- First Greece, Now Italy, Portugal Next?
While most investors are focused on Italian politics – the parallel currency ‘mini-BoT’ fears and potential for a constitutional crisis – Spain is now facing its own political crisis amid calls for a no-confidence vote against Rajoy. However, ‘Spaxit’ remains a distant concern for investors as another member of the PIIGS peripheral problems is starting to signal concerns about ‘Portugone’?
And the fundamental data confirms Portugal is next in line for a debt crisis…
As Statista’s Brigitte van de Pas notes, on average, European Union countries had a gross government debt of roughly 81 percent of GDP in 2018.
This average disguises real differences between EU countries. Whereas Greece had a government debt of 177.8 percent in 2018, Estonia had a debt of only 8.8 percent – the lowest in the entire EU zone.
You will find more infographics at Statista
While, the high Greek debt is well-known, a number of other countries however also have a debt that is higher than their own GDP. The Italian debt, for example, is lower than the Greek but still significant, at over 130 percent of GDP.
Portugal, in third place, had a debt of 122.5 percent.
One small positive note though: all three countries had even higher debts in 2017, and the European Commission forecasted a slow, but further decrease of their government debt in 2019. Whether this holds true for Italy, with their newly-elected government of Movimento 5 Stelle and Lega remains to be seen.
- Russian Navy Tests Four Bulava SLBMs In Salvo
Authored by Arkady Savitsky via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
On May 22, the Yuri Dolgoruky Project 955 Borei-class strategic nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) – a.k.a. “boomer” - launched four Bulava RSM-56 missiles from the White Sea within seconds of each other. The destination of the submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) was the Kura shooting range in the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula. The test was a success. It was the first time four SLBMs were fired during a naval exercise and the first Bulava trial since June last year. All in all, about 30 tests have taken place since 2004.
The Borei-class boats will gradually replace Project 941 Akula-class and Project 667 BDRM Delfin class SSBNs to become the core of Russia’s sea strategic component of the nuclear triad at least till 2040. Today, there are three Borei-class submarines in active service. Five more are being built.
The Yury Dolgoruky is the lead ship. It joined the Navy in 2013. The SSBN carries 16 ballistic missiles. The forth submarine of the Borei class is to meet the 955A standard, with the number of missiles increased to 20 along with many other upgrades.
Anechoic coating to reduce its acoustic signature covers the boat’s hull. All the equipment is mounted on shock absorbers. It’s widely believed that Russia’s Navy is the only one in the world to have submarines capable of evading US detection.
All the submarine’s sonars are integrated into a single automated digital system, which both locates targets and fulfills other functions, such as the search for ice openings and the measurement of its thickness. It can detect targets at a distance 50 percent greater than that of US Virginia-class vessels.
The SSBN has the following specifications: length: 170m, beam: 13,5m, draught: 10m, displacement: surfaced: 14,720t, submerged: 24,000t, depth: 450m, endurance: 100 days, crew: 107. A rescue chamber can accommodate all men aboard. The submarine is propelled by pump-jet propulsion. It is powered by the single water-cooled OK-650 nuclear reactor with a thermal capacity of 190 MW, providing a submerged speed of 29kt and a surfaced speed of 15kt.
In addition to 16 SLBMs, the Dolgoruky’s armament includes six RPK-2 Viyuga nuclear-tipped anti-submarine missiles launched through 533mm torpedo tubes and capable of striking enemy submarines at a distance of 45km. The vessel can be armed with cruise missiles.
The Bulava is a derivative of the ground-based Topol (SS-27) ICBM. Its cycle of development was not a bed of roses. There were difficulties on the way. Not all tests were a success but the May 22 training event showed the obstacles have been overcome by Russia’s shipbuilding industry and Navy.
The SLBM is a three-stage missile to use solid fuel for the first two stages and liquid fuel for the third one to make the missile more agile during warhead separation. The SLBM can be fired on the move or from under the Arctic ice. The trajectory is low enough to make the Bulava classify as a quasi-ballistic missile because it can perform maneuvers in flight or make unexpected changes in direction and range. Along with evasive maneuvers, the Bulava can deploy a variety of countermeasures and decoys making it resistant to missile-defense systems. The independently targetable re-entry vehicles are protected against both physical and electromagnetic-pulse damage.
The RSM-56 can withstand a nuclear blast at a range of 500m. An operational rage: up to 9,300 kilometers (about 5,770 miles). Circular error probable: 250-300 m. The missile has a length of 12.1m and diameter of 2.1m, launch weight: 36.8 t, throw-weight: 1,150 kg, length (in container): 12.1m.
The Borei-class SSBN with new Bulava missiles on board was listed by Business Insider UK as an “incredible” Russian weapon system. Its arrival makes possible the resumption of strategic patrols in southern latitudes after the interval of more than 20 years. The Bulava missiles were fired from a submerged submarine known as a very silent vessel. It could be on patrol anywhere in the World Ocean with potential adversary having no idea where it is. This element of Russia’s nuclear triad offers the best of modern technology to guarantee the inevitability of retaliation in case of attack as it’s impossible to destroy it in a first strike. Retribution is unavoidable with Bulava SLBMs immune to any imaginable missile defense. The May 22 salvo test demonstrated another technological breakthrough to greatly enhance Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
- Blowing Up The Iran Deal Brings Eurasia Closer To Integration
Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The annulment of the Iran nuclear deal framework could not be fended off by the visits or entreaties of Merkel, Macron or May. Donald Trump has refused to renew the agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), removing the United States from the deal. In reality, it changes little for Washington, as the US never really removed any sanctions against Iran in 2015, and mutual trust has never risen above minimal levels.
The American move, which was never surprising, arises from four fundamental factors, namely: the link (especially vis-à-vis electoral financing) between the Trump administration and the Israeli government of Netanyahu; the agreement between Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) and Donald Trump to acquire hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms as well as investments in the United States; directly targeting European allies like Germany, France and England; and, finally, the wish to please the anti-Iranian hawks Trump surrounded himself with in his administration.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman are united against Iran and are now publicly cementing their alliance that has hitherto been shrouded in secrecy. The political rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been constant over the last 12 months, converging over anti-Iranian interests. Trump’s anti-Iran tilt enjoys support from the Netanyahu and bin Salman clans, representing a 180-degree change in US policy direction away from the one forged through the nuclear agreements reached by the previous administration.
Saudi money and Israel’s political support (and neoconservative pressure within the United States) are factors important to the Trump administration, particularly as it is besieged by domestic politics and has to deal with the Mueller investigation that buzzes annoyingly around the president of the United States.
Trump’s need to surround himself with the likes of Pompeo, Haspel and Bolton betrays an acquiescing desire to appease the deep state rather than fight it. Whatever fight might have been present in Donald Trump upon assuming his office has given way to a fruitful collaboration with the deep state. Donald Trump seems to have concluded that it is better to negotiate and find agreements with the deep state than to try, as he promised during his election campaign, to drain the swamp.
The decision on the JCPOA follows in the wake of other incendiary policies that can be labeled anti-Obama or pro-Israeli and pro-Saudi Arabia, and even anti-European. Washington has been struggling over several years with its medium-term strategic thinking, with decisions often being made suddenly on the basis of emotions or against the backdrop of a constant internal struggle between more or less conflicting elites.
The most recent example concerns the JCPOA, which seems to confirm a fairly evident trend over the last two years. Washington is starting to think first and foremost about America, focusing more on domestic matters rather than worrying about maintaining the liberal world order and sustaining the global status quo. Trump seems not to operate according to any particular logic or strategy — here renewing sanctions on Russia, there imposing trade tariffs on China, now breaking the agreement on the JCPOA, then bombing Syria, or even seeking an unprecedented rapprochement with North Korea. It is useless to search for any logical train of thought in all this, even less a grand strategy explaining Washington’s ultimate objectives. Policymakers in the US capital act on the basis of very short-term objective, namely: seeking to please Netanyahu and the moneybags that is MBS; punishing Russia; waving the specter of a trade war; asking allies to pay more for defense (NATO); or preventing European companies from working with important partners in Iran and even Russia (Nord Stream 2).
All this leads to a rifts even amongst European allies themselves, with France and England ready to bomb Syria and threaten Iran, while Germany and Italy oppose such moves on the basis of international law and the need for diplomacy.
With the undoing of the JCPOA and renewed sanctions on Russia, it seems that European countries finally intend to assert their own sovereignty by legislating against these harmful American actions. The European Parliament intends to adopt a new law that blocks the payment of fines to US authorities by any European company sanctioned for its relations with Tehran. Washington wants to force its European allies to choose between working with Tehran or Washington. It is mafia-like blackmail which even Brussels seems to have had a gutful of and intends to push back against with concrete actions. A similar situation in 1996 involving Brussels led Bill Clinton to suspend such destructive actions among allies in favor of diplomacy.
Trump seems to worry little about the medium- and long-term effects of his actions, seeming not to have any interest in harmonizing relations with allies, especially Merkel’s Germany, against which Washington has a negative trade balance only exceeded by Beijing. The only point of continuity between Obama and Trump concerns the objection to sabotaging Nord Stream 2 (the pipeline connecting Russia and Germany).
If the strategic thinking on Trump’s part is non-existent and concerns only very short-term objectives linked to the image that he likes to project of himself (of a tough guy who keeps his electoral promises, such as that regarding the Iranian agreement), the practical effect is that of a strategy that makes little sense from an American point of view. Policy-makers in American think-tanks have seeded many of Trump’s resulting actions, and the blame for the last fifteen years of failed policies can be laid at their feet. They are the true, if unintended, architects of the emerging multipolar world, and have inadvertently served to accelerate the ending of the American unipolar moment.
Once again, these policy-makers delude themselves into thinking that Trump’s moves — placing sanctions on Russia, a reanimated and bellicose presence and attitude in the Middle East, and the breaking up of the JCPOA – are a great opportunity to achieve some strategic objectives that have been lost over the last few years.
The calculation of these strategists is wrong and the consequences are quite the opposite to those intended, yet these self-proclaimed experts, blinded by money from dozens of lobbies (the Israel-based lobbyists, for example), become the victims of their own propaganda, insisting on many strategies that directly harm US interests globally and in the Middle Eastern region in particular.
The policy-makers belonging to such think-tanks as the Brookings Institute or the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) are more than convinced that strong pressure placed on Iran will arrest the expansion of the Shia Crescent over the Middle East and Iran’s general influence over the region (from Tehran to Beirut via Baghdad and Damascus). The sanctions on Russia and Iran serve, in their mind, to block European energy independence that would otherwise be achieved through cooperating with both countries. The rediscovered bellicosity in the region tends to counter the Russian presence, even if only psychologically, and reaffirms Washington’s willingness to remain committed to the region and defend its interests there (the Saudi dictatorship, above all, thanks to its pricing of oil in US dollars).
This last point is of enormous importance in terms of global strategy, and Saudi Arabia is a key partner in this regard, the American presence in the region, together with anti-Iranian policies, also serving to reassure the valuable Saudi ally, increasingly courted by Beijing through its petro-yuan convertible into gold.
Washington finds itself increasingly isolated in its economic and military policies. Merkel’s visit to Russia reaffirms the desire to create an alternative axis to the one between Brussels and Washington. The victory in Italy of two parties strongly opposed to new wars and the annulment of the JCPOA, and especially the sanctions against Russia, serves to form a new alliance, accentuating internal divisions within Europe. Macron, Merkel and May are all grappling with a strong crisis of popularity at home, which does not aid them in their decision-making.
Exactly the same problems affect MbS, Trump, and Netanyahu in their respective countries. These leaders find themselves adopting aggressive policies in order to alleviate internal problems. They also struggle to find a common strategy, often displaying schizophrenic behavior that belies the fact that they are meant to be on the same side of the barricades in terms of the desired world order.
In direct contrast, China, Russia, Iran, and now India, are trying to respond to Western madness in a rational, moderate, and mutually beneficial way. And as a result, Europeans may perhaps begin to understand that the future lies not in piggybacking on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Trump seems to have offered the perfect occasion for European leaders to assert their sovereignty and start to move away from their traditional servility shown towards Washington.
While it is difficult to imagine a schism taking place overnight, the chances that Europe’s capitals will clash with Washington are no longer so remote, much to the pleasure of Moscow and Beijing, who aim to incorporate Europe into their mega-Eurasian project as the fourth major component after Asia, the Eurasian Union and the Middle East/Persian Gulf.
- Former President Barack Obama Warns – America "May Not Survive"
Former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama are broadening out these days. They have recently signed a multiyear deal to create their own production company, called Higher Ground Productions, to produce content for Netflix. The pair has recently been spotted on the road, delivering keynote speeches at corporate events and large conferences.
Mr. Obama delivered a powerful but apocalyptic message about America’s future Wedsenday at a technology conference in Las Vegas hosted by identity security company Okta — where he warned the audience of an uncertain future for America.
Mr. Obama used his time on stage at Okta Oktane 2018 conference to explain what ventures he is pursuing in his post-presidential years, and further warned about division in America. “We live in a culture today where everybody feels the crush of information and the collision of worlds,” Mr. Obama explained.
Okta CEO and co-founder Todd McKinnon chats with former president Obama on stage atOkta Oktane 2018 conference. (Source: Okta)
At the heart of the issue, the world is more interconnected than ever before, and technology is fundamentally reshaping relationships, as the access to information is rapidly fragmenting society.
Obama said, “the great thing about the United States is that we have had a head start over the rest of the world in trying to figure this all out.”
“We are a people that came from everywhere else, so we had to figure out how to join together and work together, not based on race, or religious faith or even, initially, language, but based on creed and a sense of principals,” the former president said
“All of us are trying to shape and absorb information in ways that can be confusing. If you ask people in Washington DC what identity means, they may well first describe their racial identity.
By definition, we [Americans] are a nation of people that came from everywhere else.
I think the big challenge we have today is how do we maintain a sense of common purpose rather than splinter or divide.
We are seeing this debated on social media every day, but if we don’t figure it out then our society and democracy may not survive.”
Obama expressed several important ways of how Americans can sustain and develop a national identity, where citizens view themselves as Americans first, rather than being members of a political party, or gender, or race, is by communicating with each other through stories. He said the more we can share stories with one another, the more we can view each other as fellow humans, rather than enemies.
Obama makes an interesting point, he suggests — Americans should expand their media sources. So no more CNN?
“Right now part of our polarization is that if you watch Fox News all day, or you read the New York Times, you are occupying two different realities. We have to be able to figure out, in this multiplicity of platforms, to have some common baseline of facts that allow us to meet and solve problems.”
While Obama cautions the audience about division in America and how it could lead to a collapse, the whole keynote speech seems to be a ploy to subliminally drum up support for his next venture of films and TV shows on Netflix.
Here is part of Obama’s keynote speech at Oktane 18
* * *
After about a year and a half, it seems as the Obamas/Clintons have finally emerged from their Washington war room, and are ready to launch the next phase of an infowar against President Trump. Do not believe us? Well, on Friday, Hillary Clinton announced she wants to be the CEO of Facebook. Can you imagine that? Now that is some next-level shit…Couple it with the Obamas on Netflix pumping out content, and you start to get the picture of an imminent infowar.
- Crude Capitulation Continues: WTI Hits 6-Week Lows After Russia, Saudi Comments
WTI Crude futures plunged in early Asia trading – touching a $65 handle for the first time in over a month – after Saudi Arabia and Russia proposed easing output curbs.
As Bloomberg notes, oil earlier this month rose to the highest level in more than three years after President Donald Trump’s decision to reimpose sanctions on Iran and plunging Venezuelan output fueled supply concerns. With OPEC and allies achieving a key goal of eliminating the global surplus despite record production in the U.S., traders now are weighing whether Saudi Arabia and Russia will go ahead with their plan to revive output without reaching consensus with allies. The group are set to meet in June to decide its next steps.
The drop was accompanied by relatively heavy volume suggesting some capitulation from the extreme long crude speculative positioning. July WTI futures volume already tops 70,000 contracts — more than 420% of the 10-day average for this time of day — a feat even more impressive given that it’s a public holiday in both London and New York.
“The latest signal from OPEC and Russia cooled down expectations for the group’s cuts, which have been a major factor boosting crude price since late last year,” Satoru Yoshida, a commodity analyst at Rakuten Securities Inc., said by phone from Tokyo.
“If OPEC and allies decide at the June meeting to maintain their production cuts through December and ease anxiety among investors, crude prices may rebound.”
What is perhaps even more impressive is the spread between Brent (geopolitical risk premia) and WTI (domestic ‘over’-supply) is now well over $9 – the highest since March 2015…
- Why You Should Never Use Wikipedia
Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The latest report about Wikipedia’s corruption comes from the great investigative journalist Craig Murray, who had been in the UK’s Foreign Service from 1984-2004 and who was forced out in 2004 because, having been since 2002 UK’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he decided to whistleblow instead of to accept the corruption by his own and Uzbekistan’s Governments.
Wikipedia’s article about him says that his immediately prior posting had involved participating in enforcement of the prior economic sanctions against Iraq, and “His group gave daily reports to Margaret Thatcher and John Major. In Murder in Samarkand, he describes how this experience led him to disbelieve the claims of the UK and US governments in 2002 about Iraqi WMDs.” So, his disenchantment with UK’s foreign policies seems to have grown over the years, instead of suddenly to have appeared only during the two years in which he was an Ambassador.
On May 18th, he headlined at his much-followed blog, “The Philip Cross Affair”, and reported: “133,612 edits to Wikipedia have been made in the name of ‘Philip Cross’ over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for ‘Philip Cross’s’ Wikipedia activity is astonishing … if it is one individual.”
He presents reasons to question that it’s a one-person operation, then states that,
the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel…
“Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of [the neoconservative and neoliberal] Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.
The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.
In response, many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.
Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?
I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.
“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.
Among the hundreds of reader-comments to that article, one seems to have come from a Wikipedia-insider, and is abbreviated here:
Andrew H
May 18, 2018 at 18:49
… Wikipedia is a source of information, and so cannot peddle alternative theories of any kind. …[and] no doubt there is some political bias that comes into this process. If you look at the article on the Skripal’s – it is not unreasonable – almost all statements are supported by references to main stream media articles or statements from official organisations such as the Russian government, OPCW or UK authorities. This is what it has to be. (you wouldn’t seriously be suggesting that Wikipedia should have links to craigmurrary or info from RT?).
I haven’t done any scientific study of the sources that are cited in Wikipedia’s many footnotes and whether sites such as Murray’s and RT are banned from them, but this article by Murray does suggest that the bias in favor of mainstream, and against small, ‘news’media, does adhere to the pattern that’s succinctly stated by “Andrew H.” Murray presents remarkable documentary evidence that this is Wikipedia’s pattern. “Andrew H” seems to believe that it’s the right pattern to adhere to.
The present writer also has personal experience with Wikipedia that confirms the existence of this pattern. Among my several articles on that, was “How Wikipedia Lies”, in which I reported that “Smallwood,” the Wikipedia overseer on Wikipedia’s article “United Airlines Flight 93” about the 9/11 plane that came down in Pennsylvania, blocked stating in the text of the article an important fact that was documented even buried within some of the article’s own footnote sources – all coming from mainstream media – that Vice President Dick Cheney had ordered that plane to be shot down and that, therefore, the article’s (and the ’news’media’s and ‘history’ books’) common allegations that resistance on the part of heroic passengers on that plane had had something to do with the plane’s coming down when and how it did, are all false. “Smallwood” blocked me from adding to the text a mention that Cheney on the very day of 9/11 admitted that he had ordered that plane to be shot down and stated his reasons for having done so, and that the order was promptly fulfilled; and “Smallwood” refused to say why my addition of Cheney’s role was blocked, other than that to say that that fact “did not appear constructive.” (He refused to say how, or why.)
Back on 8 July 2015, I had headlined, “Wikipedia As Propaganda Not History — MH17 As An Example”, and reported and documented regarding the MH17 Malaysian airliner shot down over Ukraine, that “Wikipedia articles are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false.” The Wikipedia article on that was anti-Russian propaganda, not a historical account.
As I mentioned in those articles, even Britain’s own BBC had previously headlined, “Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits’.” What both Murray, and I, in my latest article about Wikipedia, add to that information regarding some of the people who “edit” Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia itself, in the individuals whom it hires to nix or else to accept each editorial change that is being made to a given article, actually also, in effect, writes Wikipedia articles – and that it does so consistently filtering out facts – no matter how conclusively proven to be true – that contradict the ‘news’media’s (and CIA’s) boilerplate ‘history’ of the given matter. In other words: Wikipedia is a perfect embodiment of the type of society that was described in the fictional 1949 allegorical novel, 1984.
This is the reason why I never link to a Wikipedia article unless I have independently confirmed that, regarding the fact for which I cite the given article, that article is honestly and truly representing that matter, or that given detail of it. I do not exclude truths that happen to be included in the standard account; but neither do I (as Wikipedia does] exclude facts which contradict the standard account.
- On Memorial Day, A Marine Remembers Syria Before The War
During a recent White House meeting between President Trump and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump had some surprising commentary on the war in Syria, and specifically the way life was for Syrians before 2011: “It was a great culture before it was so horribly blown apart. A place where people would go…” he said in the televised meeting.
What did the president mean by this? He explained that Syria was highly stable before the war, and even an attractive place to travel: “Syria will start to stabilize. You see what’s happening, it’s been a horror show. I have great respect for Syria and the people of Syria – these are great people… .. it was the place to go and you look at what’s happened it’s so sad. But I’d like to see Syria come back.“
NOTEWORTHY comments by @realDonaldTrump : We helped #Syria actually by withdrawing from the #Iran deal. Syria will hopefully start to stabilize. I have great respect for Syria. This is a great country and great people pic.twitter.com/GTniaiIi5r
— EHSANI2 (@EHSANI22) May 22, 2018
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
While we don’t quite now if Trump would like to see Syria “come back” on the Syrian people’s own terms, or if he has more of the usual Washington regime change playbook in mind, his somewhat off the cuff remarks present an important point question: why does no one ever talk about what Syria or any other society that’s suffered under the disastrous hand of US intervention was like before the war?
The below is authored by US Marine veteran Brad Hoff, and is used by Zero Hedge with permission:
* * *
“He who has not lived in the years before the revolution cannot know what the sweetness of living is.”
— Talleyrand, via Bertolucci, from the 1964 film Prima della Rivoluzione
IRAQ, LIBYA, SYRIA… Countries ripped apart through sectarian and political violence in the aftermath of cataclysmic external interventions: American invasion and occupation in Iraq, NATO intervention in Libya, and international proxy war in Syria. Mere mention of these countries conjures images of sectarian driven atrocities and societal collapse into the abyss of a Hobbesian jungle. And now it is commonplace to just assume it’s always been so. Increasingly, one hears from all corners of public discourse the lazily constructed logic, “but they’ve always hated each other”… or “violence and conflict are endemic to the region.” But it was not always so — I found a place of beauty, peace, and coexistence in a Syria that is now almost never acknowledged, and which risks being forgotten about.
But Syrians themselves will never forget.
I served in the Marine Corps during the first years of the Iraq War and was activated as post-9/11 emergency security personnel to headquarters assets in the D.C. area while stationed at Headquarters Battalion Quantico. I thought I knew something about Iraq upon the start of our new “war on terror”: Arab culture, with its intrinsic primal religious passions and resulting sectarian divisions, must be brought to heel under Western values of pluralism, secularism, and equality if peace and stability are to ever have a chance. This was a guiding assumption among the many Marine officers, active and retired, that I conversed with during my years at Quantico. Iraqis and Middle Easterners were, for us, abstractions that fit neatly into categories learned about by viewing a C-SPAN lecture, or perhaps in a college class or two: there are Sunnis, Shia, some dissident sects, they all mistrust each other, and they all want theocratic states with their group in charge.
Author (left) in a Syrian village in Homs countryside. This quiet Christian village would later be attacked by anti-government fighters. My first visit to the region while desiring to study Arabic in 2004, just after completion of active duty service, and while still on the inactive reserve list, began a process of undoing every assumption I’d ever imbibed concerning Middle East culture, politics, and conflict. An initial visit to Syria from Lebanon was the start of something that my Marine buddies could hardly conceive of: Damascus became my second home through frequent travel and lengthy stays from 2004 to 2010, and was my place of true education on the real life and people of the region. While fellow service members were just across Syria’s border settling in to the impossible task of occupying a country they had no understanding of, I was able view a semblance of Iraq as it once was through the prism of highly stable Ba’athist Syria.
