over a year after it began. Officials have concluded it is a failure.

  “The fight against illicit narcotics does not appear to be a consistent priority either for the international community or the Afghan government.”

  “To put it bluntly,” SIGAR has said, “these numbers spell failure.”

  The Pentagon had previously claimed that the airstrikes had cost the Taliban an estimated $42 million over the year. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction expressed doubt about this, noting that “no ground verification takes place” and that no efforts are made to determine what was actually destroyed.

  

  This has been the go-to strategy for US airstrikes worldwide, with officials not following up on strikes in some cases to avoid creating a paper trail on civilians killed. In the case of Afghanistan, however, it may be that what they hoped they were destroying was more important than what they expected to find if they actually looked.

  Yet even the $42 million estimate, for several hundred airstrikes, is not only a bad return on the massive cost of such a campaign, but also a paltry amount of the estimated overall drug trade flowing through Afghanistan. 

  

• Microsoft Workers Revolt Over $480 Million Defense Contract

  18 years after Microsoft’s Halo began training kids to shoot bad guys using a heads-up display (HUD), dozens of Microsoft employees have signed a petition against the development of Halo-esque augmented reality HUDs for the US Army, reports CNBC. 

  HoloLens is one of the leading consumer-grade headsets, however with only 50,000 units sold as of last November, it has yet to find a large-scale consumer application. 

  

  The contract, awarded last November, could eventually lead to the military purchasing more than 100,000 headsets that project holographic images into the wearer’s field of vision in order to “increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy,” according to a government description of the program. 

  “Augmented reality technology will provide troops with more and better information to make decisions. This new work extends our longstanding, trusted relationship with the Department of Defense to this new area,” a Microsoft spokesman said in a November statement to Bloomberg. 

  The U.S. Army and the Israeli military have already used Microsoft’s HoloLens devices in training, but plans for live combat would be a significant step forward. –Bloomberg

  The contract was awarded to Microsoft through a 25-company bidding process designed to encourage the Army to ink deals with companies that aren’t longstanding defense contractors. Other companies interested in the deal were Booz Allen Hamilton (of Edward Snowden fame), Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. 

  

  Microsoft employees doth protest

  “We are a global coalition of Microsoft workers, and we refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression,” reads a letter signed by more than 50 Microsoft employees after it began to circulate on Friday. 

  “We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the US Military, helping one country’s government ‘increase lethality’ using tools we built. We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used,” the letter goes on to say. 

  The letter, addressed to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and president and chief legal officer Brad Smith, notes that the company has previously licensed technology to the military – including HoloLens for use in training – but has never before “crossed the line into weapons development”.

  It adds that the program, officially called the Integrated Visual Augmentation System, turns “warfare into a simulated ‘video game,’ further distancing soldiers from the grim stakes of war and the reality of bloodshed.” –CNBC

  The employees have demanded that Microsoft cancel the IVAS contract, cease all work on defense technology and create a public policy clarifying these commitments. The letter also demands an independent ethics review board to ensure compliance. 

  “A lot of people feel uncomfortable about being involved in war-related business or producing weapons that hurt other people,” said one Microsoft employee who was not authorized to speak on the record. “To me, it’s a basic violation of Microsoft’s mission statement to empower every person and organization on the planet to do more.”

  “Although I believe in security and military action for a morally justifiable cause, I take issue with the language of ‘lethality’,” said software developer Monte Michaelis – who worked on HoloLens for two years before leaving Microsoft in 2018.

  “There are appropriate applications for mixed reality in a military setting, but I would not want to be designing an experience where my goal was to more efficiently kill people.”

  As CNBC notes, the letter comes just days before Microsoft is expected to roll out HoloLens 2 – which is expected to be lighter, more comfortable, and contain an upgraded display. 

  

  Last June, over 100 Microsoft employees protested the company’s project for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – demanding that the company immediately stop working with the agency. 

  

• Americans Call Their Government America's Top Problem

  Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  On February 18th, Gallup bannered “Record High Name Government as Most Important Problem” and reported that, out of a list of 47 national “problems,” the top ten that were selected (and the percentage of respondents who selected each) were:

  

  More than a third of Americans think that “The government/Poor leadership” is the “Top Problem” in America. 

  

  That’s almost twice the percentage who listed the second-from-top option, “Immigration,” as being this.