The other dominating interest that drew me to Syria was the country’s ancient churches and Christian communities. Discovery of the much neglected truth that the region has always been much more diverse than tends to be acknowledged did much to undo the false assumptions of my Texas Baptist childhood. I must admit that I grew up with the usual American stereotypes of the Middle East. To most Americans, the notion of Middle Eastern Christianity sounds like an oxymoron — or is at the very least highly suspect. Many Arab and Eastern Christians are asked, upon arriving in the U.S. for visit, work, or immigration, “when did you convert from Islam?” During the post 9/11 Bush years, when Syria as part of the “Axis of Evil” became a central formulation of U.S. foreign policy, such common cultural assumptions became even more deeply ingrained. How could one be a Christian and a citizen of a “rogue” Middle East state? And yet, Christians have called Syria their home for many hundreds of years prior to the foundation of the modern nation-state of Syria.
As I began to learn more about the multi-ethnic and religiously mixed kaleidoscope that is modern Syria, I marveled at how such a country could live in relative peace and stability in a region commonly perceived to be one of the most historically tumultuous and war racked on Earth, and I had to go and see for myself.
* * *
During my first weeks in Damascus, I was pleasantly shocked. My preconceived notions were shattered: I expected to find a society full of veiled women, mosques on every street corner, religious police looking over shoulders, rabid anti-American sentiment preached to angry crowds, persecuted Christians and crumbling hidden churches, prudish separation of the sexes, and so on. I quickly realized during my first few days and nights in Damascus, that Syria was a far cry from my previous imaginings, which were probably more reflective of Saudi Arabian life and culture. What I actually encountered were mostly unveiled women wearing European fashions and sporting bright makeup — many of them wearing blue jeans and tight fitting clothes that would be commonplace in American shopping malls on a summer day. I saw groups of teenage boys and girls mingling in trendy cafes late into the night, displaying expensive cell phones. There were plenty of mosques, but almost every neighborhood had a large church or two with crosses figured prominently in the Damascus skyline. As I walked near the walled “old city” section, I was surprised to find entire streets lined with large stone and marble churches. At night, all of the crosses atop these churches were lit up — outlined with blue fluorescent lighting, visible for miles; and in some parts of the Damascus skyline these blue crosses even outnumbered the green-lit minarets of mosques.
Just as unexpected as the presence of prominent brightly lit churches, were the number of restaurant bars and alcohol kiosks clustered around the many city squares. One could get two varieties of Syrian-made beer, or a few international selections like Heineken or Amstel, with relative ease. The older central neighborhoods, as well as the more upscale modern suburbs had a common theme: endless numbers of restaurants filled with carefree Syrians, partying late into the night with poker cards, boisterous discussion, alcohol, hookah smoke, and elaborate oriental pastries and desserts. I got to know local Syrians while frequenting random restaurants during my first few weeks in Damascus. I came into contact with people representative of Syria’s ethnically and religiously diverse urban centers: Christians, Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, Armenians, Palestinians, and even a few self-declared Arab atheists. The characterization of Syrian city life that increasingly came to my mind during my first, and many subsequent visits and extended stays, was of Syria a consciously secular society when compared to other countries in the region.
Nights full of parties and dancing in Syrian homes. Author is behind the camera quickly overcoming his prior false orientalist stereotypes. In the more traditional countryside, life moved at a slower pace. From my experience in villages from the Hauran region in the South, to Homs countryside in central Syria, there arose a common theme: a duality of work (typically agriculture) and family oriented leisure — with the year regulated by a pattern of village celebrations for weddings, baptisms, graduations, birthdays, and religious festivals. Movement of time in the village seemed to bring with it a palpable “lightness of being” — especially in the more picturesque mountain villages in places like the Valley of the Christians (Wadi al-Nasara) near Homs. The typical Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays in most any Syrian village were spent with extended family and village friends gathered on a patio around a slow burning coal barbeque pit. This is not unlike an American style barbeque, but the Syrian version tended to last for eight or more hours, and was sometimes a village-wide affair that easily extended to an evening party with live music. Women socialized while making kibbe and tabbouleh by hand (an hours-long affair) — so that food preparation itself became a kind of natural social ritual. Men exchanged news and speculated about village rumors, fanned the slow burning coal and endlessly sipped tea, strong Arabic coffee, and smoked cigarettes or hookah pipe.
Though much is now said of Syria’s sectarian divisions, religiously mixed villages were everywhere, and operated not much differently from religiously or ethnically homogeneous villages. If there was a party on the occasion of a Muslim holiday, Christians and Alawites came out and joined in on the feasting and traditional dancing. During Christmas and Easter parties, or for the Feast of St. George, Muslims were heard giving a “Merry Christmas” and other greetings of respect to Christians, and joined in on the festivities. In the multiple mixed Druze and Christian villages of the ancient Hauran region, there were common-use village party grounds situated near the main entrances to villages, which were used to celebrate weddings and national holidays. If a wedding took place, it was expected that all families of the village would come out — whether the wedding was Muslim, Druze, or Christian. The village patriarchs, including the local Orthodox priest, the Catholic priest, and Druze cleric, would attend the joint celebration.
Qraya is an example of one such diverse village set amidst the black volcanic crusted plains of the Hauran region (from the Aramaic word which means “cave land”). A somewhat recently erected gray and white concrete mosque memorial commemorating the “Great Syrian Revolution” — the 1925–1927 revolt that solidified Syrian national feelings during the French Mandate period, towers over the sleepy village. In 2009 the Syrian government, in an official ceremony, interred the remains of celebrated Druze patriarch Sultan Hilal al-Atrash there. He led what was initially a mass Druze revolt against the French, which had been ruling Syria since the close of World War I. What began as a Druze revolt primarily focused in southern Syria’s Jabal al-Druze(literally “Druze Mountain”) was soon joined by Sunnis, Christians, and Alawites. This represented Syria’s first popular movement toward nationalism which reached “street level” across the different segments of French-ruled Syria. Reflecting the far reaching impact and diverse appeal of the anti-colonial revolt, al-Atrash famously said, “Religion is for God, the fatherland is for all.”
With similar sentiment, Syrians that reject the notion of the contemporary conflict as a mere sectarian driven crises are now often heard to reply with a simple “I am Syrian” when asked about their religious identity.
* * *
I certainly witnessed plenty of examples of Islamic conservatism in Syrian public life, but it was the secular and pluralistic (represented in the diverse population living side by side) aspect that always seemed to dominate, whether I was in Damascus, Homs, Aleppo, or coastal areas like Tartus. Syria’s committed secular identify was confirmed to me more than ever when I first traveled the freeway that wraps around Mt. Qasyoon — the small mountain against which the Damascus urban center is nestled. My speeding taxi passed a couple of expansive foreign car dealerships, but most prominent were a seeming myriad number of windowless entertainment venues, structured like residential mansions, lining both sides of the road. My taxi driver laughed at my perplexed expression and informed me that this was “brothel row” (my translation) — a red light district of sorts. When I later got to know a group of Syrian guys — enough to where I could ask potentially awkward or embarrassing questions — they confirmed, with some degree of shame, that all big cities in Syria have their seedy underbellies (“like your Nevada,” my friend Michel said). Places like brothels and “pick-up bars” were allowed to operate in public, but didn’t necessarily advertise what they were about. My Syrian friends looked upon this “dark side” of Syrian society with no less moral revulsion than the local conservative Muslims. Yet, it was explained to me that while the Syrian government was deeply authoritarian in some respects, it generally allowed (and enforced) openness in social and religious areas unparalleled anywhere in the Middle East. Most Americans would be very surprised to learn of such elements in Syrian society that are not much different from what one would find in Europe or the U.S.
This social openness was most clearly to the advantage of Christians and other religious minorities living in a country numerically dominated by the about 70% Sunni Muslim majority. The secular face of the government and civic life allowed Christians to worship freely, and to even display their Christianity very publicly. My first experience of this came one particular winter evening in the Qassa neighborhood near Bab Touma — the expansive and most well-known among the Christian neighborhoods of Damascus. A special dignitary, the Orthodox Archbishop of Finland, was visiting a local church. He was greeted with a parade that took over an entire city street. He processed down the street and into the church with a uniformed marching band leading the way, made up of a local Christian scouting organization.
I witnessed similar displays especially at Christmas and Easter in all different parts of Syria: public processions, church bells ringing loudly, Christmas trees and lights, images of Jesus displayed prominently, church music blaring over loud speakers, and exuberant wedding parties. One small city, Maaloula — an hour northwest of Damascus, even had its annual local public holiday in celebration of the cross which Syrian news depicted as attracting tens of thousands of people.
The cross and the crescent side by side in the historic walled “old city” of Damascus. Prior to visiting Syria, I would have never conceived of the possibility of state TV in a Middle Eastern country actually airing coverage of a Christian festival. My Syrian friend, upon seeing my incredulous gaze as churches were being shown on the main government channel, shrugged and told me, “but this is Syria.” To him, Syria was stood alone in the region as an example of Christians and Muslims living together in peace and as equals. A Syrian could look for confirmation of this to his western border, where Lebanon was still attempting to come to grips with its two decades long sectarian civil war; or he could look immediately east, where Iraq’s ethnic and religious divisions were blowing up under U.S. and Coalition occupation; or north to Turkey, where it was illegal to discuss the Greek and Armenian genocide in public; as well as to the Arabian peninsula — where a culture of Sharia courts and religious police made church only a thing for Western expat workers living their lives within walled ARAMCO communities. But the cross and the crescent appeared side by side in every major Syrian city. Such public pluralism, where Christianity received constant public acknowledgement side by side with Islam, was the greatest surprise upon my initial visit to Syria.
All in all, what I unexpectedly observed in Syria was a high degree of personal freedom not found in other countries of the Middle East. This personal freedom was exercised in all areas of life except for politics — a strange paradox. The government seemed to leave people alone in areas of religion, social behavior, family life, and work pursuits; but political dissent was not tolerated, and Syrians seemed to accept this as a difficult fact of life. The average working class Syrian was resigned to accept the government promise of security and stability in exchange for limitations upon personal political freedoms. With multiple religions and ethnic groups living side by side in a volatile region full of historic and hidden animosities, as well as ceaseless external geopolitical pressures, it seemed a sensibly practical, even if unjust, solution. There was a palpable feeling of an “enforced secularism” binding Syrian society together.
The kind of religious and cultural pluralism represented in the liberal democracies of the West was present in Syria, ironically, through a government mandated “go along, get along” type policy backed by an authoritarian police state. One can even find Syrian Jews living in the historic Jewish quarter of Damascus’ walled old city to this day. I was told, upon visiting their synagogue, that most had gone to Brooklyn, though there were perhaps a dozen families left.
Hauntingly beauty in the midst of war: the sleepy village of Saidnaya sits at the edge of the conflict-ridden Qalaman mountains. Just prior to early 2011, as the so-called “Arab Spring” movement which had enveloped Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, seemed to be potentially losing steam, I was at first deeply skeptical that a mass uprising would gain traction in Syria. Syria had plenty of deep seated problems as a nation run by an old school Arab socialist ruling clique; but too much of the population, especially in the major cities, seemed heavily invested in the status quo ensured by a stable regime, however less than ideal the status quo might have been.
When Assad unexpectedly came to power in 2000 after the deaths of his father and brother, he promised to take Syria into a new, modern age of reform. These were the days of “early Assad,” when many in Washington declared “Assad is a reformer” (Hilary Clinton was declaring this even as late as the early part of 2011). But the Syrian government has always been much more than a dictator, or even a ruling family. Even should President Assad desire reform, the old elites which form the outer circles of Ba’ath influence provide a strong “check” on what even he might hope to enact. The economic fortunes of these institutional elites were dependent on the Assad status quo, and this made the type of drastic change that leaders in Western capitals suddenly demanded practically impossible. In addition, the middle class families of the most populace cities, especially Damascus and Aleppo, were not discontent enough to go to the streets. This, not too much unlike middle-class Americans who merely shrugged when mass government abuses like domestic spying and pervasive government breaking of Constitutional rights were definitively revealed in 2013.
Most Syrians I knew were deeply fearful of a sudden cataclysm that might send Syria the way of sectarian Iraq, especially a program that took decision making away from actual Syrians. News savvy Syrians even had Western sponsored “democracy experiments” more recent in time than Iraq to consider: Post-Gaddafi Libya began to unravel from the moment of its “liberation” by NATO. As international press generally fell silent on new Libya’s slow descent into chaos at the hands of accountable-to-no-one armed militias, it focused its eye on unreformed Syria. A few attempts at Facebook sponsored “days of rage” protests failed to gain any traction inside Syria, to the great disappointment of self anointed “democracy promoters” in the West. I was personally relieved during this brief period of Arab Spring “inactivity” — the examples of Egypt and Libya (and to some extent Tunisia) were making it abundantly clear that the main beneficiaries of this “springtime” were political Islamists from the the Muslim Brotherhood, to Ennahda Party (the Salafist Tunisian party), to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (an Al-Qaeda linked terror organization). The losers were increasingly the Arab Left, the secularists, and the religious and ethnic minorities.
* * *
It is simply a self evident premise that the so-called “Arab Spring” has resulted not in greater democracy and individual liberties across the Middle East, but in the political and military ascendancy of radical Islamist groups from North Africa to the Levant. Most Americans are still unaware of the shocking extent to which Washington has aided, and is currently aiding, radical Islamic groups that are indistinguishable from Al-Qaeda throughout the course of these revolutions. This occurred openly and most directly in Libya through American-led NATO bombing (after which the first flag to fly over the main Benghazi courthouse was that of Al-Qaeda), and has now long been occurring clandestinely in Syria, though certainly an open and increasingly acknowledged “secret”. The most radical insurgent groups the world has ever seen have popped up all over Syria as the Washington and Gulf allies’ Frankenstein creation fought for years aiming at regime change in Damascus. It should come as no surprise that Syria’s vulnerable religious minority communities were the first to feel the wrath of these groups.
A destroyed icon from the village of Maaloula, after it was taken over by Western and Gulf backed rebel forces in 2013. Source: Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch Disturbingly, Syria continues to be liquidated of its Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities (or really anyone desiring a pluralistic and relatively secular nationalistic public order) — a reality that was set in motion near the very beginning of armed uprising in Syria. America, NATO, and Arab Gulf countries continue to give political and material support to a Syrian “rebel” movement that is bent on exterminating Christians, Alawites, Shiites, Druze, and Muslims that don’t share the same radical ideology. One popular chant which throughout the war has been routinely echoed in rebel-dominated areas of Syria is “Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the grave… .” Sadly, the seemingly endless number of takfiri insurgent groups unleashed on Syria have tried to make good on that promise.
Pre-war Syria was certainly not ideal; but the fruit of revolution — a country thrown into a state of utter chaos and destruction, cyclic violence, and economic ruin for at least years to come — has revealed itself to be, for most common sense people, the greatest of all possible evils.
* * *
Brad Hoff served as a Marine from 2000–2004 at Headquarters Battalion, Quantico. After military service he lived, studied, and traveled throughout Syria off and on from 2004–2010.
- Hong Kong Women Left Unsatisfied By "Grass-Eating" Sexless Nerds
Last month we told you about China’s record-low fertility rate and social stigma around having a large family. Today, we bring you another aspect of that equation; lame, feminized Chinese men who refuse to step up their game and get laid.
Yes, Hong Kong is suffering from an army of loners – estimated at 20,000 to 40,000 strong – usually in their 20’s and 30’s, who are choosing video games, anime and internet porn over wives, sex and the inevitable children that follow.
We can blame the prevalence of smartphones, laptops, computers, tablets and other electronic devices. We can even blame it on e-sports, a new pseudo sport that is sweeping the city with government backing. It can also be interpreted as another excuse for people to submerge themselves in the digital world rather than experience the real word. –SCMP
These sexless men are known as “otaku,” – a Japanese term for socially awkward gents who have isolated themselves from their families and romantic prospects alike. “[T]hese “geeks” tend to be diehard anime and manga fans who have little interest in dating,” writes Luisa Tam in the South China Morning Post.
Taking it one step further are the “soshoku danshi,” which translates to “grass-eating men” or “herbivore men” – a term coined by Japanese columnist Maki Fukasawa who describes these particular isolationists as having a “monk-like approach to life and relationships,” which of course includes no sex.
Studies in Japan estimate that this class of men, normally in their 20s and 30s, account for around 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the male population. Obviously, their reluctance to procreate is a major cause for concern. Japan has had one of lowest birth rates in the world for nearly a decade now. –SCMP
Hong Kong has seen a sharp rise in the number of “grass-eating men,” according to Dr. Paul Wong Wai-ching, associate professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at hte University of Hong Kong.
According to Dr Paul Wong Wai-ching, associate professor of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong, the city has seen a rise in the number of “grass-eating men”.
“These herbivore men don’t connect with others, they don’t establish their own families or have children and don’t really contribute anything meaningful to society, either tangibly or intangibly,” says Wong. “They are like parasites who often live with their parents. So you can imagine how it’s going to affect society in the long run, socially and economically.”
Wai-ching notes that similar to Japan, China’s society is aging. “These ‘grass-eating men’ are not capable of taking care of their ageing parents and neither are they capable of taking care of themselves when they become old, they are childless so they will have no family support,” he says.
Another type of man you won’t be finding on any dating apps are the “modern-day hermits”. They seek extreme disconnection and isolation from the rest of society, they become practically invisible. This phenomenon is triggered by an overburdened sense of responsibility, and when the pressure becomes too unbearable it causes the person to pull away and unplug from society in a kind of self-imposed exile.
What’s worse, after a long period of social detachment, these men lose their social skills – affecting their ability to find employment. This, as Tam writes, has a domino effect of creating youths who are financially dependent on family and friends – jobless and lacking in drive. This vicious cycle leads to a failure to launch – leaving many of these “otaku” without long term relationships, romantic or friend-based.
A recent study found that cows form relationships and even have best friends. When separated from their best friend, their milk production was affected and they showed a change in personality.
Think about it, if these bovine grass-eaters showed signs of emotional distress because of a lack of emotional contact, how will human “grass eaters” fare if they shut themselves off from human contact?
Forget the nerds, China’s already in big trouble…
According to the Wall Street Journal, “China’s clinging to birth restrictions defies a clear demographic trend: Its workforce is shrinking and the population is rapidly aging. By 2050, there will be 1.3 workers for each retiree, according to official estimates, compared with 2.8 now,” adding “No matter what the government does now, it is too late to significantly change the overall trend because of social attitudes”
President Xi Jinping has acknowledged the need to breed – stating in 2015 that China needs more births.
Meanwhile, China’s one-child policy, and now two-child policy, has conditioned the population to shun large families.
In a generation that grew up without siblings, a one-child mind-set is deeply entrenched. Maternity-leave policies have been expanded but some women say taking leave twice is a career impediment. An All-China Women’s Federation survey found 53% of respondents with one child didn’t want a second.
Even without birth limits, China’s economic development would have reduced fertility rates, says Martin Whyte, a Harvard University Chinese-studies expert. That has been the pattern elsewhere in the world: When incomes rise, the sizes of families tend to go down. –WSJ
If the nation drops birth policies now, says Whyte, “China will learn what many other countries have learned—that it is much more difficult to get people to have more babies” than to force them to stop having them.
“I think Xi’s views about demography are clear: He considers population more as a resource than a burden,” said Huang Wenzheng, a researcher at the Center for China and Globalization, a Beijing-based independent think tank, and a co-founder of a hedge-fund firm that invests globally. “But of course he cannot easily abandon the family-planning policy because that would be a sharp turn away from his predecessors’ policies.”
How is this happening?
- Why America Is Heading Straight Toward The Worst Debt Crisis In History
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
Today, America is nearly 70 trillion dollars in debt, and that debt is shooting higher at an exponential rate.
Usually most of the focus in on the national debt, which is now 21 trillion dollars and rising, but when you total all forms of debt in our society together it comes to a grand total just short of 70 trillion dollars. Many people seem to believe that the debt imbalances that existed prior to the great financial crisis of 2008 have been solved, but that is not the case at all. We are living in the terminal phase of the greatest debt bubble in history, and with each passing day that mountain of debt just keeps on getting bigger and bigger.
It simply is not mathematically possible for debt to keep on growing at a pace that is many times greater than GDP growth, and at some point this absurd bubble will come to an abrupt end. So those that are forecasting many years of prosperity to come are simply being delusional. Our current standard of living is very heavily fueled by debt, and at some point we are going to hit a wall.
Let’s talk about consumer debt first. Excluding mortgage debt, consumer debt is projected to hit the 4 trillion dollar mark by the end of the year…
Americans are in a borrowing mood, and their total tab for consumer debt could reach a record $4 trillion by the end of 2018.
That’s according to LendingTree, a loan comparison website, which analyzed data from the Federal Reserve on nonmortgage debts including credit cards, and auto, personal and student loans.
Americans owe more than 26 percent of their annual income to this debt. That’s up from 22 percent in 2010. It’s also higher than debt levels during the mid-2000s when credit availability soared.
We have never seen this level of consumer debt before in all of U.S. history. Just a few days ago I wrote about how tens of millions of Americans are living on the edge financially, and this is yet more evidence to back up that claim.
Right now, Americans owe more than a trillion dollars on auto loans, and we are clearly in the greatest auto loan debt bubble that we have ever seen.
Americans also owe more than a trillion dollars on their credit cards, and credit card delinquency rates are rising. In fact, in some ways what we witnessed during the first quarter of 2018 was quite reminiscent of the peak of the last financial crisis…
In the first quarter, the delinquency rate on credit-card loan balances at commercial banks other than the largest 100 – so at the 4,788 smaller banks in the US – spiked in to 5.9%. This exceeds the peak during the Financial Crisis. The credit-card charge-off rate at these banks spiked to 8%. This is approaching the peak during the Financial Crisis.
The student loan debt bubble has also surpassed a trillion dollars, and the average young adult with student loan debt has a negative net worth…
Despite economic and stock market gains over the past nine years, many young adults are still struggling to get ahead in their financial lives and, in some ways, things may have actually gotten worse.
Americans age 25 to 34 with college degrees and student debt have a median net wealth of negative $1,900, according to a report analyzing 2016 Federal Reserve data released Thursday by Young Invincibles, a young adult advocacy group. That’s a drop of $9,000 from 2013, YI’s analysis found.
Meanwhile, corporate debt has doubled since the last financial crisis. Thousands of companies are so highly leveraged that even a slight economic downturn could completely wipe them out.
State and local government debt levels are also at record highs, but nobody seems to care. And if we never have another recession everything might work out okay.
The biggest offender of all, of course, is the United States federal government. We have been adding about a trillion dollars a year to the national debt since Barack Obama first entered the White House, and Goldman Sachs is projecting that number will surpass 2 trillion dollars by 2028…
The fiscal outlook for the United States “is not good,” according to Goldman Sachs, and could pose a threat to the country’s economic security during the next recession.
According to forecasts from the bank’s chief economist, the federal deficit will increase from $825 billion (or 4.1 percent of gross domestic product) to $1.25 trillion (5.5 percent of GDP) by 2021. And by 2028, the bank expects the number to balloon to $2.05 trillion (7 percent of GDP).
Our national debt has been growing at an exponential rate for decades, and because total disaster has not struck yet many people seem to believe that we can keep on doing this.
But the truth is that it simply is not possible. There is only so much debt that a society can take on before the entire system implodes.
So how close are we to that point?
The following chart comes from Charles Hugh Smith, and it shows the exponential rise in overall debt levels that has taken us to the brink of nearly 70 trillion dollars in debt…
And this next chart from the SRSrocco Report shows how our rate of overall debt growth has compared to our rate of GDP growth…
We are literally on a path to national suicide.
Whether it happens next month, next year or five years from now, it is inevitable that we are going to slam into a brick wall of financial reality.
For the moment, the only way that we can continue to enjoy our current debt-fueled standard of living is to continue increasing our debt bubble at an exponential rate.
But that can only go on for so long, and when the party ends we are going to experience the greatest debt crisis in history.
Today, the average American household is nearly $140,000 in debt, and that is more than double median household income. And if we were to include each household’s share of corporate debt, local government debt, state government debt and federal government debt, that number would be many times higher.
All of this debt will never be repaid. Ultimately there will come a day when the system will completely collapse under the weight of so much debt, and most Americans are completely unaware that such a day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