  In turn, the third-most-frequently chosen option was “Healthcare,” mentioned by a third as many respondents as listed “Immigration.” (And healthcare in the United States is the worst and by far the costliest in all of the developed nations; so it’s a system that’sextraordinarily rotten and corrupt, and thus obviously an enormous U.S. problem.) (And immigration wasn’t high on these lists until Trump’s Presidency, which raised it from virtually nowhere — such as 5% in 2005 — to 19% today; so its being high on the list now is due only to the propaganda and not to any reality.)

  Consequently, that this Government does not represent the American people, is a fact which is beyond any reasonable doubt.

  How validly can one call such a country a “democracy,” if “democracy” is being defined as“government that represents the people”?

  Here are other indications that the U.S. is, in truth, a dictatorship:

  America has the world’s highest percentage of its people in prison — the highest percentage in prison of any nation on the planet. If this means that it’s a police-state, then the U.S. already is leading the world as being that. Every other nation can reasonably look down upon America as having the highest percentage of its residents being in prison, and this American condition is entirely inconsistent with the country’s being a democracy. Of course, the U.S. also allows the death penalty, but that punishment is rarely imposed now, because of the international embarrassment.

  On 18 July 2018, Dave Lawler at Axios headlined “Comparing the popularities of leading world leaders”, and he reported that in the latest available polling within top nations, the job-approval of heads-of-state were: 55% Justin Trudeau (CA), 52% Shinzo Abe (JA), 48% Angela Merkel (GE), 43% Donald Trump (US), 40% Emmanuel Macron (FR), and 25% Theresa May (UK). Clearly, UK doesn’t now have an effective democracy, when its leader has only one-quarter of the public approving of her performance. That’s way below 50%. Macron’s 40% job-approval in France could also indicate that France is a dictatorship. Trump likewise. The others probably aren’t, or aren’t as much, dictatorships.

  Earlier-polled national job-approval ratings showed that the national job-approvals of 7 leaders were, in order starting from the highest: Putin (83%), Trudeau (63%), Obama (56%), Merkel (54%), Italy’s Renzi (40%), France’s Hollande (12%), and Brazil’s Temer (11%).  

  Also earlier-polled were 10 leaders, and they rated, top to bottom, within their respective nations: China’s Xi, Russia’s Putin, India’s Modi, South Africa’s Zuma, Germany’s Merkel, Brazil’s Roussef, America’s Obama, Japan’s Abe, UK’s Cameron, and France’s Hollande.

  All of those ratings were, of course, within nations. All of those polls sampled people only about their own nation’s leader. By contrast, approval-ratings worldwide for 10 leaders showed them, in order from highest to lowest, to be: Merkel, Macron, Modi, May, Xi, Putin, Salman, Netanyahu, Rouhani, and Trump. But those ratings aren’t relevant to the nations’ degree of democracy or dictatorship.

  The United States is the only country in the world that has been scientifically analyzed regarding its degree of dictatorship or else democracy, and the results were clear that it’sa one-dollar-one-vote controlled country; it’s not actually controlled on a one-person-one-vote basis; it’s a dictatorship. In other words, it is an aristocracy — the richest rule here — it’s not a democracy, of any type.

  I have elsewhere discussed a multitude of measures for the degree to which a given nation is either a democracy or a dictatorship. America doesn’t score high for democracy on any of them. The common references in the press using the term “democracy” to refer to America are lies. They may express accurately some of the formalities of democracy, but certainly not the realities (such as they claim to be doing).

  In conclusion, one may say that internationally the aristocracy has imposed, in many if not most nations, the ways and means to corrupt the government so profoundly that the aristocracy actually reign, but this hasn’t happened uniformly throughout the world. And only in the United States has it been scientifically proven that the Government is a dictatorship. Elsewhere, there is at least the possibility to question whether a nation is dictatorial, and, if so, to what extent. But unquestionably the U.S. is. And, according to the latest Gallup poll on what the nation’s top problem is, a stunningly high percentage even of Americans are now sensing that this is true.

  Short of performing a scientific analysis, however, the most reliable indicator of whether or not a given nation is a democracy might reasonably be that the higher the percentage of its people who are in prison, the lower is the given nation’s democracy-quotient, and that the lower this percentage is, the more democratic the government is.

  After all, either a military dictatorship, or a police state, is clearly not a democracy, no matter how much the given nation’s constitution and other formalities say  it is.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest