Today’s News 18th April 2018

  • Tech Firms Promise To Fight Back Against Government Spying

    In an announcement ostensibly meant to put Russian and Chinese hackers on notice – but we imagine is truly intended to reassure wary foreign customers that American cloud computing firms wont’ turn their data over to the NSA – 31 tech titans from around the world (but mostly the US) have signed on to a set of principles stipulating that they will not help any government – including the US deep state – mount cyberattacks or cyberespionage against “innocent civilians and enterprises from anywhere,” the New York Times reported.

    The publication of these principles follows a first-of-its-kind joint condemnation on Monday from American and British officials that placed the blame for nefarious cyberactivity squarely on Russia’s shoulders.

    Here’s Reuters:

    The Cybersecurity Tech Accord, which vows to protect all customers from attacks regardless of geopolitical or criminal motive, follows a year that witnessed an unprecedented level of destructive cyber attacks, including the global WannaCry worm and the devastating NotPetya attack.

    The principles are intended to be the cornerstone of an eventual “Geneva Convention for the Internet” that would strictly limit how governments can conduct cyberespionage and cyberwarfare.

    On Monday, American and British officials issued a first-of-its-kind joint warning about years of cyberattacks emanating from Russia, aimed not only at businesses and utilities but, in some cases, individuals and small enterprises. The warning was only the latest in a series about Russian threats to elections and electoral systems.

    But thanks to some of the documents stolen by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the public understands that the US is extremely guilty of browbeating tech firms into cooperating with its intelligence agencies, according to the New York Times.

    Perhaps as important, none of the signers come from the countries viewed as most responsible for what Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president, called in an interview “the devastating attacks of the past year.” Those came chiefly from Russia, North Korea, Iran and, to a lesser degree, China.

    ….

    The impetus for the effort came largely from Mr. Smith, who has been arguing for several years that the world needs a “digital Geneva Convention” that sets norms of behavior for cyberspace just as the Geneva Conventions set rules for the conduct of war in the physical world. Although there was some progress in setting basic norms of behavior in cyberspace through a United Nations-organized group of experts several years ago, the movement has since faltered.

    Mr. Smith said over the weekend that the first move needed to come from the American companies that often find themselves acting as the “first responders” when cyberattacks hit their customers. “This has become a much bigger problem, and I think what we have learned in the past few years is that we need to work together in much bigger ways,” Mr. Smith said in an interview. “We need to approach this in a principled way, and if we expect to get governments to do that, we have to start with some principles ourselves.”

    Microsoft played a central role in trying to extinguish the WannaCry attack last year that struck the British health care system and companies around the world. The Trump administration, along with several other Western governments, later blamed that attack on North Korea. Last summer the NotPetya attack struck Ukraine, crippling systems throughout the country. Iran is suspected in a recent attack on a Saudi petrochemical plant.

    Yet not all governments are likely to embrace the “Cybersecurity Tech Accord” in part because the principles it espouses can run headlong into their own, usually secret efforts to develop cyberweapons.

    According to Microsoft President Brad Smith, who led efforts to organize the alliance, several high-profile cyberattacks from 2017 demonstrated the need for the technology sector to “take a principled path toward more effective steps to work together and defend customers around the world,” per Reuters. Microsoft and – how’s this for irony? – Facebook are leading the project.

    While the accord promised to establish new formal and informal partnerships within the industry and with security researchers to share threats and coordinate vulnerability disclosures, several major US tech companies including Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Twitter didn’t sign on. And for those that did, Reuters notes that “it was not clear whether any companies would change their existing policies as a result of joining the accord.”

    With this in mind, will the CTA ensure that US tech firms will do everything in their power to rebuff not only hackers but intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA?

    Or is this essentially a marketing ploy for the US cloud-computing industry?

  • The Neocons' Real Plan For Syria Emerges From The Lack Of Rubble

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    I told you over the weekend that Trump’s presidency was over.  As a practical matter it is.  His yielding to his ‘advisors’ on every foreign policy issue makes it clear that he can’t or won’t stand up to the relentless pressure to do what his instincts tell him.

    This morning’s article at the Deep State Washington Post paints a very clear picture of what the situation is.  The advisors whose loyalties are dubious run the show.  Their thinking has not evolved one whit from previous administrations.

    Remember what Russian President Vladimir Putin always says, “Presidents change. Policies do not.”

    Case in point they manipulated Trump into over-reacting to the Skripal poisoning by ousting 60 Russian diplomats, even though Trump clearly wanted to match Germany and France.

    The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of Russians as its European allies — part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.

    “We’ll match their numbers,” Trump instructed, according to a senior administration official. “We’re not taking the lead. We’re matching.”

    The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials — far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.

    You can almost see the evil glee on the part of the WaPo writer and Trump’s staffers who misled him into signing an order they knew he disagreed with.

    And this is why Trump is not president currently.  This is not the first time he’s been backed into a bad decision by the nest of vipers in his administration.

    And he won’t be until he removes the worst people from his cabinet.  Unfortunately, the trend on that front is definitely not our friend.

    Tillerson out. Pompeo promoted.  McMaster out (who was awful), John Bolton in (who is worse).

    So, now that the WaPo is writing victory lap articles for the the Deep State in neutering Trump, let’s talk about where this is headed in regards to this weekend’s attack on Syria.

    Target: Iran

    I’ll get right to the point.  This attack was all about the long-game of taking down Iran.

    Israel is desperate to prevent Iran from remaining in Syria after the war is over. And with good reason.  That’s the prime motivation for their actions.  But, on top of that is the need or the desire to always go farther, to take more than they should and use U.S. assets to achieve those goals which are in no one’s best interests, including Israel’s.

    Because despite the rhetoric spewing forth from Lil’ Miss AIPAC, Nikki Haley, a failed state in Syria is not good for Israel.  A beaten and cowed Russia is not good for the world.  And yet, that is exactly the policy that wing of the Trump administration is pushing him to pursue.

    Now, if they can’t get that because Gen. James Mattis isn’t a moron, then the next best thing is to prolong the war in Syria for as long as possible.  Why?

    To bleed Iran white.  To fight a war it can’t afford and keep its best military units and commanders bound down in Syria and not have them return home to help maintain order.

    Events in April are happening quickly.  First, Iran bans the use of dollars internally.  And, predictably, the Iranian Riyal blows up versus the dollar.  Second, the U.S. pushes for much stricter sanctions on both Russia and Iran.

    Iranians can’t get dollars and are, again, being cut off from international trade as sanctions create even more uncertainty on the ground there.

    At the same time, President Rouhani’s economic reforms are, at best, slow to improve things.  This was the source of the protests that rocked the nation in December, which U.S. and Saudi NGOs tried to fan into a revolution.  Russia is finding it harder to move money around internationally and the U.S. is putting massive pressure on Europe not to do business with Iran.

    However, the Italians blocked even stricter sanctions on Iran, so the revolt in Europe is gaining strength.  And that’s going to become a bigger part of this narrative as 2018 barrels ahead.

    The goal, of course, is to foment an overthrow of the current Iranian government through external pressure.  And Iran’s support of Syria is a pressure point in that campaign now.

    The Empire Strikes Back

    The U.S. claims this strike was to end Assad’s future use of chemical weapons, which the Russians say they have irrefutable proof didn’t even occur this time.

    That’s the story being sold to what’s left of Trump’s base, the MAGA-drones who can’t accept that he’s not actually running the country despite his public persona to the contrary.

    By prolonging the war you bleed out an already bleeding Iranian economy and treasury.  This is why, I think, the U.S. is hell-bent on staying in Syria even though Assad has, for all intents and purposes, won.

    The strikes from this weekend were intended to do much more damage than they did.  The U.S. Military’s presser on Friday after the attack was purposeful disinformation.  They only admitted to attacking three sites, all of which were empty and obliterated.

    But what about the airstrikes on no less than four Syrian airfields, including Al-Shairat (again)?

    No mention of those.

    Because they didn’t succeed.

    Now, certainly salt this report to taste but there is a major kernel of truth uncovered by it.  The U.S. intended to knock out a major portion of the Syrian Air Force with this strike and failed spectacularly.

    Assad’s air force has been one of the most effective parts of the war against the insurgents in Syria.  They are doing what the U.S. leadership says is their goal in Syria, to end the threat of ISIS.

    So, it makes less than zero sense for them to then attack Syrian air fields to show Assad it will not accept his using chemical weapons in doing so.

    Something doesn’t add up.  And, of course, we’ve known this from the beginning, but now the Russians and Syrians are providing proof of these inconsistencies if only the American people will engage with them.

    If the U.S. didn’t do this to just knock out Syria’s CW capability then it must have had a much, much larger goal.

    And that goal is Iran.

    War Without End

    The hope is that Syria will go on long enough and cost the Iranians enough that it will destabilize the country and force an overthrow of the Mullahs. 

    There comes a point where guns meet butter.

    This strategy is consistent with the thinking of the Neocon/Deep State trolls in charge at the White House.  It makes sense strategically to a guy like Mattis who knows Syria cannot become a truly failed state lest the entire region go off the rails, but at the same time wants a much different Iran.

    Putin and Xi will not play along with this and will move to strengthen Iran’s money situation through increased oil revenue.  The Saudis’ pushing this escalation behind the scenes will put them in a bind when China finally says, “Nope. Not paying for your oil with dollars anymore. In fact, we’re not buying oil from you period.”

    At that point the real chaos is unleashed.  Never forget that the Russians can withstand lower oil prices better than any producer.  China is the marginal buyer of Saudi oil and the Saudis are becoming less important to them by the day.

    Trump was forced to voice in his speech on Friday an overt plea to Putin to give up his alliance with China and Iran, abandon Syria and some of his transgressions will be forgiven.

    Trump didn’t believe those words anymore than I did, but watching him confirmed for me that he knows there will not be peace any time soon.  That he’s not up to the task of resisting the pressure.

    Just as I said this weekend to the dismay of many, including myself.  What it revealed was that no matter who wins, the world loses.

    *  *  *

    To Support work like this and to see its continued presence in debunking the War of the Narratives, please pledge at my Patreon page and get access to both my Private Blog as well as the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter.

  • Chinese Stocks Slump To 2018 Lows As LatAm Markets Soar

    Authored by Steven Vannelli via Knowledge Leaders Capital blog,

    Last night the China Shanghai CSI 300 index fell a bit more than 1.6%, taking out February lows and setting a new YTD low for the index. This is important since the global equity markets have a very high correlation to Chinese stocks. In the chart below, I compare our KLSU Americas Index (top 85% of developed market cap, USD) to the China CSI 300 Index (in USD). With a correlation in excess of 80%, this suggests that Chinese stocks explain a little more than two-thirds of the movement in developed Americas stocks.

    The stats are similar if we compare Chinese stocks to developed Europe and Asia. Developed Asia is already at YTD lows, so this move in Chinese stocks may confirm a downside breakout.

    Turning to the emerging markets, there are a couple interesting divergences. In the chart below, I show our KLSU EM EMEA Index (top 85% of market cap, in USD) compared to Chinese stocks. While the correlation is bit lower, the trend seems to be the same, with stocks breaking down.

    Emerging Asia has by far the highest correlation to Chinese stocks, suggesting the moves in EM Asia are overwhelmingly dominated by the performance of Chinese stocks.

    Emerging Latin America is the real outlier here. Not only is the correlation the lowest among all DM/EM regions, our KLSU EM Americas Index is up over 7% YTD (in USD), making it the best performing region in the world equity markets.

    Perhaps the performance of Chinese and EM Americas stocks can be explained by the rise in oil prices. In the charts below, I show a few of the JP Morgan Government Bond Indexes of various Latin American countries (in USD). Performance is highly positively correlated to oil prices in Chile, Colombia and Brazil.

    All of this adds up to a growing preference for EM Americas stocks and bonds as oil prices march upward. For those that may not be able to access Latin American bonds directly, the Van Eck JP Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) could make sense.

    Today EMLC may make more sense than the iShares Bloomberg Barclays EM Local Bond ETF (EBND) because it has a much higher weighting to Latin American countries.

    The EBND also has a much higher weighting to Asian bonds, which brings us back to the observation that Asian stocks are making new lows while Latin American stocks and bonds are making new highs.

  • "Once Upon A Time; Long, Long Ago, Truth Was Important…"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    I wonder how many people, not just Americans but those in other countries, have come to the conclusion that the United States today is a less free and less aware society than the societies in the dystopian novels of the 20th century or in movies such as The Matrix and V for Vendetta.

    Just as people in the dystopian novels had no idea of their real situation, few Americans do either.

    What are we to make of the extraordinary war crimes committed by the United States in the 21st century that have destroyed in whole or part seven countries, resulting in millions of dead, maimed, orphaned, and displaced peoples? Consider, for example, the latest Washington war crime, the illegal attack on Syria. Instead of protesting this illegality, the American media egged it on, cheering impending death and destruction.

    During the entirety of the 21st century, Israel, Washington’s only ally—as contrasted with the European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassal states of Washington’s empire—has continued with Washington’s support, protection, and encouragement the genocide of the Palestinian people. Essentially, all that is left of Palestine is a ghetto concentration camp known as Gaza which is routinely bombed by Israel using weapons and money supplied by Washington. When a bombing of Gaza is announced, God’s Chosen People take their lawn chairs and picnics up on a hill overlooking Gaza and applaud as the Israeli military murders women and children. This is America’s only ally.

    The crimes committed by the US and Israel are horrific, but meet with little opposition. In contrast, an alleged attack in which 70 Syrians are alleged to have died sets in motion the wheels of war. It makes no sense whatsoever. Israel routinely bombs Syrian targets, killing Syrians, and the US arms and supports the “rebels” that the Obama regime sent to overthrow Assad, resulting in large numbers of dead Syrians. Why all of a sudden do 70 Syrians matter to Washington?

    According to the Washington authorities, or to the presstitutes’ reports of their statements, two or three alleged Syrian chemical weapons facilities were destroyed by Washington’s missile attack.

    Before…

    After…

    Think about this for a minute. If Washington bombed or sent missiles into chemical weapons facilities, a vast cloud of lethal gas would have been released. The civilian casualties would be many times higher than the claimed 70 victims of Assad’s alleged and unsubstantiated chemical attack used as the pretext for the Trump regime’s war crime against Syria. There is no evidence whatsoever of these casualties.

    Had there been casualties, Washington’s attack would obviously be a far greater crime than the chemical attack that Washington used as cover for its own crime. Yet the American presstitutes are crowing over the lesson that America has taught Syria and Russia. Apparently, the American media consists of such immoral or moronic hirelings that the presstitutes are unable to comprehend that an attack by Washington on Syrian chemical weapons plants, if such actually existed, is the equivalent of an attack on Syria with chemical weapons.

    As I wrote yesterday, when I was a Wall Street Journal editor, if Washington had just announced that it had bombed the chemical weapons facilities of another country in punishment for that country’s alleged use of a chemical weapon, the Journal’s reporters were sufficiently intelligent to ask where are the victims of Washington’s chemical attack on that country?

    Are there thousands of dead people from the chemical gas released by Washington’s attack? Are the hospitals of the country over-filed with the injured and dying?

    If a reporter had brought to us a story that was nothing but a Washington press release claiming obviously impossible happenings, we would have told him to go look again and ask the obvious questions. Today the NY Times and Washington Post put the unsubstantiated report on the front page.

    Today reporters no longer have to check sources, because there is no longer journalism in America. When the Clinton regime in compliance with the Deep State that made the Clintons super-rich permitted 90% of the independent and diverse US media to be concentrated in the hands of six political companies, that was the end of journalism in America. All we have now is a propaganda ministry that lies for a living. Anyone in American journalism who tells the truth is either immediately fired or in the case of Tucker Carlson at Fox News is set upon by outside presstitutes in an effort to force Fox to replace him. I wonder how long before some woman pops up and claims Tucker Carlson sexually harassed her.

    As far as I can tell, the United States is now a police state in which all information is controlled and the population is trained to believe the propaganda or be accused of lack of patriotism and consorting with terrorists and Russians.

  • And America's Richest Zip Code Is…

    The most exclusive zip code in America isn’t where you’d think it is.

    It’s not in Connecticut’s Fairfield County – famous for being a haven for old-money WASPs and, increasingly, America’ nouveau riche. It’s not Berkeley or Palo Alto or some other piece of the Bay Area, where economic inequality is among the worst in the country.

    Instead, it’s in South Florida, not far from Miami. The place is called Fisher Island, and with an average income of $2.5 millionbeating the second-richest zip code by $1 million – it’s the wealthiest zip code in the country, according to recently released IRS data that was reviewed and analyzed by Bloomberg. The study included more than 22,000 eligible zip codes.

    The average income in Fisher Island, zip code 33109, was $2.5 million in 2015, according to a Bloomberg analysis of 2015 Internal Revenue Service data. That’s $1 million more than the second-place spot, held by zip code 94027 in Silicon Valley, also known as the City of Atherton on the San Francisco Peninsula. The area’s neighbors include Stanford University and Menlo Park, home to Facebook and various tech companies. While the IRS data only provide the averages of tax returns, which can be skewed by outliers, Fisher Island is the only zip code in the Bloomberg analysis where more than half of all tax returns showed an income of over $200,000.

    Fisher Island stands out for several reasons. For example, not only is it the highest earning zip code in the US, but it’s also an outlier in Bloomberg’s list because nearly all the other top spots are occupied by zip codes in the Greater New York metro area or the Bay Area. It’s also notable for its thematic consistency.

    Fisher

    Typically high cost of living makes wealthy zip codes inaccessible to poorer individuals and families. But not only is this true of the zip code’s property values, it’s also true for another reason: Fisher Island is surrounded by water and it’s extremely difficult for outsiders to travel there.

    Chart

    Palm Beach (home of  President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club) and Naples were the only other two Florida zip codes that made the top 20. Meanwhile, certain suburbs of Seattle, Philadelphia, Chicago and Boston also ranked high on the list.

    Many of the taxpayers living on Fisher Island were able to carve out more in itemized deductions from their tax bill than most Americans can affthan Taxpayers on Fisher Island also managed to carve out an average of $448,100 in itemized deductions last spring when they were settling up with Uncle Sam.

    Still, Fisher Island’s deductions were smaller than the average deduction for high net worth individuals across the US – though BBG attributed this to the fact that Florida doesn’t have an income tax, so Fisher Island residents have less to deduct.

    The zip code that took the most advantage of tax deductions in 2015 was 94301 in Palo Alto, California, where the average deduction was $491,600. Fisher Island had smaller average deductions relative to its income size than other zip codes and that’s likely because Florida has no income tax, so its residents can’t take deductions from that category. On the other hand, California has a top marginal income tax rate of 13.3 percent, the highest in the country.

    But deductions for the very wealthy could look a lot different this year because of the new tax cut legislation, according to Falanga.

    Deductions for state and local income tax have been curtailed to a maximum of $10,000. Before the new legislation, these deductions were unlimited. Limits on charitable contribution deductions have increased to 60 percent of gross income from 50 percent. That is just for cash contributions and does not include foundations, stocks, or artwork, which have different hurdles, said Falanga.

    Of course, residents of wealthy zip codes across the US are about to take a financial hit from President Trump’s tax overhaul plan because many of these areas are situated in blue states with high local taxes. The Trump tax plan dramatically curtailed deductions for state and local taxes, imposing a cap of $10,000 when previously these deductions had been unlimited.

    But here’s another advantage for Fisher Island is it’s in reliably low-tax Florida.

    “I haven’t seen them change, but they have been curious about what’s going on,” Falanga said. “And to a certain extent, some of them will be paying more.”

    But one thing is for certain: Whatever the impact is, it will be much less impactful than it will be for residents of other tony enclaves like – for example – Greenwich, Conn., where the tax law and shifting tastes are creating some of the most adverse market conditions since the financial crisis.

    With that in mind, we wouldn’t be surprised to see an exodus of HNW snowbirds making the journey as a move to sunny Florida looks increasingly appealing by the day.

  • Employee Of Bombed Syrian Research Site Says No Chemicals Released Is Proof None Existed

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    An employee of the chemical research center which was bombed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France says that no chemicals were released during the strike that leveled the building. 

    That’s incredibly important proof that no chemical weapons were actually there, he said.

    Said Said, an engineer at the Scientific Research Center facility, told RT Arabic that the very fact that no chemicals were released during the strike should serve as evidence that no chemical weapons program was run at the site.

     “You can see for yourself that nothing has happened. I’ve been here since 5:00 a.m. No signs of weapons-grade chemicals, he said.

    The researcher said he had worked at the facility for decades, and it used to develop medicine and household chemicals.

    Before…

    After…

    The West is alleging Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader used chemical weapons on civilians to justify military attacks on Damascus and Homs.  But interestingly enough, those strikes occurred the day before international investigators were scheduled to arrive to conduct a thorough inspection of the site. 

    The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had visited the site several times and never found any traces of banned chemicals. Since Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention under a deal brokered by Russia and the US in 2013, the UN chemical watchdog repeatedly confirmed its full compliance with its obligations to dismantle and remove its chemical stockpiles. In June 2014, the OPCW declared Syria free of chemical weapons.

    On April 12, even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the US government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used, that he was still looking for evidence. Yet the bombing happened anyway.

    We even provided them [OPCW] with a special place where they could collect and pack test samples taken during the inspection,” Said told RTThe inspectors would stay in the rooms on the upper floor and use the laboratory equipment, and the staff was cooperating with them completely.”

    Being a civilian research center, the staff did not believe it would be identified as the primary target for an attack. As we work in civilian pharmaceutical and chemical research, we did not expect that we would be hit, Said told AFP. The allegations that that Barzeh was an integral part of Syria’s chemical program were totally incorrect,” he stressed, speaking to CBS News.

    Reports by the UN’s chemical watchdog, the latest of which was filed just a month ago, suggest Said is correct, and there are no chemical weapons at the facility.  The report on the first inspection that was conducted between February 26  and March 5, 2017, says that “the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention, noting that Damascus had provided unimpeded access to the inspectors “to all selected areas.”

    The follow-up inspection, carried out in November, did not find any incriminating evidence either. The March 2018 report reiterates: As stated in previous reports, all of the chemicals declared by the Syrian Arab Republic that were removed from its territory in 2014 have now been destroyed.”

  • The Death Of Retail Real Estate Continues: 77MM Sq.Ft Of Shopping Space Closed In 2018 Already

    Retail real estate carnage is going to continue this year with no signs of slowing up, as Bloomberg reported this morning that over 77 million square feet of retail real estate has closed this year and that 2018 will easily pass 2017’s record of 105 million square feet closed. The latest example was the fall of the once massive Toys ‘R’ Us name:

    The fall of the Toys “R” Us chain, with more than 700 U.S. stores, shows how much retail real estate has changed in just the last decade. When KKR & Co.Bain Capital, and Vornado Realty Trust took over the company in 2005, the buyers justified the $7.5 billion price, in part, because of the supposedly valuable properties that came with the deal.

    If there was ever to be any silver lining to the complete carnage in the retail real estate space, it was the argument that has been perpetuated over the last decade or so: despite retail stores closing, the real estate would eventually be worth something.

    This argument was made by real estate investment trusts as well as activist investors and analysts who tried to put a positive spin on the death of brick and mortar retail. Now, with more space freeing up, the bid under former retail property is at ask of falling off as supply is starting to get far ahead of demand:

    Real estate can put a floor under the value of a retailer and make it easier for the company to borrow. Maybe a particular store concept doesn’t work out as consumers’ tastes change, but in that case, investors can always sell the land and buildings to someone with a better plan. Long-term leases can be similarly valuable. But what if the problem isn’t that a particular store is out of fashion, but that consumers are just shopping less at brick-and-mortar retailers in general? As more storefronts empty, the valuation floor will look wobblier.

    This pace of closings puts 2018 on pace to pass 2017’s record of 105 million square feet of retail space closed:

    At last count, U.S. store closures announced this year reached a staggering 77 million square feet, according to data on national and regional chains compiled by CoStar Group Inc. That means retailers are well on their way to surpassing the record 105 million square feet announced for closure in all of 2017.

    It doesn’t look like the pace of these closings is going to slow anytime soon, either:

    And with shifts to internet shopping and retailer debt woes continuing, there’s no indication the shakeout will end anytime soon. “A huge amount of retail real estate in the U.S. is going to meet its demise,” says James Corl, managing director and head of real estate at private equity firm Siguler Guff & Co. Property owners will “try to re-let it as a gun range or a church—or it’s going to go back to being a cornfield.”

    So goes one set of stores, as go others. Despite the fact that the U.S. still has some of the most square footage of shopping space per person, there isn’t enough being spent at these locations to make them worth it:

    Even though retailers have been retreating for years, the country still has about 24 square feet of shopping space per person, many times more than any other developed nation, according to research firm Green Street Advisors. Consumers aren’t spending enough offline to support such a generous amount. Vacancies are headaches for landlords, of course, but they also have a mushrooming effect. People may steer clear of a mall that has lost an anchor tenant or has an abundance of “for lease” signs in smaller spaces. Deserted big-box stores, their facades naked and parking lots barren, can spread a sense of blight for blocks around. Who wants to open a business next to a place that’s gone out of business?


    The article finishes by pointing out that companies like Amazon and Whole Foods have still seen success using a brick-and-mortar retail concept. It’s possible that the space is simply just downsizing and becoming more efficient instead of disappearing entirely. Regardless, there seems to be a long runway to go in terms of retail real estate freeing up over the next couple of years. The trend of internet versus department stores also remains anything but encouraging. 

    And the outlook, with overlevered companies and lack of a serious bid under property prices, continues to look grim. Retailers are not going to be able to refi or recapitalize in ways necessary to try and grab onto lifelines. As the sector continues to collapse it’s going to be harder and harder to try and engineer turnarounds – this could lead to a self fulfilling prophecy of accelerating turmoil and collapse for the industry:

    But not every deserted retail property can be turned into a gym, theater, or boutique outlet of a tech company. That reality will weigh on any investor thinking about scooping up a struggling chain with real estate assets today—especially buyers in private equity, who borrow heavily to finance their deals. “Retailers cannot support large debt loads,” says Perry Mandarino, head of restructuring at B. Riley FBR, an investment bank that’s worked on retail liquidations. “Add to that the possibility of a decrease in the value of other collateral, such as real estate, and the successful execution of a retail-leveraged buyout may be almost impossible.”

    Almost a year ago to the day, we reported on retail closing setting up to hit a scorching pace in 2017. The narrative for 2018 stays the same, only worse. In early 2017 we pointed out the astonishing fact that “Barely a quarter into 2017, year-to-date retail store closings had already surpassed those of 2008.” 

    We asked in early 2017 if Amazon was assured of becoming the world’s first trillion-dollar stock, perhaps hitting the milestone even before Apple? Here is how the two names have fared since then:

    The race is on.

    Others have given up waiting for a recovery that seems always out of reach and are settling into what appears to be the new normal – but regardless, 2018 is setting up to, one again, break new ground in misery for retail real estate. 

  • 5 Fast Facts About The Federal Judge In Michael Cohen's Case (And Why Trump Should Be Worried)

    Submitted by Ann of The Political Insider

    Federal Judge Kimba Wood will be overseeing the court case against President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. Here are five facts about Judge Wood – and why Trump should be very worried.

    1. She was President Bill Clinton’s pick for Attorney General in 1993

    President Bill Clinton nominated Wood to become the first female Attorney General. In fact, Wood was hand-picked by Hillary Clinton, who had been asked to submit a list of possible nominees for her husband’s consideration. However, Wood withdrew from the nomination after the White House learned about her brief time as a Playboy Bunny – and that she employed an illegal alien as a nanny. Further, Wood actually helped the nanny to illegally remain in the country by paying taxes for her.

    2. She trained as a Playboy Bunny

    The daughter of a U.S. Army career officer and speechwriter, Wood spent much of her childhood and young adulthood in Europe. While studying at the London School of Economics in the 1960s, she trained for a few days as a croupier at a Playboy Bunny casino, but quit because “she thought the gig was silly.” Nevertheless, the job would haunt her in her later career and played a role in costing her the position of Attorney General.

    3. She had an extramarital affair that earned her the nickname the “Love Judge”

    Wood might be a judge, but her personal past indicates that her moral scruples are lacking. In 1995 at the age of 51, Wood began an affair with married multimillionaire Wall Street financier Frank Richardson. The affair was uncovered by Richardson’s wife when she found passionate passages written about Wood in Richardson’s diary. The tryst earned Wood the nickname the “Love Judge” during Richardson’s divorce trial. Wood married Richardson in 1999.

    4. She officiated George Soros’s wedding

    Wood officiated the 2013 wedding of notorious liberal billionaire George Soros. At the time, Soros was 83 and his bride, Tamiko Bolton, was 42. Numerous prominent liberals attended the wedding, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and then-California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome. In lieu of wedding gifts, the couple asked that donations be made to several organizations including Planned Parenthood and Global Witness, an environmental activist group.

    5. She doesn’t believe in attorney-client privilege

    During Cohen’s hearing on Monday, Wood forced Cohen to expose the identity of a previously unnamed client. That client turned out to be none other than Fox News host Sean Hannity, who maintains that he only asked Cohen for legal advice as a friend and never retained or paid him for any legal services.

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

    As many people have pointed out, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

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

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

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

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

    Has the deep state ever been more obvious than it is now?

  • Mattis Wanted Congressional Approval Before Syria Strike, Was Overruled By Trump

    Confirming our report from Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis favored a more cautious approach to the Syria situation but was overruled by President Trump as well as other notable neocons interested in an immediate strike – including brand new National Security Advisor John Bolton, administration officials told the New York Times.

    Mr. Mattis pushed to get congressional authorization, according to people with knowledge of the internal debate. In several White House meetings last week, he underscored the importance of linking military operations to public support — a view Mr. Mattis has long held.

    Mr. Trump, the officials said, wanted to be seen as backing up a series of bellicose tweets with action, but was warned that an overly aggressive response risked sparking a wider war with Russia.

    Friday night’s limited strikes on three targets, which lasted under two minutes, were the compromise. –NYT

    Bolton and Mattis were said to be duking it out over the Syria strikes on Friday – with Mattis and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunford reportedly “concerned with managing escalation and preventing blowback on US troops,” while John Bolton is known for getting very excited at the prospect of a good ole’ fashioned regime change

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

    In the end, Mattis prevailed in limiting the Friday night strikes to three targets which would avoid hitting Russian troops stationed at various military facilities throughout Syria. Democratically elected Syrian President Bashar al Assad moved fighter jets to said installations before the US-led strike, which also included the participation of the United Kingdom and France to give it an air of legitimacy.

    Administration officials say that Trump wanted to hit Syria hard enough to appear aggressive, but not so hard that it would prompt Russia to engage in combat.

    “The combined American, British and French response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power — military, economic and diplomatic,” said Trump in a national address while the strikes were underway. “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.”

    That said, the Pentagon said no more strikes are in the works. “This is a one-time shot,” Mattis said on Friday after the attack was launched, suggesting that the airstrikes were “a very strong message to dissuade” President Bashar al-Assad of Syria from using chemical weapons against his own people.

    He just wants the big show,” said Obama Admin assistant Secretary of Defense, Derek Chollet. “So Mattis was probably pushing on an open door.” More from the NYT:

    Mr. Mattis is particularly concerned about overextending the American military in Syria. He does not want the United States to veer from its stated policy of focusing only on the fight in Syria against the Islamic State — and avoid delving into the country’s seven-year civil war.

    Russian forces and Iranian militias have helped Mr. Assad remain in power against Syrian opposition fighters who accuse him of a brutal siege against the country.

    “The strike was really just enough to cover the president politically, but not enough to spark a war with the Russians,” said two-tour Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, chairman of liberal veterans group VoteVets. “It was clear the military had tight constraints on the operation, and that everybody in the military seemed to know that except the president.”

    As the New York Times points out, Mattis is down one major ally in the West Wing with the departure of former NatSec Advisor H.R. McMaster, who would routinely defer to the Defense Secretary – a retired four-star Marine general. Enter John Bolton – a war hawk and notorious neoconservative who never saw a middle eastern nation he didn’t want to bomb – for the most part. Mattis greeted Bolton for the first time by asking him if he was in fact the “devil incarnate.”

    Mr. Mattis is widely viewed by global leaders as the strongest and perhaps most credible voice on foreign policy in an administration that has been rocked by firings and resignations among senior presidential advisers. The recent exits of both General McMaster and Rex W. Tillerson as secretary of state has focused more attention on Mr. Mattis’s role in the cabinet. –NYT

    On Tuesday, Mattis publicly disputed claims that last weekend’s limited strikes amounted to little more than a fireworks show.

    “The French, the United Kingdom, the United States, allies, all NATO allies, we worked together to maintain the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons,” Mr. Mattis said at the Pentagon. “We did what we believe was right under international law, under our nation’s laws.”

    And I hope that this time, the Assad regime got the message,” said Mattis.

    Based on images of Syrians dancing in the street after the weaker than expected airstrikes… 

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

    … and protesting the US-led strikes in Damascus right now, and the fact that the cleanup crew at the destroyed Barzah chemical weapons Research facility didn’t need protective clothing to sift through the rubble, the message is loud and clear; the West needs to get it’s act together before bombing a sovereign nation based on crappy – or even worse, fabricated intel.

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

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

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

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 17th April 2018

  • Stoltenberg Brushes Off Greece-Turkey Tensions: "Not An Issue For NATO"

    In the last two months, tensions between two NATO member states have escalated dramaticallyTurkey has threatened to invade Greek islands, Greece has responded, and Greeks now see Turkey as the greatest threat to their existence.

    But, the rapidly souring tensions between Greece and Turkey are “not an issue for NATO,” the General Secretary of the North Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg in an interview with Turkish news agency Anadolu.

    As Keep Talking Greece reports, saying that both countries are “two highly valued NATO allies” Stoltenberg hailed the telephone conversation between Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and Turkish counterpart, Binali Yildirim, after the Mirage 2000 crashed and the pilot was killed on Thursday when returning form a mission to intercept Turkish F-16s violating Greek airspace.

    ‘Tension in Aegean should be resolved between Turkey, Greece’

    Q: The tension between Turkey and Greece over the Aegean Sea continues to rise. There are reports that Greece has officially asked NATO to take a more active role in this context. What is NATO’s position on the rising tension between the two NATO allies?

    Stoltenberg: Greece and Turkey are two highly valued NATO allies, they have been allies since 1952.

    Both contribute to our collective defense. I expect that the differences we see on some issues are solved between Turkey and Greece in the spirit of good relations. In this context, I welcome that the PMs of both countries have recently held a phone conversation and that they have agreed to resolve these differences through dialogue. 

    Q: So, NATO does not foresee involvement?

    Stoltenberg: No, it’s not an issue for NATO, this is something that has to be addressed between Turkey and Greece. 

    Commenting on a wide range of issues including the agenda of his visit, the Turkish-led Operation Olive Branch, the fight against terrorism, and Syria, Stoltenberg emphasized the importance of Turkey as a valuable strategic ally.

    The interview was given ahead of Stoltenberg’s visit to Turkey on May 16th.

    No surprise here. No comment. Members need only to contribute to the NATO, while the Alliance sits back and makes plans for the safety of the whole planet…

  • The Grand Troika: A Chance For A World New Order

    Authored by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Back in the late summer of 2017 I wrote an analysis of the state of world affairs and international relations after two seismic geopolitical world events occurred almost simultaneously in 2016the UK Referendum result to Leave the European Union and the defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton by Republican Donald Trump for the White House in the US 2016 Presidential Election. Those twin political events were like major earth shaking bombs going off creating all kinds of disturbances and tremors, aftershocks and creating the greatest of shock and bewilderment within the international political order that had held sway since the defeat of Nazism in 1945. 

    It had become clear to me by the summer of 2017, as I had thought for some time, that politics in Britain – and global geostrategic politics within the broader historical framework of civilizational and human development – had changed profoundly and significantly from were we had been during the 1990s-2012 period, perhaps even from where I started off life in the most intense but ending days of the Cold War in the mid 1980s.

    The UK EU Referendum result and the election of Donald Trump and rejection of Hillary Clinton have simply brought into focus that the world has indeed entered what many international relations experts have been discussing for sometime, the era of extreme global tension, so intense and great that it could trigger World War III. The state of international affairs and the tension within the international system along with the upheavals in the post-WWII 1945 international geopolitical, economic and security architecture have created the environment where misunderstandings and differences can now lead to profound policy implications for foreign affairs, international peace and stability and the course of human history.

    The world has now become what Europe was like on the eve of the outbreak of the World War I.

    A new Cold War has begun, as I wrote back in the summer of 2012, it started some time ago. I placed the point at around 2012. For the great historian Michael Burleigh in his excellent work “The Best of Times. The Worst of Times,” a review of the current now in world affairs, it is around 2011-2013. For Burleigh it is not so much a Cold War more a transition phase of historical proportions on a civilizational scale. The most disturbing matter of all is that this new Cold War could be more deadly than the last. Yet it does not need to be like this and a Cold War mentality must be rejected of seeing Power Politics as the ultimate beneficiary of a State on State zero-sum game based on rampant mass national psychological manipulation and control. The International Community can yet avoid slipping back into a Cold War mentality even if it has now slipped into a new era of international relations, a 2012 New World Order.

    This 2012 New World Order signifies the ending of the period of sole American superpower unipolarity after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The American unipolar moment has come definitely to an end in terms of its sheer unilateral ability to carry out enterprises such as the 2003 Iraq invasion or the preceding invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 combined with the damage wrought by the Wall St Global Financial Crisis of 2008. There has been a tremendous power shift to the East, most notably in economic and financial power, and of all the emerging economies and new mini-regional powers in the area, the most important of these and the most salient to the changes under way in this Great Global Transition, is one of the greatest countries and civilisation in human history, China.

    The fundamental transformation in communications and information which the internet and social media has introduced into the public realm has completely upended the traditional process for Governmental policy making, diplomacy and political campaigning as well as the media and business and leadership in general.

    Technology is creating a virtual reality cyberspace world of enhanced globalisation but greater atomised individualism while inequality in the West is rampant as is social decay and breakdown alongside a serious problem in the Western Anglo-American democratic electoral model which seemed to prevail in 1989 and in general a deeper moral malaise of existential nihilism.

    A global struggle for power is occurring on many levels. This is due to the breakdown of the global balance of power that has held sway since the end of World War II and the brief interlude of the 1990s. In my article in August 2017 I discussed the remoulding of President Trump around the traditional military-industrial complex with his penchant for military Generals. I also stated that the more liberal “West Wing” Democrats seemed to be in the ascent with the removal of Mr. Steve Bannon. The National Security Council seemed to be in better hands under HR McMaster while Rex Tillerson was showing some promise at the State Department but had already started to exhibit worrying trends.

    That is the inclination in some parts of the American foreign and defence policy National Security Establishment to view this new era of international relations, this 2012 New World Order, as a period of Superpower Rivalry and Great Power competition. Nothing could be more destabilising and dangerous for the future peaceful and prosperous development of the planet through this Great Transition than following such a policy course and setting the United States on such a global posture. There is nothing preordained that the United States cannot remain the number one economy on the planet during President Trump’s tenure and beyond for quite some time.

    And even if China were to start to economically advance well above the United States in the decades ahead, America would still be pretty much number one in terms of overall assets. Besides that is a long way off and the planet is big enough for two powerhouse economies on planetary super scales. While China has transformed itself the likes of which has not been seen in human history and is on course to once again play a unique, special and critical role in world affairs as a Superpower, which it has been many times before throughout history, it is still a developing nation with all the challenges that a country of 1.3 billion people possess. It has no great wish to usurp the United States as the global policeman and Leader of the International Order. There is great potential for a deep and creative comprehensive and truly lasting partnership based on mutual admiration, mutual respect and mutual collaboration and trust between Washington DC and Beijing which together could be of enormous benefit for the development of humanity in peace and harmony. The work on North Korea which China has undertaken is a fine case in point of Chinese diplomacy contributing to the greater global good.

    Over the course of the last few months President Trump has remade his administration again and with a new National Security Advisor John Bolton. It was very wise to get rid of Secretary Tillerson and also to reign in the Obama/Clinton pro-German wing of the State Department and US National Security community by replacing McMaster. However Bolton is an extreme American nationalist hawk and allied with the neoconservative movement which portends for some significant and serious ramifications for the making and influencing of American foreign policy going forward.

    The changes in the domestic personnel have also seen a shift which is worrying with the more moderate Goldman Sachs type of Gary Cohn who was the President’s Director of the White House National Economic Council is gone. Instead the administration seems to be flirting with the Office of the Trade Representative Peter Navarro’s ludicrous ideas for a Trade War with China which would be totally counter-productive and extremely damaging to the international order at this fragile and extremely vulnerable time, not to mention hurt America a great deal and the Republican Party in the midterm Congressional elections. There is no need for this and a return o protectionism such as that of the 1920s and 1930s could lead to the rise of a new form of extreme totalitarianism in power. Hopefully calm will prevail on this issue of major global significance. President Trump’s new pick for Director of the CIA, the first woman to serve in the role, Gina Haspel looks also a very astute and good pick. 

    In this post-2012 New World Order the Asia-Pacific is a crucial theatre of strategic significance. As is Eurasia comprising the European Union, the UK and the Russian Federation. The Atlantic arena containing the United States and Canada is heavily integrated and connected through the Western Atlantic NATO Alliance with Europe and also the European Union. It had been my great hope, one of the highest of the incoming Trump administration, to see a successful, truly successful and enduring reset in relations between the United States of America and Russia in a final positive dynamic post-1991 based on mutual admiration, mutual trust and mutual cooperation in vital global national security interests such as combating the danger posed by the spread of violent and ideological jihadist Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear security. With Europe remaking itself due to the crisis over Britain’s departure from the EU it seemed to be a propitious time to be imaginative. However nothing involving America, Europe and Russia is ever going to be suitable in terms of time. 

    It is pointless for two big and great strong countries like America and Russia not to have a positive and constructive dialogue and even partnership for the benefit of common interests. President Obama wanted to reset relations and have a good dynamic with Moscow as did President George W. Bush and President Clinton. It never really worked out and now the hopes of the Trump Presidency have nearly evaporated. US-Russian diplomatic relations and the bilateral US-Russia relationship are at their lowest and worst stage since the darkest days of the Cold War. I am shocked and mortified at the speed and deep deterioration in relations between Washington DC and Moscow since I wrote the last article on this subject back in August.

    I am greatly disturbed at the speed and strength which the relationship seems to have nearly collapsed and the negative turn it has taken. I am very surprised at this turn of events as I had hoped the one bright spot of the Trump administration might be President Trump getting along better with President Vladimir Putin and utilising that relationship to get a better American-Russian and hence Global strategic accommodation for the Great Transition going forward in world affairs. Russia is a great country and deserves a new relationship with the West, especially a new and more vibrant respectful and harmonious relationship with America. A warm relationship.

    The Russian people and Russia itself deserves a great deal more respect than how it has been treated and spoken of late. So the actions of the British Government of Theresa May regarding the stage managed and appallingly planned spiteful anti-Russian bigoted so-called Skripal poisoning affair in Salisbury, England has been a deeply shameful and irresponsible act of madness on the part of an increasingly irrelevant, trivial and useless Prime Minister badly damaged and leading a country in the midst of a collective Brexit nervous breakdown in no way fit for the duties of a serious responsible national actor on the global stage.

    In this new era of international relations in the post-2012 New World Order, a more respectful and constructive understanding and approach is required to take account of Russia and Russian interests, legitimate security and defence political interests which were trampled on at the end of the previous Cold War. Russia is and will be a key power in the 2012 New World Order and together the Leaders of America, China and Russia can form a special strategic troika of global leadership to enhance global security, understanding, stability and development. Thus it would be in the best interest of the United States and the world for the Trump administration not to intervene militarily in the Syrian civil war or if it really must keep it as limited and surgical as possible. The chemical weapons attacks over the last seven years have and are barbaric and beyond the conscience of humanity and civilised values but this war has been raging for seven years now and it will not be brought to an end with a belated American military intervention.

    Furthermore, the British Government has known for some time that chemical weapons attacks were ongoing in Syria despite the 2013 autumn diplomatic breakthrough for their disposal. Why now is this such an urgent matter to be resolved when the British Government has known about it for over three and a half years? Such a time may have existed early in 2011 but President Obama chose not to intervene overtly militarily thus allowing a vacuum which Islamic State filled. Russia in many respects had no choice but to side with its only remaining Middle Eastern ally and listening post. Furthermore, after the disastrous US-UK interventions in the region in Iraq and then Libya not to mention the still continuing catastrophic war in Afghanistan the growth of al Qaeda/ISIS posed a clear and growing threat to Moscow and the region and world as a whole. The chemical weapons attacks are truly nightmarish but there should be no rush to judgement in a war just as the situation was measured in the autumn of 2013 before a intervention was proposed. The best course would be to let the Russians continue to exercise their influence over Assad and allow for a end to the conflict with a peace process instigated. Both Russia and Israel should team up to manage and contain the situation in Syria while the United States would be best advised not get itself dragged into and bogged down in another war in a Middle Eastern Arab Muslim country.

    Yet the stakes are even higher than that. It would not just be a conflict fought against the Assad regime. The truly appalling nature of this crisis is that it could potentially lead to all-out war between America and Russia which would in all likelihood lead to a Third World War. That situation is inconceivable and it is deeply distressing that we have even arrived at that point in 2018 after only 27 years of the USSR officially having been dissolved. If a war breaks out between America and Russia there will not be much of the planet left for anyone to enjoy in the years to come.

    That is what is most alarming about the growth of the anti-Russian xenophobia and hysteria in the UK fuelled by the right wing Tory Government of Theresa May and the near total collapse in US-Russian relations.

    How could we have arrived at this situation in the international community and global system in 2018 where after the End of History there is a serious and distinct geopolitical possibility of a real hot war between America and Russia over a proxy battle in Syria.?

    How has the international political system become so tense and volatile that such a scenario after all the events of 1945-89 has emerged again and this time perhaps in an even more deadly form?

    Russia is not the source of all evil on the Earth and to believe so is not only deeply offensive but completely mad.

    As President Trump said when asked regarding President Putin: ‘We have a lot of killers. What you think our country is so innocent?’ Greater dialogue and understanding is needed to bring Washington DC and Moscow back together and ensure between President Xi, President Putin and President Trump a Troika of Statesman Leadership that can steer the world through its current choppy waters. A role of constructive partnership can be found for Russia with America and China. A solid, suitable and worthy role befitting of a great nation like Russia. There are so many opportunities and challenges to face as a world this century and together the capitals of Washington DC, Beijing and Moscow can be a Grand Alliance for good on the planet in the early 21st century.

  • "They Know What's Going To Happen" – Governments, Big Banks Are Stockpiling Gold

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The writing is on the wall and major financial institutions across the world are warning about the economic disaster to come. Unabated money printing, tariff trade wars, rising interest rates and retail slowdowns point to one result, and it’s going to be brutal.

    Big banks and governments know what’s coming and they are preparing for this eventuality by stockpiling huge amounts of “real money” ahead of the crisis.

    According to Keith Neumeyer, the CEO of the world’s top primary silver producer First Majestic Silver and chairman of First Mining Gold, the cartels he’s previously reported to the CFTC have continued to manipulate the prices of precious metals while loading up their own vaults with gold and silver. The answer to why they’re doing it is simple, as Neumeyer highlights in a recent interview with SGT Report:

    The verdict is still out on whether we’re going into a dis-inflationary or inflationary environment… gold can do well in both environments… the fact of the matter is governments are printing extraordinary amounts of fiat currencies and that is not going to change…

    The stage is set for higher gold prices due to the amount of money being printed… I am of the belief a major reset is coming where the governments of the world will need to get rid of their debt by fixing everything to the price of gold… and that’s why governments like China and Russia and other governments around the world are accumulating gold… it’s because they know what’s going to happen over the next several years…

    (Watch at Youtube)

    If it is true [that JP Morgan has acquired the largest position of physical silver in the world] then it’s pretty amazing… Any bank wanting a long position like that is doing it for a reason… 

    Banks like JP Morgan… they haven’t had a losing trade in multiple years… if they’re long something that’s probably what you want to be buying.

    Neumeyer explains that not only are there monetary factors at play, but also supply issues, as production, especially in silver, has dropped markedly over the last several years.

    All of this bodes well for rising precious metals prices going forward, with reasonable estimates for future growth far exceeding the all-time highs we saw in recent years:

    Metals are in an extremely tight trading range… This base the metals are building right now is three years in the making… and when the metals finally take off this year it’s going to be astounding to watch.

    … We lived through it in 2010 and 2011… a good mining stock will far exceed the movement of the metal itself… a stock like First Mining would absolutely explode in an environment like that… it’s hard to predict the exact prices that stocks would do but it would be quite different than it is today…

     I think $2000 or $3000 gold… these are reasonable numbers that we will experience in the not too distant future. 

    Financial analysts and large institutions have generally avoided gold and silver for nearly a decade. But the tide appears to be changing.

    As prices remain suppressed, government are acquiring, big banks are acquiring and even Morgan Stanley recently noted that gold can be used as a “very good proxy of the true value of a dollar over long periods of time.”

    We know economic collapse on a massive scale is approaching.

    To get an idea of where one should be diversifying their assets in the event this worst-case scenario plays out, one need only ask the following question: What is money when the system collapses?

    5,000 years of history for the single most reliable monetary asset class of last resort has already given us the answer. 

    Prepare accordingly.

  • "I Want To Set The Record Straight": Hannity Expains His Relationship With Michael Cohen

    With most of the media in a feeding frenzy after judge Kimba Wood – the same judge who 5 years ago married the 83-year-old George Soros to 42-year-old Tamiko Bolton…

    Georges Soros married Tamiko Bolton; Judge Kimba Wood officiated the non-denominational ceremony

    … unveiled that Michael Cohen’s “third client” is Sean Hannity, questions swirled over potential conflicts of interest, and whether Hannity had an obligation to disclose his relationship to Cohen, whom he defended on his show on more than one occasion.

    As we observed earlier, Hannity justified his silence on the matter claiming Cohen never represented him “in any matter involving a third party”, had never “retained  [Cohen’s] services” and had occasionally “asked Mr Cohen questions concerning the law that Mr Cohen indicated would be privileged.”  This however prompted more questions, the top two being i) whether asking your lawyer “some legal questions” and saying “attorney/client privilege” makes you their client and, ii) why was Cohen’s team so reluctant to reveal Hannity’s name in the hearing, and why the secrecy?

    Earlier on Monday, even attorney and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz Sean Hannity criticized host Sean Hannity for not disclosing his relationship with Cohen during his frequent discussions about Cohen in recent weeks.
    Dershowitz, a defender of Trump amid his legal woes, was brought on to discuss former FBI Director James Comey’s Sunday night interview on ABC News, but first addressed the Monday revelation that Hannity is the previously unnamed client of Cohen. “I really think you should have disclosed your relationship with Cohen,” Dershowitz said, calling it a “complicated situation.”

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

    So to answer all of this, in his show on Monday night Hannity addressed the Cohen situation for the second time as follows.

    Michael Cohen never represented me in any legal manner. I never retained his services, I never received an invoice. I never paid Michael Cohen for legal fees. I did have occasional brief conversations with Michael Cohen, he’s a great attorney, about legal questions I had or I was looking for input or perspective.

    “My discussions with Michael Cohen never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions. And to be absolutely clear: they never involved any matter, any – sorry to disappoint so many – matter between me, a third party, a third group, at all. My questions focused almost exclusively on real estate. I said many times on my radio show ‘I hate the stock market, I prefer real estate.’ Michael knows real estate.

    “So in response to all the wild speculation, I want to set the record straight here tonight. I never asked Michael Cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf. I have no personal interest in this legal matter. That’s all there is, nothing more.”

    To be sure, if Hannity is lying – and with both the FBI and NSA now in possession of all Cohen docs – we will know momentarily, or as soon as the leak to the NYT/WaPo hits, at which point Hannity’s future at Fox News will be no more. On the other, if indeed as Hannity claims “there is no there, there”, maybe Trump will be right, and “attorney-client” privilege is indeed dead, in which case perhaps judge Wood who officiated the wedding of the the lovely couple in the photo above, in which the bride is exactly half the age of the groom, can disclose just what the nature of their relationship is.

    PS. the following brief blurb on Judge Kimba Wood is certainly interesting:

    In 1993 President Bill Clinton nominated her to become the first female Attorney General. But she withdrew from the nomination after the White House learned she had hired an undocumented immigrant as a baby-sitter.

    Wood, who was Clinton’s second choice for AG post, didn’t break the law employing the nanny and in fact paid the woman’s taxes. But the White House asked her to withdraw because her situation was similar to Clinton’s first AG nomination, Zoe Baird.

    Baird bowed out of consideration for the job after she drew criticism for employing two undocumented immigrants as housekeepers.

     

     

  • Only 0.04% Of Taxpayers Are Reporting Any Bitcoin Gains To The IRS

    With the US tax deadline just one day away, crypto investors who traded actively during the market’s run-up and inevitable meltdown should have a lot of activity to report to the IRS.

    But according to a survey conducted by Credit Karma, only a handful of people who have filed their taxes using Credit Karma’s tools have reported bitcoin holdings or holdings of some other cryptocurrency – fewer than 100 out of a total of 250,000 filers, or a whopping 0.04% in total.

    Bitcoin

    In all likelihood, this means that (tens of) thousands of bitcoin traders are refusing to pay the IRS, either betting on the anonymity of the blockchain to conceal their identities, or perhaps in some cases they simply don’t have the money to pay, having lost most of their profits during the market’s spectacular meltdown, as was the case for one anonymous trader who complained on Reddit that he owed the IRS $50,000 that he didn’t have, according to CNBC.

    “If I had to guess, there’s probably a lot of underreporting,” said Elizabeth Crouse, a Seattle-based partner at law firm K&L Gates. “Most of the people in the cryptocurrency world tend to have a pretty high risk tolerance.”

    Bitcoin had its best week in four months last week as selling pressure that appeared to coincide with the US tax season appeared to dissipate.

    Meanwhile, Fundstrat’s Tom Lee and other analysts have predicted that “a massive outflow” of cryptocurrency to fiat ahead of tax day in the US had created a massive overhang, and that the bitcoin price could shoot higher after tax day.

    In a report last week, Lee noted that, since US households owe an estimated $25 bln in capital gains taxes due to their crypto holdings, and crypto exchanges also will owe income taxes, both households and exchanges will be selling their crypto to pay the US government:

    “We believe there is selling pressure by crypto exchanges who are subject to income tax in U.S. jurisdictions. Many exchanges have net income in 2017 [of more than] $1 bln and keep working capital in [Bitcoin]/[Ethereum], not USD — hence, to meet these tax liabilities, are selling BTC/ETH.”

    While it’s possible that crypto traders just aren’t using Credit Karma for whatever reason, the data should be a concerning sign for Lee and other crypto bulls. It means that the forced selling might not be over – and in fact could be just getting started – as nonreporters are hunted down by the IRS.

    In the past, crypto traders have mostly ignored warnings and guidance about reporting crypto-related gains. Of course, traders who ignore the IRS do so at their own peril. They could be subject to fines or other penalties once the federal government learns their identities. But as one might suspect given their high risk tolerance, like Crouse mentioned above, some crypto traders might be crazy enough to mix it.

  • China Macro Data Disappoints As MOFCOM Threatens Retaliation For ZTE Ban

    With the yuan at its strongest since devaluing in 2015…

    and lunar new year distortions starting to wash out of the macro-surprise data… (Monthly data for January and February are often plagued by shifts in the lunar new year holidays in China. For today’s March numbers, we should really be past that — although last week’s trade numbers still had a surprise impact.)

    Tonight’s smorgasbord of Chinese economic data is the first glimpse of the state of the economy as the credit impulse slipped negative and the crackdown on shadow banking (and implicitly leverage) began.

     

    Commodities are leading the China bubble for now, with bonds and stocks having been bubbled-through…

    And China stocks (red) are notably underperforming their Asia-Pac peers (green)…

     

    So, the markets need some hope to cling to and so we strongly doubt GDP will be allowed to miss. Bloomberg notes that the backdrop to today’s data is that China is broadly expected to slow somewhat this year, after last year it saw the first acceleration in growth since 2010, when China — and the rest of the world — was bouncing back from the global recession.

    • China Q1 GDP YoY MEET at 6.8%, versus +6.8% exp. and +6.8% prior.

    • China Retail Sales YoY BEAT at 10.1%, versus +9.7% exp. and +9.4% prior.

    • China Industrial Production YoY MISS at 6.0%, versus +6.3% exp. and +6.2% prior.

    • China Fixed Asset Investment YoY MISS at 7.5%, versus +7.7% exp. and +7.9% prior.

    Notably, China Q1 GDP QoQ disappointed however, rising only 1.4% QoQ (versus expectations of a 1.5% QoQ jump…

    So the initial sign is some softening in the industrial part of the economy, and strong growth in the consumer side.

    This one will disappoint President Trump: Steel production still growing…

    • First Quarter Crude Steel Output Rises 5.4% to 212.15M Tons

    • March Crude Steel Output Rises 4.5% Y/Y to 73.98M Mt

    • March Steel Product Output Rises 4.2% to 89.77M Tons

    Bloomberg’s Chris Anstey notes that on the softening in industrial-output growth, Goldman Sachs economists had warned that weather conditions in March weren’t favorable for reducing pollution — so authorities probably put more restrictions on production, construction, and transportation.

    Additionally, a new indicator – the monthly survey-based urban unemployment rate will be introduced today, providing a reading on China’s labor market.

    The NBS may start publishing China’s monthly surveyed unemployment rate (SUR) very soon. The government has long been in a dilemma: cares much about employment but lacked an effective gauge. SUR, we believe, is necessary for guiding the economic transition toward high-quality growth. Compiled according to international standards, the SUR defines the unemployed (the numerator) as people of working age (above 16) who are out of work, want a job, have actively sought work in the previous three months and are available to start work within the next two weeks.

    Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Dollar remains glued to its peg band’s lower limit with HKMA intervention not helping for now…

    The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has bought a total of HK$19.02b ($2.4b) worth of Hong Kong dollars since the currency fell to the weak end of its trading band last week, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. This includes HK$9.36b of purchases in the past 24 hours. No need to proactively adjust the local dollar’s interest rates, as that would easily lead to doubts over the city’s determination in defending the linked exchange rate, HKMA says in an emailed statement.

    But, despite this statement (raising rates would counter the USD Libor carry trade flows), when  former Hong Kong Monetary Authority Chief Executive Joseph Yam said there IS room for Hong Kong to adjust interest rates and additional exchange fund bill sales can be an option, the dollar strengthened

     

    Finally, it appears the trade wars are anything but fading as China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on its website that China has noticed U.S. Commerce Department’s export restriction on ZTE, and will take necessary measures to protect Chinese companies’ interests.

    Trading of ZTE shares in Hong Kong suspended from 9am pending release of inside information announcement on the activation of denial order by U.S., it says in filing to Hong Kong stock exchange.

    The statement went on to note that ZTE has cooperated with hundreds of U.S. companies and has contributed tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S.; and China hopes U.S. to fairly deal with the matter based on rules and regulations, and ensure fair, stable environment for company.

  • Mapping Where The 13 Million Displaced Syrians Are

    While the stock market seems to believe the worst is over, one-and-done-and-everyone-crawls-back-in-their-hole, we suspect the ordeal that the Syrian people are dealing with is far from over and could lead to an even greater spike in the number of displaced Syrians, 13 million of whom are now scattered all over the world.

    That’s according to a Pew Research Center analysis published in January. Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that Pew’s analysis found that over 6 million Syrians are displaced within their own country and they account for 49 percent of all Syrians displaced worldwide.

    Infographic: Nearly 13 Million Syrians Are Displaced  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Turkey has the second highest population with 3.4 million displaced people currently living there.

    Another million of them have made the long and dangerous journey to Europe. Germany hosts most of them with 530,000, followed by Sweden with 110,000. Another 54,000 Syrians live in Canada while 33,000 are in the United States.

  • What Hyperinflation In Venezuela Really Looks Like

    Authored by J.G.Martinez D. via Daisy Luther’s Organic Prepper blog,

    The intention of this article will be to describe how the prices went wild, and what you could expect in a hyperinflation scenario. Perhaps softer, or perhaps worse, that is not possible to know for an amateur like me, not being an economist. But something similar to this is what could be expected in the real world, not in some hypothetical scenario of the theoretical economy..

    For some reason that I will try to elucidate afterward, the salaries stopped being useful for buying anything other than food. The prices I will publish in our national currency, the Bolivar already were rounded by taking 3 zeroes by Uncle Hugo´s command. A few days ago, this was done…again, now by command of the bus driver, in an attempt to make the hyperinflation look less threatening. Go figure.

    One Bolivar is worth 0.000020 USD. The minimum wage is $5.21 or 1.800.000 Bs for a month. Now, how could we expect someone to live under these conditions? It is entirely unexplainable to me that this has not generated massive riots…yet.

    Here are the hyperinflation costs of basic items in Venezuela

    Remember, many people are paid only 1.800.000 Bs for a month:

    • Vegetable oil 900ml. Bottle: 748.367 Bs
    • Cereal mixture for milkshakes: 900Grs can: 1.057.057 Bs
    • Wheat flour, 1 kg: 398.750 Bs
    • Cheese, 1 kg:  2.160.950 Bs (yes, TWO MILLION)
    • Chicken and Bacon: 2.299.500 Bs
    • 395Grs Condensed milk w/sugar: 566.144 Bs
    • Oatmeal 400 Grs:  550.000 Bs
    • 1 kg. Margarine: 747.000 Bs
    • 1Kg Chocolate mixture for milkshakes: 2.060.000 Bs
    • Cheese (melted-for spreading) 300 Grs: 1.097.230 Bs
    • Black Olives 235Grs: 1.677.120 Bs
    • Ladies deodorant: 890.000 Bs
    • Insecticide 1 can: 900.000 Bs
    • Mayonnaise 910 Grs.: 955.000 Bs
    • 2 toilet paper rolls: 399.974 Bs
    • 1 Kg. avocados: 500.000 Bs
    • 30 Eggs: 650.000 Bs.
    • Dog food, dry, bulk 20Kg: 6.060.000 Bs
    • Dishwashing soap, cream 500 Grs: 440.000 Bs
    • 2 door fridge: 627.900.000 Bs (yes, six hundred MILLION)
    • 400ML. Shampoo:  2.052.050 Bs (2 million)
    • 4 small ice cream cups: 2.072.691 Bs
    • Rice 500 Grs: 115.277 Bs
    • TV 65 inches: 329.999.990 Bs
    • 2Lt soda: 298.000 Bs
    • Lemon Juice, 500ml bottle: 731.881 Bs
    • Light bulb, power saving: 935.000 Bs
    • Shoes: 5.986.825 Bs
    • Catfish: 465.300 Bs
    • Sweet corn 400Grs: 466.480 Bs
    • Ground meat: 1.150.000 Bs.
    • Steak: 1.300.000 Bs (depending on the region, usually cheaper in cattle-producing states)
    • Pork chops: over 1.000.000 Bs
    • Corn flour, 1 kg: 265.000 Bs.
    • Dollar price: 350.000 Bs / 1 USD

    How people are reacting

    One of the most amazing things I have seen is that people are in total denial, and they refuse to accept that the money is not worth even the paper it is printed on. They won’t innovate changing to cryptos easily, nor will they accept silver coins, much less other precious metals. They won’t barter, they won’t trade their labor time (I mean major cities, in my small town things are a little different). We had a good supply of silver coins in the 60s, but that changed.

    They talk and talk, complaining about the government, but they just don’t do anything. I have seen some small plots in our subdivision with tomatoes plants and other vegetables, but that is just a salad for one lunch. And the people passing by will take whatever is within their hand’s reach.

    The electronic money has been devaluated much more than cash. Something with a price in cash, if you try to pay with debit card or money transfer via internet the price will be 2 or 3 times the cash price. Illegal? Yes, it is. But there is no way to control it.

    The main problem arises because it is the military taking over the supply chain. They have an agreement with the gangs, and they deviate the production of the plants that are under military control, to the street sales. The gangs are armed, and they protect the retail sellers from thieves and turmoil. This is in the most populated cities, where the money is, and therefore the products don’t make it so often up to the smaller towns.

    The black market offers of tires, food, car spares, engine oil, and all kind of medicines and goods are rampant, and the social networks are full of resellers. You may expect a morality crisis, in parallel with this economical crisis. I asked a granny how much was charging for some hand towels she had for sale, and I did not have enough money in my pocket to buy even one towel…I apologized but saw she was upset. It was a sad, awkward moment indeed.

    Senior citizens are taking a beating. Their pension is not enough for one week worth of food. Jeez, maybe once this is published it will be not enough even for a couple of days…the clowns that tried to sell the “petro” just realized that this snake oil did not work.  The calculated inflation is 13.000%. Without money from the IMF, having paid the debt, and kicked them out of the country…the disaster arrived anyway. The government just does not want to do what they have to do. There are too many military personnel involved in the black market and an uprising is more than possible that will launch the gangs in power off to the ground if some of them are disturbed.

    How people survive

    To find a medium of exchange, and at the same time capable of holding its value until you actually need to exchange it is not easy. Cigarettes, chocolates, all kind of commodities have been used, and there is a small but growing trade with this stuff. Not at the dimensions one would imagine, but generally speaking, the financial culture in our society is almost unknown. There is no such thing as a stock exchange (but there was one, in the past), and whatever other things that smell like the free market, the gov carefully removed. People clamor for “price control” without even realizing that it is not the price but the lack of production what is starving them.

    I have known some people that even received satoshis as a medium of payment for food or car parts. However, as the BTC has been going down these last weeks and the amount of satoshis to receive is calculated based on the USD price, this trading has been slowing down.

    As I have mentioned, the country is already collapsed. Those self-employed that could adjust their fees for their service from one day to another, and that could receive, say, a bag of sugar for their valuable services are those who are not overly stressed to leave the country. This is one of the most important lessons, I think. Someone with manual, valuable skills, that could provide basic goods or services, will be able to survive. They will just adjust their prices…and if the customer can´t pay, then most likely they will trade in their service for something to barter. People with low maintenance trucks,  that have received meat as payment in a farm for transporting a load of hay (many farmers have to buy hay down here in the dry season because they don´t have the machines to compact it and there is no rain for the pastures to grow). They exchange the remaining meat for cheese, poultry, and fish. Or the electrician like my dad got paid with half a pork for one day of work at his friend´s farm rewiring an old corn mill. He took the excess as a gift to one of my cousins, and got back 6 kgs of pasta, and 2 of sugar.

    This is how we, in the small community I was born and raised and my family is lucky to live yet, are dealing with the criminals that have imposed the crisis. These are the places where people support each other because we know everyone since we were small kids. We grew up together, went to school, and celebrate birthdays, Christmas, Mardi Gras together. We cried when our elders were gone, all together. I have found people from my hometown in the opposite side of the country that I did not remember, and they had gone to basic school with me, and after a few anecdotes, we were laughing and shaking hands. This is the kind of community that will struggle but will survive.

    The other ones?. The big city dwellers?…

    The hardworking father of three, with a minimum wage, is starving, and watching their family starve too. Some of them quit their jobs and started a life of crime. Other ones leave their families behind and don’t come back. Other have been kind enough to tell their families that they will be in this or that country, and never appear again.

    Many have committed suicide.

    Elders do it because they don’t want to be a burden nor an additional weight for their family.

    Youngers because they don’t see themselves in such apocalyptical scenario. Normal stuff in other countries like buying a car, a house, having children, graduating from college, seem to be impossible tasks, no matter how hard you work for that.

    The official rate of suicides is not something that can be trusted. The gang that claims to be a government is covering up even the starvation deaths of the children in the hospitals, in an attempt to avoid further international sanctioning.

    They are forcing doctors to fake the cause of the deaths in the reports.

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what hyperinflation and a collapsed country looks like.

    May God bless us and protects us all.

    Note: Thanks for your generosity, to those who have contributed to get my family out, and those who will assist us in the future.

  • Russia Reveals Who "Staged" Syria Gas Attack, As US Claims Moscow "May Have Tampered" With Site

    The Russian envoy to the chemical weapons watchdog group, OPCW, said that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the UK and US carried out the April 7 chemical attack in the Damascus, Syria suburb of Douma.

    Russia’s permanent representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Alexander Shulgin, said Russia has irrefutable evidence that there was no chemical weapons incident in Douma.

    “Therefore, we have not just a “high degree of confidence,” as our Western partners claim, but we have incontrovertible evidence that there was no incident on April 7 in Douma and that all this was a planned provocation by the British intelligence services, probably, with the participation of their senior allies from Washington with the aim of misleading the international community and justifying aggression against Syria,” he stated. –Sputnik

    Shulgin added that the US, UK and France are not interested in conducting an objective investigation of the attack site. “They put the blame on the Syrian authorities in advance, without even waiting for the OPCW mission to begin to establish the possible facts of the use of chemical weapons in Syria,” he said.

    The nine-member OPCW mission people has yet to deploy to the city of Douma according to the organization’s Chief, citing pending security issues.

    “The Team has not yet deployed to Douma. The Syrian and the Russian officials who participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM Team that there were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place. In the meantime the Team was offered by the Syrian authorities that they could interview 22 witnesses who could be brought to Damascus,” OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said as quoted by the organization.

    The Russian Envoy says that the controversial “White Helmets” were one of the anti-Assad “pseudo-humanitarian NGOs” which staged the event. As Disobedient Media and others have reported, the White Helmets are funded in large part by the United States.

    a

    “The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Included here are two links showing contracts awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics). The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a Period of Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the award will be to use the funds for managing a “quick-response mechanism supporting activities that pursue a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria.” The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the “Syria Regional Program II” which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV) program.” Via Disobedient Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Moscow says they have confirmed that “these structures [NGOs] on a fee-based basis cooperate with the governments of the United States, the UK and some other countries.”

    Russian experts who conducted the verification of reports on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian city of the Douma, found participants of video filming, presented as evidence of the supposedly occurring chemotherapy, according to the Russian Envoy to OPCW. –Sputnik

    “Everything has been developing according to the script that was prepared in Washington. There is no doubt that Americans are playing the ‘first violin’ in all of this. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and some other countries after the “fake” addition from the White Helmets and their ilk in Douma, immediately pounced upon the Syrian authorities with accusations,” Shulgin said.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. has alerted the OPCW that Russia “may have tampered” with the chemical attack site in Douma

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

    “It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site,” U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward said at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague on Monday.

    It is our concern that they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission to conduct an effective investigation,” he said. His comments at the closed-door meeting were obtained by Reuters.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shot back in a BBC interview, saying “I can guarantee that Russia has not tampered with the site.”

    Earlier, Britain’s delegation to the OPCW accused Russia and the Syrian government of preventing the international watchdog’s inspectors from reaching Douma.

    The inspectors aim to collect samples, interview witnesses and document evidence to determine whether banned toxic munitions were used, although they are not permitted to assign blame for the attack. –Reuters

    “Unfettered access is essential,” the British delegation said in a statement. “Russia and Syria must cooperate.”

    Moscow says the OPCW delay is due to the Western air strikes. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the British accusation that Russia was to blame for holding up the inspections was “groundless”.

    “We called for an objective investigation. This was at the very beginning after this information [of the attack] appeared. Therefore allegations of this towards Russia are groundless,” Peskov said.

    ***

    On Friday we reported that Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow has “irrefutable evidence” that the attack – which allegedly killed over 40 people, was staged with the help of a foreign secret service.

    We have irrefutable evidence that this was another staged event, and that the secret services of a certain state that is now at the forefront of a Russophobic campaign was involved in this staged event,” he said during a press conference according to AFP.

    a

    According to defense ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Kremlin has evidence that Britain was behind the attack.

    Quoted by Reuters, he said: “We have… evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in organising this provocation.”

    As RT further adds, the Russian Defense Ministry presented what it says is “proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged.” It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.” During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

    During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

    During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

    In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.

    “Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage,” said Konashenkov.

    “The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta,” the general added, referring to the neighborhood of which Douma is part. “We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were preparing.”

    According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces, which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.

    The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them “grotesque,” “a blatant lie” and “the worst piece of fake news we’ve yet seen from the Russian propaganda machine.”

    So when will Moscow release their evidence for the whole world to see? Or is it maybe waiting for the US to first release its own proof that Assad launched the attack?

    If so, we’ll be waiting for a long time.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 16th April 2018

  • US Tanks In Europe Get Invisible Futuristic Missile Shield To Counter Russian Threat

    Back in March, we detailed how the United States Army M1 Abrams tank, an American third-generation main battle tank, was in the process of being upgraded with an invisible missile shield that will destroy all chemical energy anti-tank threats and other threats before reaching the vehicle. We even said, “that Washington is preparing their main battle tank for the next evolution of hybrid wars.”

    Known as Trophy, this is the world’s first and only fully operational Active Protection System and Hostile Fire Detection System for armored vehicles. This cutting-edge technology will provide M1 Abrams tanks with 360-degree security from all threats, as advanced algorithms are continually detecting, locating, and neutralizing anti-tank threats on the battlefield.

    We even noted that the Trophy system was tested thoroughly on select M1A2 tanks in Europe and the Middle East. With much of the testing classified, there were still several unanswered questions surrounding what region(s) of the world the upgrades would go.

    However, in a new report on Thursday, the United States Army has decided to deploy the missile shields for M1 Abrams tanks to Europe “as part of a sweeping effort to better arm its Armored Brigade Combat Teams and counter Russian threats in the region,” said Warrior Maven, as quoted by Fox News. 

    “Not only will we be fielding one set of Trophy on Abrams tanks to Europe, but also three other brigades,” Maj. Gen. John Ferrari, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, G-8, told Warrior Maven in an interview.

    “The weapons plus-up for Europe-bound Active Protection System is woven into the 2019 budget request,” he added.

    The Trophy system employs advanced algorithms that use radar to provide continuous 360-degree protection. The bolt on kit includes four antennas and two rotating launchers mounted on the turret of each tank (see below).

    Once the threat is discovered, the algorithm classifies the threat, and if a direct hit is calculated, the countermeasure systems are automatically activated, and a tight pattern of explosively shaped penetrators launches at the warhead to neutralize the threat (as shown below).

    Rafael Advanced Defense Systems says the Trophy system has been thoroughly tested, qualified, and is already in production for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The system debuted in 2009 and had proven to work exceptionally well in the Gaza Strip and other hot spots around Israel.

    Warrior Maven points out that the immediate deployment of Trophy systems for American tanks in Europe is to counter new high-tech Russian technology, which has been deployed to the European Russia border.

    “Trophy is the kind of armored vehicle ground-war weapon of particular value in the event of a major land combat engagement against a fortified, well-armed adversary such as Russia. Systems of this kind have been in development for many years, however the rapid technological progress of enemy tank rounds, missiles and RPGs is leading the Army to more rapidly deploy Active Protection System for its fleet of Abrams tanks deploying to Europe.”

    Warrior Maven also describes the Pentagon’s biggest fear:

    “APS on Abrams tanks, quite naturally, is the kind of protective technology which could help US Army tanks in tank-on-tank mechanized warfare against near-peer adversary tanks, such as a high-tech Russian T-14 Armata tank.

    The 48-ton modern T-14 tank is widely reported to be able to reach speeds of 90-kilometers per hour; it is built with an unmanned turret, without a “fume extractor” and is designed for a 3-man crew surrounded by an armored capsule

    While much has been made of the T-14 Armata’s cutting-edge technology, including its active protection, 12-round per minute firing range and 125mm smoothbore cannon in numerous public reports and assessments, it is not at all clear that the T-14 in any way fully outmatches current and future variants of the Abrams tank.

    Army Abrams modernization efforts are without question being designed to meet and exceed any dangers posed by rival nation tanks, including the T-14. Concerns about the threat posed by the T-14 Armata are, without question, informing US tank and weapons developers.”

    Essentially, Washington’s much-needed modernization efforts of invisible force fields, are to protect M1 Abrams from Russian anti-tank weapons and its new high-tech T-14 Armata, all evidence suggests — a major conflict could soon be on the horizon.  

  • Draining The Data Swamp: Who Owns The "Virtual You"?

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    In our digital age, ownership, utilization, and monetization of data raises profound questions about personal rights, state rights and the limits of freedom…

    For all the raft of unanswered questions or dismissal as a nothingburger, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s two-day grilling at Capitol Hill hopefully may unleash a serious global debate about our virtual selves.

    US politicians, it seems, have discovered the merits of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation  (GDPR). The EU is actually at war with the GAFA galaxy (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) and environs. The question for the US revolves around the immense legal twists and turns on how and what to regulate.

    As much as Zuckerberg may have conceded that the industry needs to be regulated, scores of congressmen pressed him on whether Facebook would enforce GDPR for US customers. He dodged the question multiple times, promising GDPR “controls,” but never “protection.”

    An army of savvy lawyers at the Facebook HQ certainly envisaged that regulation might “stifle competition,” as some congressmen did not fail to point out. And some, naively, even gave the whole game away, asking Zuckerberg directly what kind of regulation he would prefer.

    Capitol Hill may not have noticed that Facebook and GAFA as a whole work pretty much like political parties disguised as companies. The founders/CEOs are major shareholders. Decisions have the imprimatur of a board working as a sort of political bureau. Congress is the shareholder general assembly. And the militants are the salaried mass addicted to a visionary movement.

    The whole process runs in parallel with the decline of traditional political parties. Even top counseling comes from the political arena, like former Obama operative David Plouffe, who moved to Facebook from Uber, and Joel Benenson, Bill Clinton’s top polls specialist.

    And it’s certainly very much a political issue how cyberspace trumps actual physical space. GAFA is always looking for nations that offer comparative advantages and privileges to dodge regulation and annoying redistributive fiscal obligations.

    That betrays a clear ideological choice. GAFA is all about Ayn Rand-inspired Libertarianism; minimum government and maximum freedom. Surf away from the crashing waves of the state. Regulation is for losers.

    Ayn Rand happens to be the supreme idol of PayPal’s Peter Thiel, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Wikipedia co-creator Jimmy Wales.

    And then there’s philosophy great Martin Heidegger.

    Peter Thiel, Linkedin founder Reid Hoffman, Instagram inventor Mike Krieger – they all followed the Symbolic Systems program established in Stanford in 1986 combining neurosciences, logic, psychology, AI, cybernetics and, yes, philosophy, with an emphasis on Heidegger.

    Add to it the role of Pluralistic Networks, founded by Chilean Fernando Flores, a former minister of Salvador Allende and co-author, with Terry Winograd (Google’s Larry Page’s mentor) of a book about Heidegger’s influence on information science, redefining intelligence, language and the limits of biology. Here we have Heidegger as the precursor of AI.

    Liberal democracy vs freedom?

    One of the big shows in Brussels for years has been the debate on why GAFA refuses to pay taxes. Libertarianism is incompatible with direct tax deductions or regulations. What matters most of all is the philanthropic value of those entrepreneurs and their social importance in creating jobs.

    European egalitarian cynics, on the other hand, would describe them as a bunch of moguls bloated by un-measurable hubris praying to a doctrine of sovereign egotism.

    GAFA + Microsoft’s market capitalization reached a whopping $2.9 trillion last year – bigger than India’s GDP; their collected revenues are larger than Sweden’s GDP.

    According to the OECD, globally, states are not collecting as much as  $240 billion a year in taxes. According to a 2015 report from the European Parliament, the EU loses as much as 70 billion euros a year because of “fiscal optimization,” due uniquely to the transfer of GAFA profits towards fiscal paradises.

    So what we have is GAFA working as political parties, actively changing the world without ever submitting themselves to a vote. It’s a case of “freedom” being incompatible with Western liberal democracy. That’s exactly what PayPal founder Peter Thiel wrote in 2009; “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

    In The Black Box Society (Harvard University Press), Frank Pasquale stresses how the industry, facing no accountability, will end up risking the very own legitimacy of sovereign states.

    Which brings us to the monopoly question. Zuckerberg was asked if he considered Facebook a monopoly. Brussels certainly does, in its drive to regulate an economic model based on systematic smashing of competition and limitless privatization of personal data (which the EU has been unable to stop). Once again Peter Thiel, one of Facebook’s earliest investors: “Competition is for losers.”

    The main complaint in Brussels, as officials stressed to Asia Times, is that the EU’s “fair competition” model is being corroded. Yet the paradox is the EU – because of ferocious fiscal competition – is actually the largest tax paradise on the planet.

    The EU condemns international tax evasion while the enemy inside is represented by Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland – a sort of Bermuda Triangle of corporate tax. The savory combination of a single free market and a sophisticated service economy in which almost no physical goods cross borders offers unlimited opportunities for tax evasion. No wonder the digital giants have accumulated over $600 billion in tax-free profits.

    The limits of ‘self-ownership’

    While GAFA in the US essentially controls the politics limiting the capacity for regulation, Brussels will continue to insist the only path towards healthy regulation comes from the EU.

    The other model is of course China. Beijing has domesticated its sprawling digital industry – which is a de facto extension of the state apparatus as well as a growing instrument of global influence.

    When Zuckerberg was asked whether Facebook should be broken up – the monopoly issue once again – he said that would weaken the US’s competitive advantage against China, which by the way is fast disappearing.

    Facebook’s customer base though is not American; it’s global. Inside the Facebook HQ, the consensus is that it is a global company. So all these issues at stake – from monopoly to regulation to privacy – are indeed global issues.

    Zuckerberg dodged extremely serious questions. Who owns “the virtual you?” Zuckerberg’s response was that you own all the “content” you upload, and can delete that content any time you want. Yet the heart of the matter is the advertising profile Facebook builds on each user. That simply cannot be deleted. And the user cannot alter it in any way.

    The GAFA galaxy, in fact, owns you when you click accepting those massive terms and conditions of use. As argued by philosopher Gaspard Koenig, director of the GenerationLibre think tank in France, data property should logically follow the evolution of property rights, land property, financial property and property of ideas, thus replacing the current figure of the “proletarian 2.0” at the heart of the value chain of the digital economy.

    The whole debate may revolve in fact about algorithmic determinism. Every algorithmic model is influenced by economic and financial interests. “Our” data is de facto monetized by all those massive, user-friendly platforms. The four billion profiles generated every three months by Facebook are derived from content that real people produce and let Facebook use. Even Zuckerberg himself admitted he cannot lock down his own privacy settings.

    Thus the key question that Libertarianism refuses to answer: If “self-ownership” is being configured as the future of our social contract in a secular world, how do we mere consumers profit from our rampant, digital marketization?

  • US Syria Strategy "A Succession Of Failures Divorced From Reality"

    American involvement in Syria – “from Obama through Trump” – was described to Axios by a Republican foreign policy expert as “a succession of failures divorced from reality.” 

    The expert, which Axios says wishes to remain anonymous but “has decades of experience analyzing the region,” emailed his devastating indictment of the U.S. Syria “strategy” over several administrations – noting “The inevitable result was failure.” 

    Presented below are said expert’s thoughts: 

    • Syria is a microcosm of U.S. foreign policy in general. We never had a coherent strategy beyond simplistic generalities, childishly selecting our goals based on what we wanted, not what was necessary, or even possible. The inevitable result was failure. Wobbly Assad won, powerful us lost. Rust-bucket Russia accomplished its goals, triumphant us achieved none.”

    • The Obama Administration bears the principal responsibility for Syria and Libya but not for Iraq and Afghanistan or the succession of failures elsewhere. Timid intervention did not work for the former; full-scale intervention did not work for the latter. “

    • But the military are not miracle-workers. These failures sprang from cobbled-together strategies based on comforting illusions that have repeatedly proven not to be true, with objectives shaped not by the constraints of reality but the indulgent selection from an a la carte menu. There is little evidence that repeated failure has had a significant impact on policymakers or specialists.”

    • There is a price to be paid for incompetence. Few now fear us; fewer respect us. As our opponents increase in number and strength, the prospect of defeat at their hands will grow. But the more immediate result will be irrelevance.”

    Ouch! No wonder this mystery foreign policy expert wishes to remain anonymous. This is a sobering take.

  • How Much Longer Can The American Empire Run On Fake Money?

    Excerpted from Jay Taylor’s Gold & Energy Stocks Newsletter:

    Gold rocketed to nearly $1,365 on Wednesday in New York, which is well above the $1,350 that Michael Oliver suggests is when technical price watchers will finally start to head into the yellow metal and related investments like gold stocks. But alas the banking cartel had other ideas and exercised a 100-tonne “pretend gold” smackdown in the gold paper futures markets starting at about noon that day, just to make sure the greatest competition in the world to the dollar didn’t start to lead to a loss of confidence.

    This of course is nothing new. The Gold Anti Trust Action Committee (GATA) has been documenting paper market manipulation of the gold markets now for decades. Isn’t it interesting that more virtual gold trades in one day on the LBMA than is mined in an entire year.

    Whatever it takes, including endless wars to try to keep the petrodollar alive and trillions of dollars spent on blood and treasury. I truly believe Eisenhower’s fears of the endless power of the Military Industrial Complex are now playing out.

    It should be eminently clear now that “the President is not really the President of the United States.”

    That was established by the “Deep State” under Kennedy. If you have doubts about that, you might do well to read “Unlike Trump, Kennedy never bent a knee,” by Jacob G. Hornberger, the founder of The Future of Freedom Foundation and a former trial attorney in Texas.

    While another war or two might buy a bit more time for the Anglo-American Empire, it should also be very clear that the U.S. military, like the U.S. budget, is out of control with no one specifically in charge. What it is instead is an amorphous powerful monster that needs more lands to conquer to justify more military spending that in turn will continue to keep massive parasitic bureaucracies ever expanding so that hundreds of thousands of Americans can continue living a splendid lifestyle while Americans who produce things of value find their living standards ever in decline.

    If you are not questioning the legitimacy of the war just started this evening by the Neocons who run America you should be. Stop to ask yourself why for a second year in a row the Syrian leader would implement a gas attack on his own people a mere week after Trump said he would pull troops out of Syria, if the result of that would be to have bombs rain down on his country. Also ask yourself why the U.S. refused to let an impartial country like Norway do an independent investigation into who actually was responsible for the recent gas attack. In fact, like the weapons of mass destruction that dragged us into Iraq, there never has been any proof of last year’s gas attack or this most recent one.

    This may very well lead us into a hot war with Russia, a nuclear power. That is unthinkable but then who said the Military Industrial Complex, like a cornered animal being threatened by death, is doing much thinking? As I say, America is an empire that is out of control. Nothing but the hand of God will stop the enormous evil we are inflicting on country after country, rendering nations into death and poverty wherever we go.

    Trump couldn’t keep his campaign promises because the President is not the President. Kennedy tried to be. He never had time to realize he wasn’t the President, but the rest of us should have begun to understand that long ago, rather than quietly accepting the Warren Report, which I think had no more credibility than all other manner of CIA reporting that serves the out-of-control Imperial State monster whose heart resides in Washington.

    What does this have to do with the gold markets and gold shares? I would submit to you it has a great deal to do with it. The one currency that would put all nations on an even playing field would be gold. A gold standard would mean the U.S. would have to earn its way to wealth rather than print money to pay for endless wars, death, and destruction. Nixon took us off the international gold standard in 1971 for that very reason, which enabled banks and financial institutions to get rich by impoverishing Americans with debt and job losses funded by bankers who have access to printing-press money. It also made it possible for America to fund endless wars with debt. But to keep the dollar viable, its leading competitor had to be held at bay. Hence smackdowns like the one this past Wednesday.

    But the Russians and Chinese and a host of other countries are sick and tired of being told they have to use dollars for trade when doing so helps fund the U.S. that is outright hostile to those nations and seeks their overthrow. Led by the massive wealth gained by China over the years, financial institutions and a currency backed by gold appear to be well underway so that they can compete with the immoral monetary system the U.S. set up on August 15, 1971.

    Now this gets directly to the issue of gold. Watch very carefully when in a week or so the first petro yuan contract comes due on the Shanghai Exchange. You know that countries that sell their oil to China will have to get paid in yuan. If they are a bit shaky on accepting yuan, they can hedge against yuan by taking delivery of gold (not paper delivery but real gold) on the Shanghai Gold Exchange, which, unlike the LBMA in London, is an honest, physical gold market.

    So while American economists with PhD’s in economics thumb their noses at gold as money and worship Keynesian lies that suggest nations can get rich by printing endless amounts of money no matter how far into debt and insolvency that takes them, the Russians (who are largely debt free) and the Chinese (not to mention the Iranians and other nations of Asia) are building up their gold reserves for the day when the U.S. self destructs, financially or otherwise.

    As an American I don’t wish for that because when that happens there will be untold pain in our country. But clearly, the stage has been set. The bombing of Damascus by Trump today may be the start of an unfathomable war that he had little chance of avoiding given the obvious control of our government by the Deep State.

    *  *  *

    I believe we are on the cusp of a major breakout in the price of gold. It is taking more and more paper gold to hold it down and if/when those who buy paper gold, thinking that will protect them as well as the real thing, find out that isn’t true we may see a run on physical gold that could send the yellow metal to prices undreamed of by the most bullish of gold bulls. [Technician Michael Oliver]’s initial target once we get through $1,350 at the end of this month or a month in the near future is $1,700. By that time, it’s hard to imagine that there won’t be quite a number of people trading in their marijuana and cryptocurrencies for gold and gold mining shares.

  • Trump Job Approval Highest Since First 100 Days; Majority Of Men Support The President

    Update: Trump has apparently taken notice, correctly pointing out that his approval rating, according to Rasmussen, is higher than Obama’s was at this point in his presidency.

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

    * * *

    Even Bloomberg and the Washington Post are being forced to admit that President Donald Trump’s approval rating is on the rise.

    Both media organizations, which had seized on every opportunity to tout the president’s approval rating when it was mired in the mid-to-low 30s, are now being forced to tout a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showing Trump with an approval rating above 40% – his highest since his first 100 days in office.

    Poll

    Furthermore, among men, Trump’s approval rating has risen to 49%, while 47% of men disapprove. Meanwhile, 32% of women approve of the president’s job performance. Meaning that, for the first time, half of US men support the president.

     

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

     

    Nearly every credible poll is now showing the president’s job approval at his highest since taking office. On Friday, Rasmussen Reports published a poll showing 50% of likely US voters approve of Trump’s job performance – while 49% disapprove. Of those 34% strongly approve of the president’s jon performance, while 40% strongly disapprove.

    Last week, CNN was also forced to report that Trump’s approval rating has rebounded to its highest level since the 100-day mark, with 42% of likely voters approving of the way Trump is handling the presidency.

    The president’s strongest approval rating was for his handling of the economy, of which 48% approve and 45% disapprove. This is clearly a sign that the Republican’s tax cut plan has been welcomed by most Americans, who are beginning to see more money left in their paychecks.

    Finally, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week shows Trump’s approval rating just four points below a peak reached last month – down from 43% to 39%.

    However, the president’s decision to attack Syria will likely dent his support among some of his most fervent backers, who had applauded Trump’s “America First” stance, and his promises to bring US troops home from abroad.

  • Take The Red Pill – The History Of Syrian False Flags Exposed

    “You take the red pill… and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

    The infamous line from the movie ‘The Matrix’  – where Morpheus offers Neo a glimpse of the ‘real’ reality that is occurring, not the ‘manufactured’ reality that those whose rule want him to see – could not be a better analogy for what one brave (and clearly a treasonous Russian troll who should be banned from any and all social media forever) Twitter user exposes below.

    “Jad” – @Jadinho123 – shows how the world has been lied to many times to create the current Syrian theater of war…

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

    Remember this photo of a kid laying next to her ‘dead’ parents who were ‘killed’ by Assad and this photo went viral and got thousands of retweets and had people crying all over Twitter?

    Well…

    Oh and remember this photo of this child who was in the back of an ambulance after supposedly being attacked by Assad and his regime???

    Well…

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

    It gets worse…

    And worser…

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

    And worsest…

    And a little make-up for good measure…

    And a rehearsal for a false flag chemical attack…

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

    Remember the girl “running to survive and All her family have been killed…”

    Well, it was a clip from a music video!!…

    Oh, and remember that video of the Syrian boy ‘saving’ his sister from Assad forces?

    Well, it was a lie too…

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

    And here is the cast…

    And one has to wonder if this is a ‘coincidence’ or is this girl just shit out of luck?

    And CNN didn’t care…

    Remember this harrowing scene from Syria?

    Well it was Gaza…

    Remember Bana? The young Syrian girl living in Syria who would post videos blaming Assad and the regime for her friends and families deaths.

    Well, this is her dad…

    Here’s Bana meeting Turkish president Erdogan. Because a man who funds ISIS is so innocent right???

    h/t @Jadinho123

    Finally here are two truth-bombs that actually made it to the mainstream media…

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

    Before being cut off...

    Now, go back to your dinner and your ignorantly uninformed, cognitively dissonant, unquestioning ‘patriotism’ to support whatever you’re told… no matter how much evidence of previous lies and manipulation you are confronted with.

  • This Is How The US Postal Service Loses So Much Money

    Authored by Justin Murray via The Mises Institute,

    Lately, when he isn’t trying to blame China on America’s competitiveness woes, President Donald Trump has become obsessed with the online retailer Amazon. While there’s speculationthat Trump is using the reins of government to carry out a personal grudge because Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, also owns The Washington Post, the more recent obsession is based on his belief that the United States Postal Service is subsidizing Amazon’s activity.

    The claim is that, based on a cost-plus method of pricing, Amazon is being subsidized $1.47 per package delivered by the USPS as a last-mile carrier. With an estimated608 million boxes shipped by the online retailer in 2017, Trump is implying that Amazon has shorted the postal service by $893 million.

    Considering the USPS lost $2.7 billion, this further implies that Amazon is a key reason why the USPS is struggling financially. Trump goes on to state that Amazon should fork over the entire $2.7 billion to cover the difference.

    A key problem here is the assumption that businesses operate on a cost-plus basis. This kind of thinking is a result of how warped government operations are, which frequently engage in cost-plus kinds of contracts. Cost-plus contracts are where the government agrees to cover all the applicable costs of performing the work plus a guaranteed profit. These forms of contracts are relatively unusual in the private business sector, where bidding on price are the primary form of activity. Because of the nature of cost-plus, and how they will frequently go over-budget because there is little incentive to control costs of performance, companies generally don’t engage in them. This means, in the world outside of tax-funded activity, the USPS has to compete with other package carriers like UPS and FedEx and doesn’t have the luxury of guaranteeing itself a profit on every activity.

    When it comes to the USPS, the organization has significant fixed costs. In business planning, prices are usually lower-bound by the variable cost of activity. Any revenues that are collected above and beyond the variable costs are able to contribute toward fixed expenses. This is referred to as the contribution margin. Because the fixed component exists whether the product or service is sold or not, companies will be pressured to lower prices until they reach this contribution margin is exhausted. Companies then hope to generate sufficient volume at this margin to cover the fixed expenses. If the choice is between no sale and a sale below an optimal price with some contribution margin, the organization will usually go with the lower than optimal price to at least slow the resource deterioration.

    The reason the USPS is in trouble and is struggling to cover its estimated $29 billion in fixed costs is because of its status as a partial legal monopoly. From the own words of the USPS, Congress has granted, with criminal penalty, the USPS total monopoly over the delivery of letters, with some carve-out exceptions (such as urgent or free of charge). Like most monopolies, the USPS had little incentive to keep costs controlled. In 1999, the USPS even went so far as to shrug off the burgeoning Internet, e-mail in particular, as some fad and engaged in sorting facility expansions with the expectation that letter volume would continue to grow. Since peaking in 2001, the number of letters delivered by the USPS has since collapsed to nearly half as much in 2017. The USPS costs, however, continued to increase, from $62 billion in 2000 to $72.3 billion in 2017, despite the collapse of business volume. The USPS was only able to remain solvent by leveraging its monopoly status by driving up the price of stamps from $0.34 for a first class stamp in 1999 to $0.50 later this year. But even this is running into limitations as the decline in mail volume accelerates.

    This monopoly, however, doesn’t cover package delivery, putting the USPS in a strange position of having a legal monopoly on only part of its business. This creates the impression that the package business is subsidized by the letter business since the prices on the letter side aren’t limited by a competitive force. This then creates the further impression that the expenses, which were never controlled because of the historical reliance on letter delivery, should be evenly applied to package delivery as well. Thus the assumption there is a subsidy at all when in reality the costs are grossly overinflated due to a lack of market discipline.

    When a private business is threatened by decreased volume, they usually have to trim operations to adjust their size to meet the new market demands. The USPS, on the other hand, does not do this. The organization continues to operate on the assumption it must make daily deliveries, six days a week, to every address in the nation. Even the old rural excuse has become weakened as the nation becomes more urban (assuming it was ever justified to tax city residents to provide city amenities to those who elected to live in remote places). Not that rural residents need a monopoly organization to deliver junk mail.

    Repeal the Postal Service’s Monopoly

    So what’s the answer to the failings of the USPS? Repeal the Private Express Statutes and let the USPS loose to manage its own affairs without Congressional interference in its operations. As Lysander Spooner famously proved back in 1844 with the American Letter Mail Company, the private sector can not only deliver the mail, it can deliver the mail profitably for a fraction of the cost of the postal service. This solves two problems:

    1. The appearance that Amazon is subsidized through the USPS is eliminated

    2. Profitable, stable delivery organizations can come into play

    Repealing the private express statutes and getting government out of the mail delivery business may also very well save the USPS as not only can the USPS get out from under populist mandates, such as the overly generous retirement program and maintaining an absurd number of postal service locations; the USPS maintains over twice as many postal stops as McDonald’s has restaurants. It will also open up the market to more competition and competition breeds superior operations for competing members as creative methods of operation are more likely to be identified and can be mimicked, leading to superior operations for all players.

    In the end, the “problem” with Amazon is self-inflicted by the government insisting it operates a monopoly letter carrier. Trump can fix the problem with one fell swoop by pressuring Congress not to pass laws imposing higher rates on Amazon delivered packages, which will only accelerate the failure of the USPS since Amazon would just pick an alternate carrier, but to open up unrestricted competition in mail delivery and cut the USPS loose from the government tether. It certainly worked out well in New Zealand.

  • Nearly One-Third Of Americans Believe Facebook Has A "Negative Impact On Society"

    Chamath Palihapitiya, former Facebook vice president for user growth, isn’t the only one who believes his former employer is ripping apart the fabric of society.

    Palihapitiya triggered an unexpectedly intense backlash after revealing that he feels “tremendous guilt” for his role in building the social media giant, warning that, if you feed the beast, that beast will destroy you…”

    “I feel tremendous guilt.”

    “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works. That is truly where we are.”

    “I would encourage all of you, as the future leaders of the world, to really internalize how important this is.  If you feed the beast, that beast will destroy you.  If you push back on it you have a chance to control it and reign it in.”

    “There is a point in time when people need a hard break from some of these tools.”

    “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works.  No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem.”

    “So, we’re in a really bad state of affairs right now, in my opinion.  It is eroding the core foundations of how people behave by and between each other.”

    “And, I don’t have a good solution.  You know, my solution is I just don’t use these tools anymore.  I ahven’t for years.  It’s created huge tension with my friends.  Huge tensions in my social circles.”

    …He later walked his comments back after twitter users suggested that he maybe donate some of the money he made off the enterprise to a worthy cause.

    And now, shortly after it published reports about a survey showing 10% of US Facebook users deleted their accounts in the wake of the company’s latest data-privacy scandal, Recode is back with another scathing story about Facebook’s public identity crisis.

    Tavis McGinn, Mark Zuckerberg’s former personal pollster, conducted a survey that exposes just how reviled Facebook is in many parts of the world. Indeed, up to 33% of responds in Australia, Canada and the UK say Facebook is having a “negative impact on society.”

    Americans have a similarly negative perception of FB, with just 32% (about 54 million people) of the population also believing that Facebook has a negative impact. For context, that makes Facebook more popular than Marlboro cigarettes, but worse than McDonald’s.

    FB

    In fact, the only countries where distrust in Facebook was relatively low were countries like Japan, where few people use Facebook.

    McGinn, who recently opened his own polling firm after leaving Facebook after six months, said he didn’t ask what, specifically, these negative impacts might be – but he says he has an idea.

    “In the U.S. obviously we’re very focused on election interference, and in the U.K. they’ve been focused on that as well with Brexit,” McGinn told Recode. “But there are also things like, ‘how does it affect children, how does the platform create addiction, how does the platform encourage extremism, how does the platform push American values onto other countries?’”

    There’s also the issue of Facebook’s data policies, which McGinn, who spent three years at Google, says are a result of Facebook’s DNA.

    “The culture has always been focused on driving usage, on getting more people to use and how to get them to spend longer on the platform,” he said. “It influences every decision, large and small.”

    And here’s the kicker: McGinn conducted his poll in January and February. Which means that, judging by the decline in user engagement – which had already been on the decline before the Cambridge Analytica scandal – negative perceptions of the company have probably worsened.

  • The Systemic Racism Of American Gun Control

    Authored by Steve C. via Free Market Shooter blog,

    Imagine if you will, centuries of racially-targeted denial of a well established, and popular civil right in the United States. Within this context, imagine that going back to colonial times, that it was at times legal to physically attack or even kill a free black person who was practicing this right, or that later state constitutions would outright prohibit the exercise of this right if you happened to have the wrong skin color.

    Imagine too, the US Supreme Court determining that citizenship rights could not be extended to free persons of color, lest they exercise this fundamental liberty. I am of course, talking about the right to keep and bear arms, which in a nutshell has laid out the horrors of systemic racism applied to that right from the colonial era to the Civil War.

    In 1857,  Chief Justice Taney wrote in the infamous Dred Scott case, that to extend citizenship to the “negro race” would allow black people to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” This, along with voting and free speech, was problematic to white America at the time. Fear of slave revolts was so powerful, that even free blacks were to be denied basic civil rights, lest they perhaps attempt to overthrow slaveholders.

    After the Civil War, when thousands of freed slaves had served in the Union Army, and learned the use of arms, the situation was no better. As former Confederate states rejoined the Union, they quickly imposed onerous restrictions on the bearing of arms, with the understanding that they would not be enforced against white citizens. In 1870, the state of Tennessee banned ownership of all but the most expensive handguns. By 1907 five southern states had outlawed handguns altogether  (South Carolina, 1902) required their registration (Mississippi, 1906) or had instituted full or partial bans on inexpensive handguns (Tennessee in 1870 and 79, Arkansas in 1882, and Alabama in 1893).

    In each case, these laws were explicitly race based. Other southern states would over time admit that their gun laws were specifically designed to limit or prevent black citizens from acquiring or bearing arms, or would enforce such laws only along racial lines. In 1911, New York City passed the infamous Sullivan Act which was an open effort to disarm Eastern European immigrants, and other persons not wealthy or politically connected enough to acquire a permit to carry a pistol. As late as 1968, many believed the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed less to control guns, and more “to control blacks”.

    Thomas Nasts 1878 political cartoon vilified white supremacy and reveals how helpless recently freed blacks were in some parts of the South

    Into the 1980’s and 90’s further attacks against poor (and usually black) persons and their right to keep and bear arms continued. Many state housing projectsattempted to ban the possession of guns in public housing, while in 1988 Maryland imposed a ban on inexpensive handguns, perhaps the most modern and recent ban on guns based on price.

    Florida at one time, went so far as to require a license to own “Winchester rifles” or other repeating rifles. This law, first enacted in 1893, and revised in 1901 was an insidious way to prevent minorities from gaining access to modern rifle cartridges like the .30-30 Winchester or modern bolt action rifles chambered for the same cartridge as the US Army Springfield. By attempting to bar blacks and other minorities from accessing modern repeating rifles, Florida was seeking to ensure they would remain helpless against a tyrannical state, and white supremacists. Needless to say, white people never had trouble gaining permission to own modern repeating rifles during this time.

    The National Firearms Act of 1934, or NFA was the first attempt at a national set of gun control laws that applied in all states. While not overtly racist, it targeted “gangster weapons”, and also would have originally placed handguns under the same strict regulation as machine guns and other NFA items. However, then, as now, “gangster” is often a polite way of describing an ethnic minority or minorities who are seen as undesirable. In the early 20th century, this was often Eastern European immigrants, which New York City’s Sullivan act targeted, in what may have been the first case of racist gun control laws targeted at Europeans.

    Today, the NFA continues to burden law abiding Americans by vilifying safety equipment such as suppressors, and making it difficult to acquire rifles and shotguns with short barrels. All this, due to racially driven moral panics over Prohibition era “gangsters” who often ran the gamut of socially unacceptable ethnic origins.

    Today, there is a great deal of heated debate on the way police treat ethnic minorities lawfully bearing arms as opposed to how they treat white people. In the 1960’s and 70’s, active and openly armed resistance played an important role in the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Panthers most famously took it to to extremes by openly bearing arms at several state capitol buildings. It should be noted, that in California and Washington State, that action resulted in new laws about the open display of guns, but modern day (and mostly white) open displays of arms under similar circumstances have not been met with new legislation.

    Members of the Black Panthers protest for gun rights in Olympia, Washington – 1969

    We might speculate that modern day attempts at gun control are race neutral, but if you consider that most, if not all gun control is driven from major population centers, and that “tough on crime” is just another racist dogwhistle, then we can start seeing the more implicit gun control. Rarely do these sorts of laws openly target rural areas, but “inner city gun crime” is regularly trotted out as some sort of crisis to stamp out – and if it happens to disarm law abiding minorities, who cares?

    One might ask why in the enlightened 21st century, there is still fear over armed minorities. The answer remains the same. An armed person is free, but a disarmed person is a subject. The War on Drugs succeeded in destroying the inner cities by breaking up families, and disenfranchising millions of minorities, and on the heels of this, modern day gun control has succeeded in leaving only criminals and violent gangs armed. Today, as in the harsh years of the 19th century, racism requires minorities to be unarmed, and unable to fully stand up for themselves, or their rights, lest they too gain their place in the sun and walk as equals in American society.

    The question then, is how to combat this pervasive, systemic racism? The very political party that claims to support the best interests of American minorities, also is the one that openly, and actively seeks to disarm them. The Democratic Party’s open assault on gun rights even has a paternalistic ring to it, that is straight out of the 19th century. We must ban guns “for the children” or “to protect our communities.” From their lofty (and mostly white) seats of power, they demand the inner cities and urban areas of America surrender their arms, their liberties and their rights in order to “fight crime”, and in return, they are met with hostile police forces, an ongoing war on civil rights disguised as a war on drugs, and the assurance that the government will protect them. This of course, being the same government that has spent hundreds of years actively suppressing these populations. How it is different today is beyond me.

    Today, it is expected ethnic minorities will be left wing leaning, and it is expected if you are left wing, you are anti gun. It is a perfect formula that took centuries to perfect. How better to disarm a people, than to convince them to support that idea themselves? It is insidious, twisted and a violation of all basic moral and legal ideals which this country was founded upon.  Landmark Supreme Court decisions like Heller and McDonald have established once and for all that the 2nd Amendment applies to ALL states and ALL Americans. Places like Chicago and Washington DC have grossly abused these rulings by imposing strict limits on carrying guns, and imposed excessive financial and regulatory burdens on acquiring permits to carry a gun. Other states like California and many East Coast states already do the same. It is the same, age old tactic. Pay lip service to civil rights, but make sure that only the well to do, and well connected can actually exercise them.

    What then can be done to combat the deeply rooted racism that is at the heart of gun control in modern America? This is a very complicated question, as the very idea of minorities organizing for their interests has been seen as threatening by many people over the years. However, there are now a rock solid set of Supreme Court cases which make it patently clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a right for all  Americans to enjoy. There are many pro-gun groups which actively promote the right to keep and bear arms, and increasing minority membership in them is a net positive for all parties involved.

    The divisive nature of American politics today often pits people with shared common interests against each other, if they happen to espouse different beliefs in other areas. While many rational Americans agree about some things, they do not agree on all, but in the arena of gun rights, all gun owners should welcome each other, and put aside other political differences to promote gun rights for all people. This may be the biggest stumbling block to overcoming the deep seated racism that is modern day gun control. Far too often I have seen so-called conservativesreject gun owning allies, because they voted the wrong way. Divisive and emotion driven political beliefs on non gun related issues keep gun owners apart from each other, and this wedge is almost assuredly a deliberate action to keep people from coming together in common purpose.

    Racism is a vicious, ugly and horrible blight on American society, and now more than ever it must be stamped out, and gun rights taken back from laws rooted in keeping slaves and free blacks under control, or in suppressing the rights of the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society. Civil rights are for everybody, and everybody must come together to defend them.

    For more reading about the roots of racism in American gun control, I recommend Clayton Cramer’s The Racist Roots of Gun Control, and Robert F. Williams’ Negroes With Guns as well as Akinyele Omowale Umoja’s We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 15th April 2018

  • The War Machine Springs To Life Over Syria

    Update: A few short hours after the initial writing of this report, the US, the UK and France conducted a missile air strike against Syria 

    Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

    NATO has drawn 1st blood. Will Russia respond?

    The events of the past few days involving Syria, the US and Russia are highly concerning.

    Currently, the US is busy readying to drop just dropped ~120 missiles on Syria to punish it for an alleged poison gas attack on its civilians. I say “alleged” because no on-the-ground investigation has been conducted.

    At this point, we don’t really know with confidence what was done by whom. But America’s war machine is straining hard against it’s chain, eager to strike. And this poison gas atrocity may just be the excuse the West needs to unleash it.

    Whodunit?

    We do know that Syria at one time indeed had stockpiles of chemical weapons. But they handed them over to international inspectors some years back.  Could they have kept some stocks hidden? Sure.

    But we also know that the rebel jihadists in Syria have been caught making and using chemical weapons many times in the recent past.  Russia has repeatedly brought forth evidence of chemical manufacturing sites (very crude basement laboratories, really), located in areas recently recaptured from Syrian jihadists and mercenaries. So it easily could have been the jihadists that conducted the gas attack.

    Are these so-called “moderate rebels” morally capable of using poison gas on civilians, children especially?  You bet they are.  These are proven head-choppers, supported by the US, who have publicly posted numerous videos of themselves beheading children.  Morals are not part of their framework or this war.

    Plus, the gas war crime certainly serves their interest more than it does Assad’s at this time.

    Between the two suspects, it’s far more likely that the increasingly desperate jihadists, who are clearly losing the fight at this point, would use any and every method at their employ to their advantage. 

    The West’s response right now feels like a bad detective movie. Imagine the lead investigator of a grisly murder choosing to focuses first on the neighbor down the hall, while ignoring the spouse with a past history of domestic abuse and who recently took out a very large life insurance policy on the victim.  The current “Blame Assad!” narrative seems a poorly written script where you have to overlook a lot of gaping plot holes to get through the movie.

    So there hasn’t been an independent investigation to clarify with confidence who is the guilty party here. But that hasn’t stopped a swift verdict from circulating throughout the western press: “Assad’s government did it, and must be punished.”

    Keep in mind that US-made cluster bombs are busy killing children in Yemen. And nearly 130 Yemen children die every day from starvation thanks to the combined actions of Saudi and US forces blockading that nation’s access to world markets. 

    Suddenly, children in Syria matter a lot to the West, while Yemen’s child victims are rarely ever mentioned. Suddenly there’s an urgent moral issue being rushed through the court of public opinion.

    This has all the hallmarks of the prior propaganda campaigns we’ve seen before.  Scant evidence, immediate assignment of blame, and a quick rush to military action before anybody can really properly question the train of events.

    The Rising Risk Of War

    Which leads us to where we are now: the US and several NATO countries may attack just attacked Syria very soon with cruise missiles launched from ships (highest likelihood) and possibly airplanes.

    Any such attack, it needs repeating, would be illegal under world laws if it happens without prior UN Security Council approval. Receiving such approval will be highly unlikely, because Russia sits on that council and has veto vote power.  So any attack will, by definition be illegal, and not a sanctioned affair.

    However, the US and its allies have been operating illegally in Syria for many years. They haven’t shown much concern to-date for securing international approval of their actions. It’s unlikely to expect that to change anytime soon.

    But the US isn’t the only one on the schoolyard who can throw a punch. Russia, which has been supporting the Bashir al-Assad regime in Syria, is now taking a much harder line.

    After years of being increasingly painted as the West’s favorite villain (the latest campaign instantly blaming Putin for the poisoning of ex-spy Skripal was particularly hamfisted), Russia has made it clear: they are done being provoked. They won’t backpedal any farther. If/when the US launches missiles at Syria, Russia has promised to shoot them down and fire a counter-strike at the launchers.

    This is serious folks:

    Russia will shoot down all US missiles and sources of fire, Russian Ambassador says

    Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin said in an interview with the Lebanese TV channel Al-Manar that Russia would shoot down all missiles in case of US military aggression against Syria, RIA Novosti reports.

    Russian air defence systems will be used to destroy both the weapons and the sources of fire.

    Earlier, The New York Times reported that US presidential aides recommended the head of the White House to inflict a series of fierce attacks on several targets in Syria in response to the alleged chemical attack in the city of Douma, even though the fact of the chemical attack itself was never proved.

    If Russia shoots back at the “sources of fire”, that means the US ships and planes used to launch the cruise missiles

    I’d personally be worried sick if someone I loved was on the USS Donald Cook right now.  This is the “source of fire” most likely to be employed. 

    Oddly, it’s all alone there in the Mediterranean. Other US ships appear to be days away. Perhaps it’s “odd” in the same way as when the best ships in the seventh fleet were conveniently out of harm’s way when Pearl Harbor was attacked, leaving only older less seaworthy ships to be sunk, and giving President Roosevelt the casus belli he needed to get America into WW2.

    Will the USS Donald Cook be the neo-cons’ sacrifice as they endeavor to get their war with Russia kicked into a higher gear?

    The US, for its part, is apparently busy communicating with the Russians, communicating it will seek to avoid killing any Russians if at all possible should it strike Syria.  This will limit the range of targets, but the risks are still very, very high:

    A strike against Syria will likely come in the form of missiles, as was the case last year.

    The United States would not want to risk putting manned aircraft over Syrian air defenses — a shoot-down would send the conflict spiraling in unforeseeable new directions.

    The USS Donald Cook, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, is within easy striking range of Syria, as is a French frigate with its own cruise missiles.

    These two ships, possibly aided by a US submarine, are likely to play a role in a strike.

    What are the risks?

    The reaction from Assad backer Moscow is unpredictable and Russia has threatened retaliatory action against the United States if missiles are fired at Syria.

    The Russian army on Wednesday accused the White Helmets civil defense organization of staging a chemical weapons attack in Douma, where observers say more than 40 people died in a gas attack.

    NBC News reported Tuesday that Russia has learned how to use GPS jammers to limit the capabilities of US drones operating over Syria.

    “The US has to be very careful not to accidentally strike Russian targets or kill Russian advisors,” Ben Connable, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, told AFP.

    “That significantly limits the number of options available to the United States, because the Russians are embedded in many cases with the Syrians.”

    Connable warned that if the US accidentally or purposefully kills uniformed Russian soldiers, there would potentially be a dangerous escalation between the two nuclear powers.

    (Source)

    The plan here is for Trump get to appear tough, garnering the praise of the war party in the US (which is solidly bi-partisan) and the war press (the entire MSM), while not killing any Russians and, frankly, not doing too much actual damage to Syria.

    This is pretty much from the same playbook as last year’s false-flag gas attack in Syria, when we fired 59 Tomahawk missiles. 

    But this time, Russia has made it clear that any repeat of last year’s missile attack will have consequences. It has moved its key naval assets out of port and into strike positions:

    APRIL 12, 2018: RUSSIA STARTS EXERCISES OFF SYRIAN COAST, VOWS RESPONSE TO US STRIKES

    The Russian Navy has launched live-fire exercises off the Syrian coast as the US is still preparing for a possible military action against the country’s government.

    The Russian exercises will be held from April 11 to April 26, the period when, according to some experts, the US strike will be most likely if the administration of US President Donald Trump decides to attack Syria.

    On April 10, Russia’s envoy to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin once again confirming that Russian forces are ready to shoot down missiles and target the launchers in case of an escalation in the war-torn country.

    Ali Akbar Velayati, the top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, vowed to support the Damascus government against any attack of the US and its allies.

    So now we have Russian ships in the Mediterranean on live-fire exercises, bumping around a smallish sea with US naval assets, with everybody on pins and needles as NATO-Russia relations break down and tensions rise.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Again, sane people ought to be asking why we are even in this position in the first place.  Exactly what US interests are at risk in Syria? Whatever they may be, is defending them worth risking a hot confrontation with a nuclear power over? So far, I’ve seen zero compelling explanations on this front.

    A Dangerous Advertising Campaign?

    Looked at from a different angle, here’s an interesting article from a Russian newspaper (translated by Google so please read past the choppy writing…) which posits that the attack will be proven a useful test of Russia’s latest anti-missile systems.

    If successful, Russia may well get to sell lots of them in the future. Great news comrades! We’re getting the chance to showcase our products!

    The S-400 and “Pantsiri” are preparing for a grandiose exam in Syria

    “Russian air defense systems in Syria have an opportunity to show everything they are capable of,” a source close to the Russian Defense Ministry noted in a comment to the newspaper VZGLYAD. Such a check is worth a lot, the interlocutor notes.

    “For the military all over the world, this will be an extremely important lesson – the analysis of this blow and its reflection will long be handled by the headquarters of all the leading military powers of the world,” the general believes. The subject of analysis will also be how the electronic warfare complexes (EW) will work when reflecting missile strikes.

    The number of downed enemy missiles is not an end in itself, Lieutenant-General Alexander Gorkov, head of the air defense missile forces in 2000-2008, remarked in conversation with the newspaper VZGLYAD. He stressed: “The air defense forces are designed to completely conserve the object. Therefore, if only one of the 100 rockets is shot down, but the one that flew exactly to the target, and because of this the object survived, this is considered a success. “

    But there are objective criteria for anti-aircraft gunners.

    This indicator means the probability of a target being hit by one missile. The number of intercepted targets is divided by the total number of missiles fired. For example, less than 0.7 means low efficiency; 0.8 and above – good, 0.9 – excellent, explained earlier to the portal ” Economy Today ” Lieutenant General Aitech Bizhev, former deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force on the CIS Joint Air Defense System.

    “If we are talking about cruise missiles going at extremely low altitudes, then the efficiency should be at least 0.85-0.90,

    As an example, Bezhev cited the result of the Syrian air defense forces, which recently repulsed the attack of  Israeli aircraft. F-15 planes fired eight missiles, the Syrians intercepted five of them. Thus, the coefficient was 0.6, that is 60% of the shot down missiles. This result is not very pleasing, Bezhev complained.

    However, the expert of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (ACT) Vasily Kashin believes that the destruction of 50-60% of US missiles would be a huge success for Russian weapons. In fact, he added, even the destruction of 30% can be considered a great success, if we bear in mind both Russian and Syrian air defense forces.

    It should be taken into account that the Syrians used old complexes, notes Bizhev. And the newest S-400 air defense systems are located at Russian facilities – the Khmeimim base and in Tartus. According to the Lieutenant-General, the efficiency of the S-400 for unobtrusive speed targets is 0.9, that is “magnificent”, 90%.

    In turn, Kashin recalls: in addition to our ground-based air defense in Syria will be two Russian frigates with the complex “Shtil-1”, which stand off the coast of Syria. “Each of them has a vertical launch for 24 anti-aircraft missiles,” the expert reminded VZGLYAD.

    Potential buyers of weapons following the outcome of this conflict will draw conclusions about which weapon systems are more effective – American cruise missiles or Russian air defense systems. For a correct assessment, it is important to consider how many missiles are fired at the covered targets. “If the enemy will use a huge number of missiles, for example, more than 200, then you do not know exactly how many missiles will be on the target. Miracles do not happen, “Kashin said. He adds that it is impossible to completely repulse such a blow.

    “For example, there are 100 air targets, for each we spend two anti-missiles. With this amount you need to have a very high ammunition. Is there such a number of missiles in the ammunition of the grouping deployed in Syria? “Asks General Alexander Gorkov.

    “The combat component of the S-300 division is 32 missiles (if there are eight launchers) or 48 missiles, if 12 units are available,” the interlocutor points out. “If two rockets are used for each shooting, the ammunition will be enough for 16 or 24 launches, respectively.” If the coefficient of 0.9 is shown in these shootings, this will be evaluated as a success, including potential buyers of Russian weapons.

    Even if that was a little long and technical for you, just know I find it possibly comforting. If Russia is looking for a ‘grandiose exam’ of its war matériel, and the US is going to attack mainly to satisfy internal politics (and Russia knows this), then that may contain any military exchange to a relatively small skirmish (for now). 

    But if not, and Russia is truly backed into a corner, tired of the West’s vilification and NATO’s encroachment, it will show it claws. History has long shown that the Middle East is a powder keg where conflicts can easily escalate quickly. Where escalation might lead in this case is very worrisome indeed.

    Time To Prepare For War

    There remains, as yet, no evidence proving Assad’s government was behind the alleged gas attack in Douma.

    All that’s been presented to the world are video clips showing what appear to be stricken people. However, we have long learned that such videos prove to be fraudulent. The same White Helmets who released these clips have been caught many times before using crisis actors and staging events that look just like the videos released — shaking cameras that sweep and lurch in tights shots over closely spaced bodies, poor lighting, etc. 

    Moreover, the US and NATO blamed Assad and Russia within hours of these release of these videos, well before any actual evidence could have been collected and confirmed. As of course, they’ve similarly done time and again over the past years. Clearly, there’s an eagerness on the West’s side to find a reason to take harder action against Russia.

    Will this one be it?

    While the prospect of a kinetic (shooting) conflict between the West and Russia is obviously of greatest concern, the war could happen in one or several of many other forms (cyber, financial, trade, etc.) which I’ve written about extensively in the past.

    We need to prepare ourselves for the prospect of war, even if this situation merely turns out to be an S-400 marketing blitz.  Because at the current trajectory, even if this event turns out not to be the flashpoint that ignites a larger confrontation, the odds of one that does happening soon is just too damn high.

    It’s very clear that the US has embedded neocons that want a unipolar world where the US is top dog and gets to boss around China and Russia.  That makes war “highly likely” in our future. 

    China and Russia quite rightly believe that they deserve to be treated on more equal footing and have their own national pride and internal political realities with which to contend, meaning they cannot appear to be pushed around by the US.  Saving face is important.

    In Part 2: What To Prepare For we assess the most likely paths the current standoff may take, the probability of each, and what the ramifications of each would be. Knowing tomorrow’s likeliest outcomes will help you best prepare today.

    An escalating conflict between the US and Russia, even if limited to a proxy war in Syria, will result in tremendous casualites — of life, of geopolicital relations, and of markets. Protect yourself, those you love, and your wealth from becoming part of the collateral damage.

    Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

  • 9 Things Cannabis Investors Should Know

    The swift regulatory changes taking place in the global cannabis sector are almost without modern precedent.

    While some find the situation analogous to the repeal of Prohibition in the United States,Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes that it’s also fair to point out that such events happened 85 years ago in the midst of the Great Depression. It was a long time ago, and in a very different economic climate.

    Today’s infographic comes to us from Evolve ETFs, and it shows what investors should know as the legal cannabis sector comes out of the dark.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    WHAT CANNABIS INVESTORS SHOULD KNOW

    Since there is so much happening at once with little precedent for what such a market will look like, it’s worth summing up the sector’s potential in broad strokes:

    1. Global Size
    According to research from The Brightfield Group, the size of the legal cannabis sector is expected to surge from $7.7 billion to $31.4 billion between 2017 and 2021.

    Currently the recreational market makes up only 37% of the global total – but by 2021, that will rise to 57%.

    2. Versatile Uses
    Cannabis comes in different forms. One gram of dried cannabis is roughly equivalent to:

    • 5g of fresh cannabis

    • 15g of edible product

    • 70g of liquid product

    • 0.25g of concentrates

    • 1 cannabis plant seed

    These can be used in various medical applications, including to fight chronic pain, migraines, anxiety, multiple sclerosis, and nausea. Cannabis can also be used to treat Alzheimer’s, PTSD, and cancer.

    3. North American Growth
    By 2021, it’s estimated that North American sales will make up 86% of the global market. Specifically, the U.S. legal market is projected to hit $18.1 billion by that time, while the Canadian legal market is expected to be $8.9 billion in that same year.

    4. A Shifting Legal Landscape
    Canada will be the first G7 country to legalize cannabis at a federal level.

    In the United States, recreational cannabis is already legalized in nine states – but this could change swiftly as various states undergo referendums.

    5. European Markets
    In 2017, the legal market for cannabis is estimated to be just $0.11 billion, but by 2021 it will have expanded to $3.8 billion.

    According to The Brightfield Group, growth will be quite impressive in Western Europe: Germany’s market will grow at a 284% annual rate, the Netherlands at 364%, and Spain at 334%.

    6. Rest of the World
    Although markets outside of North America and Europe will not see the same growth in absolute dollar terms, the legal cannabis market will still expand from $80 million to $350 million, led by activity in Latin America.

    7. Pharmaceutical Research
    Israel has a special place in the cannabis world – the country is world leader in medical cannabis research, and industry expects that it will eventually translate into a $1 billion export opportunity. That said, export plans have hit a recent road bump.

    8. Investment Activity
    Compare the start of 2018 to that of 2017, and you’ll see an impressive difference in investment activity.

    For this we use Canada with its impending recreational legalization as an example: in the first six weeks of 2018, investment was up nearly 7x over the previous year. Further, the average deal size increased from $5.6 million to $18.7 million.

    Meanwhile, the Canadian Cannabis Index rose 201% between January 2017 and January 2018.

    9. How to Invest?
    There are a variety of ways to gain exposure to the sector, including:

    • Licensed producer stocks

    • Biotech stocks

    • Ancillary services stocks

    • Licensed retailer stocks

    • Cannabis ETFs

    Regardless of how you play it, the legal cannabis sector is coming out of the dark – and it will be interesting to see how the industry takes shape.

  • WikiLeaks Secret Cable: "Overthrow The Syrian Regime, But Play Nice With Russia"

    Hours after the overnight US-led missile strikes on Syria, WikiLeaks republished a crucially important diplomatic cable through its official media accounts confirming that Saudi Arabia’s long term strategy in Syria has been to pursue regime change “by all means available.” According to the leaked internal Saudi government document, this is the kingdom’s proposed end-goal even should the United States at any point show “lack of desire” due to the threat of Russian response and possibility of a ‘great power’ confrontation. 

    With American lawmakers and media pundits already urging President Trump to escalate and sustain attacks against Syria, it must be remembered that close US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have long coordinated to create the conditions that might tip the US administration toward full military action resulting in regime change in Damascus. And more recently, fresh off his weeks-long tour of the US, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has both slammed previous proposals of US troop withdrawal in Syria and declared eagerness “to work with allies on any military response in Syria if needed.”

    It is also essential to recall that the al-Qaeda linked group which originated the claims of a government orchestrated chemical attack on civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma, called Jaish al Islam (JAI), is and has always been state sponsored by the Saudi regimeThe Guardian, among others, reported beginning in 2013 that Saudi Arabia founded and trained the group, spending millions. 

    Secret Saudi cable produced by WikiLeaks: Saudi Arabia “must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria” even should the United States at any point show “lack of desire.”

    Notably, as Russia as well as some Western counter-terror experts continue to point the finger at Jaish al Islam (and the “White Helmets”) for staging the Douma “chemical attack” in order to provoke the US military response, it has emerged through past reporting that JAI itself had used chemical weapons against Kurdish militias in Aleppo’s Sheikh Maqsoud district in 2016 (and it appears that the Saudi-backed group openly admitted to carrying out prior chemical attacks according to The Daily Beast).

    Given this current context and the continued rapid unfolding of the crisis, the previously leaked ‘secret’ Saudi memo published by WikiLeaks takes on new significance and meaning: did the Saudis finally trigger their “by any means available” scenario (a ‘chemical incident’) at a moment when their proxies were collapsing in the face of overwhelming Syrian Army victory? 

    The below article and translation was originally authored by Brad Hoff in 2016 for WikiLeaks and Foreign Policy Journal, and is used here with permission.  

    * * *

    Secret Intel Memo: Overthrow the Regime “by all means available”

    A WikiLeaks cable released as part of “The Saudi Cables” in the summer of 2015, now fully translated here for the first time, reveals what the Saudis feared most in the early years of the war: Russian military intervention and Syrian retaliation. These fears were such that the kingdom directed its media “not to oppose Russian figures and to avoid insulting them” at the time.

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/985171468525940737

    Saudi Arabia had further miscalculated that the “Russian position” of preserving the Assad government “will not persist in force.” In Saudi thinking, reflected in the leaked memo, Assad’s violent ouster (“by all means available”) could be pursued so long as Russia stayed on the sidelines.

    The following section of the leaked cable is categorical in its emphasis on regime change at all cost, even should the U.S. vacillate for “lack of desire”:

    “The fact must be stressed that in the case where the Syrian regime is able to pass through its current crisis in any shape or form, the primary goal that it will pursue is taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom and some of the countries of the Gulf coming at the top of the list. If we take into account the extent of this regime’s brutality and viciousness and its lack of hesitancy to resort to any means to realize its aims, then the situation will reach a high degree of danger for the Kingdom, which must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria. As regards the international position, it is clear that there is a lack of ‘desire’ and not a lack of ‘capability’ on the part of Western countries, chief among them the United States, to take firm steps…”

    Amman-based Albawaba News—one of the largest online news providers in the Middle East—was the first to call attention to the WikiLeaks memo, which “reveals Saudi officials saying President Bashar al-Assad must be taken down before he exacts revenge on Saudi Arabia.” Albawaba offered a brief partial translation of the cable, which though undated, was likely produced in early 2012 (based on my best speculation using event references in the text; Russia began proposing informal Syrian peace talks in January 2012).

    Russian Hardware, a Saudi Nightmare

    Over the past weeks Saudi Arabia has ratcheted up its rhetoric on Syria, threatening direct military escalation and the insertion of special forces on the ground, ostensibly for humanitarian and stabilizing purposes as a willing partner in the “war on terror.” As many pundits are now observing, in reality the kingdom’s saber rattling stems not from confidence, but utter desperation as its proxy anti-Assad fighters face defeat by overwhelming Russian air power and Syrian ground forces, and as the Saudi military itself is increasingly bogged down in Yemen.

    Even as the Saudi regime dresses its bellicose rhetoric in humanitarian terms, it ultimately desires to protect the flow of foreign fighters into Northern Syria, which is its still hoped-for “available means” of toppling the Syrian government (or at least, at this point, permanent sectarian partition of Syria).

    U.S. State Department Confirmation

    The U.S. State Department’s own 2014 Country Report on Terrorism confirms that the rate of foreign terrorist entry into Syria over the past few years is unprecedented among any conflict in history:

    “The rate of foreign terrorist fighter travel to Syria–totaling more than 16,000 foreign terrorist fighters from more than 90 countries as of late December–exceeded the rate of foreign terrorist fighters who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, or Somalia at any point in the last 20 years.”

    According to Cinan Siddi, Director of the Institute for Turkish Studies at Georgetown’s prestigious School of Foreign Service, Russian military presence in Syria was born of genuine geopolitical interests. In a public lecture recently given at Baylor University, Siddi said that Russia is fundamentally trying to disrupt the “jihadi corridor” facilitated by Turkey and its allies in Northern Syria.

    The below leaked document gives us a glimpse into Saudi motives and fears long before Russian hardware entered the equation, and the degree to which the kingdom utterly failed in assessing Russian red lines.

    * * *

    A full translation of the text

    THE BELOW is an original and authenticated translation of the WikiLeaks file published as part of “The Saudi Cables.”  Note: the cable as published in the SaudiLeaks trove appears to be incomplete. Its accompanying pages have yet to be located within the massive trove of leaked Arabic documents. 

    […] shared interest, and believes that the current Russian position only represents a movement to put pressure on him, its goals being evident, and that this position will not persist in force, given Russia’s ties to interests with Western countries and the countries of the Gulf.

    If it pleases Your Highness, I support the idea of entering into a profound dialogue with Russia regarding its position towards Syria*, holding the Second Strategic Conference in Moscow, working to focus the discussion during it on the issue of Syria, and exerting whatever pressure is possible to dissuade it from its current position. I likewise see an opportunity to invite the head of the Committee for International Relations in the Duma to visit the Kingdom. Since it is better to remain in communication with Russia and to direct the media not to oppose Russian figures and to avoid insulting them, so that no harm may come to the interests of the Kingdom, it is possible that the new Russian president will change Russian policy toward Arab countries for the better. However, our position currently in practice, which is to criticize Russian policy toward Syria and its positions that are contrary to our declared principles, remains. It is also advantageous to increase pressure on the Russians by encouraging the Organization of Islamic States to exert some form of pressure by strongly brandishing Islamic public opinion, since Russia fears the Islamic dimension more than the Arab dimension.

    In what pertains to the Syrian crisis, the Kingdom is resolute in its position and there is no longer any room to back down. The fact must be stressed that in the case where the Syrian regime is able to pass through its current crisis in any shape or form, the primary goal that it will pursue is taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom and some of the countries of the Gulf coming at the top of the list. If we take into account the extent of this regime’s brutality and viciousness and its lack of hesitancy to resort to any means to realize its aims, then the situation will reach a high degree of danger for the Kingdom, which must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria.

    As regards the international position, it is clear that there is a lack of “desire” and not a lack of “capability” on the part of Western countries, chief among them the United States, to take firm steps […]

    *[in the Arabic text: Russia, but this is a typo]

  • UK Produces "Dossier" To Prove Russian Motive In Skripal Poisoning, Russia Says UK Abducted Daughter

    The UK has proffered what they claim is evidence that Russia has had it out for former double-agent Sergei Skripal since at least 2013, and that Russia has been researching the effectiveness of spreading a nerve agent on door handles for assassination purposes, according to the BBC and the New York Times. The revelations are courtesy of Sir Mark Sedwill, Britain’s national security advisor, who detailed the declassified claims in a Friday letter to NATO. From the NYT:

    Mr. Sedwill’s letter, the most detailed account of British intelligence on the subject to be shared with the public to date, also reported that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was “closely involved in the chemical weapons program” beginning in the mid-2000s.

    During that period, the letter claims, Russia was secretly developing the nerve agents known as Novichok that British officials say were used in the March 4 attack on Sergei V. Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in the quiet cathedral city of Salisbury, England.

    Mr. Sedwill’s letter also said that Britain has evidence that Russian security services have been monitoring the Skripal family. Cyberspecialists from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Services hacked Ms. Skripal’s email in 2013, the letter said. Asked about that at his news conference, Mr. Yakovenko responded sarcastically, “Big surprise.”

    The letter added that Russian intelligence services “view at least some of its defectors as legitimate targets for assassination.” –New York Times

    The letter also claims that “during the 2000s,” a special Russian unit began to develop chemical weapons specifically for state-sponsored attacks, and to “train personnel from special units in the use of these weapons.” 

    This program subsequently included investigation of ways of delivering nerve agents, including by application to door handles,” the letter also says.

    Meanwhile, “Russia believes Yulia Skripal has been abducted by Britain – and that the UK is faking sources in order to blame the Kremlin for her poisoning,” Sky News reported on Thursday after having spoken directly with Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova.

    We have zero information from officials in London about what is going on with her,” Zakharova told Sky News presenter Dermot Murnaghan in Moscow, adding “We have suspicions that she’s been abducted, held against her will.”

    “We just want to be sure that Yulia Skripal is actually better, that this is for real.”

    Yulia Skripal was found unconscious in a Salisbury park on March 4, along with her father, former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal. The circumstances surrounding their poisoning – including the origin and delivery method of the Novichok nerve agent used on the pair has been the source of heated debate for over five weeks.

    Despite no formal investigation having been conducted (and a curious link between Sergei Skripal and former MI6 spy Christopher Steele having been revealed by The Telegraph), several nations consequently slapped Russia with sanctions under the presumption that they were responsible for the attempted assassinations. 

    Yulia cuts off her cousin

    While Yulia Skripal was in the hospital, she reportedly spoke with her Russian cousin Viktoria over the phone – a recording of which was broadcast by Russian television last Thursday in a conversation which the Rossiya 24 announcer emphasized was unverified.

    In the recording, Yulia can be heard telling Victoria that she and her father are healthy, and neither has suffered long-term health damage from the poisoning. British authorities maintained that only Yulia was conscious at the time and that her father was in “critical but stable” condition

    Viktoria Skripal, meanwhile, has repeatedly expressed doubts that Russia was behind the attack – suggesting, says the New York Times, that “bad fish” or an attack by the mother of Yulia Skripal’s boyfriend could have sickened the pair. 

    Relocating to America?

    Last weekend we covered a story from The Sunday Times about a rumor that Sergei and Yulia Skripal will likely be offered “a new life in America in an attempt to protect them from further murder attempts.”

    Intelligence officials at MI6 have had discussions with their counterparts in the CIA about resettling the victims of the Salisbury poisoning. “They will be offered new identities,” a senior Whitehall figure said.

    Security sources said Britain would want to ensure their safety by relocating them with one of the “five eyes” countries, the intelligence-sharing partnership that also includes America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. –The Times

    The obvious place to resettle them is in America, because they’re less likely to be killed there and it’s easier to protect them there under a new identity,” an intelligence source familiar with the negotiations added. “There’s a preference for them to be resettled in a five-eyes nation because their case would have huge security implications.”

    Many are wondering how the pair survived exposure to one of the deadliest nerve agents on the planet, as a 1mm drop is the lethal dose – about the size of a small drop of rain. So far we’ve been told the Novichok was either smeared on a doorknob, at Sergi’s wife’s graveside, the air vents on Sergei’s BMW, and a “gift from friends” opened by Yulia at Zizi’s restaurant. Whatever the case, it also sickened 38 others

    Skripal, a former double agent who was imprisoned in Russia in 2006 after the Kremlin discovered he had been cooperating with British secret services since 1995. He was released and pardoned by then-president Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, and relocated to the UK as part of a spy swap. According to The TelegraphSkripal reportedly has ties to former MI6 agent Christopher Steele

    The Telegraph understands that Col Skripal moved to Salisbury in 2010 in a spy swap and became close to a security consultant employed by Christopher Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier. 

    The British security consultant, according to a LinkedIn social network account that was removed from the internet in the past few days, is also based in Salisbury.

    On the same LinkedIn account, the man listed consultancy work with Orbis Business Intelligence, according to reports. –The Telegraph

    The Telegraph‘s report implies that Skripal – still tied to Russian intelligence, could have been a source for some of the claims in the “Steele Dossier,” a 35-page document full of salacious and unverified claims about Donald Trump, which was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC and arranged for by opposition research firm Fusion GPS.

    If Skripal was involved in the Steele dossier – it would greatly expand the list of who might want him to wake up dead. 

  • "Elon Knew": New Lawsuit Alleges Musk Knowingly Lied About Model 3 Production

    A new securities class action lawsuit filed in late March 2018, which names Elon Musk as a defendant, alleges that the Tesla CEO knew that the Model 3 was not going to be able to be produced as the rates he claimed – and that the company was not going to be able to meet production goals due to – get this – the production lines not even being assembled. The lawsuit alleges that this didn’t prevent Elon Musk from going out and telling the investing public otherwise, hence the allegation of securities fraud.

    First, the allegation that Musk was told by his own employees that the Model 3 couldn’t be mass produced by the end of 2017, which was the company’s stated goal:

    Then, after claiming in May 2017 that the company was “on track” to meet its mass production goal, it’s alleged the company hadn’t even finished building its production lines, clearly meaning it wasn’t “on track”. The lawsuit alleges that Musk knew the line was “way behind”:

    The suit alleges that the company was building Model 3’s by hand at a “pilot shop” at the same time Tesla claimed to be on track for “mass production”; it also claims that it was “evident to anyone who visited the facility” – including Elon Musk – that the line wasn’t built and that “construction workers were spending most of their shifts sitting around with nothing to do”:

    We also read in the lawsuit that Tesla’s Gigafactory, at the time in question, was allegedly capable of producing only one battery pack per day – and that the production of one battery pack took “two shifts” to complete.

    The suit alleges that the company’s former CFO, Jason Wheeler – who is one of more than 50 key executives and VPs to have left the company over the last half decade or so – told Elon Musk personally that they wouldn’t be able to mass produce by the end of 2017. The entire lawsuit is available at this link and some of the most interesting content was first shared by critics of the company on Twitter.

    The drumbeat of accountability for Elon Musk continues to pound louder and louder as each day progresses, with some analysts calling for the SEC to investigate him if the company doesn’t meet its stated cash flow positive and “no capital raise” guidance for the back end of 2018.

    Yesterday we detailed how the company is cutting corners with production and suppliers, as well as with its certified preowned vehicle program. Commentators continue to suggest that Elon musk should be held accountable by regulators if the company again raises capital this year or is not free cash flow positive by the second half of this year, two claims that Musk made this week in an angry outburst where he attacked the messenger (The Economist) for pointing out a Jefferies analysis.

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

    Then, on Friday afternoon, CNBC released an scathing report detailing that a large portion of parts supplied to Tesla to manufacture vehicles with has been substandard or defective. The article alleged that:

    Tesla is struggling to manage and fix a significant volume of flawed or damaged parts from its suppliers, sending some to local machine shops for rework, according to several current and former Tesla engineers. The company said it also makes adjustments to the design of some parts after receiving them from suppliers.

    It continues: 

    All automakers have to deal with some amount of defective or damaged parts, both from their own factories and from suppliers. But, as previously reported, current and former employees say that Tesla experiences a higher rate of defects than industry norms. A significant number of flawed parts, and parts in need of design changes, also come from Tesla’s suppliers, they said.

    The reason for the large number of defective parts? Spending less time to vet suppliers, according to company employees. 

    Current and former employees from the company’s Fremont, Calif. and Sparks, Nevada factories blame Tesla for spending less time to vet suppliers than is typical in auto manufacturing. These people said the company failed to comprehensively test “variance specs” with some vendors before embarking on Model 3 production.

    Ultimately, it’s Tesla lack of experience and scramble to get a car to market that was leading to the pile up in defects, which will end up crushing the company’s “quality control” reputation, as the following episode suggests:

    Auto manufacturing expert Steve Finch, a former GM plant manager with about 40 years of industry experience, said automakers typically deal with some flawed parts from suppliers. Finch said that mass-market car companies normally will take a year or more to vet a prospective supplier. This is to ensure the supplier’s factory follows ISO quality management standards and other processes that are on par with the automaker’s own.

    Former and current employees said Tesla took less time before signing on new suppliers. Tesla employees tasked with vetting suppliers were also not always experienced with ISO quality management standards, said these people.

    We also pointed out yesterday that Tesla is starting to give other indications that it is stretched very thin – and that this leads to cutting certified pre-owned vehicle corners. Yesterday, Electrek wrote an article detailing ugly new changes to the company’s certified preowned checklist procedures, including the company no longer taking care of cosmetic details, which the article refers to as “refurbishing”:

    Now the company has updated its policy and some new cars coming on Tesla’s list of used vehicles have this ‘Not Refurbished’ warning that reads:

    “This car has passed a 70-point mechanical inspection and will be cleaned before delivery. If you would like any additional work that is not covered under your warranty, we can help arrange service after delivery for an added cost.”

    Tesla salespeople have been telling buyers that the automaker is still making sure that the vehicles are up to their standards for the warranty, but they are not fixing cosmetic issues anymore.

    Worst of all, these changes come a time where the company is about to receive a massive inflow of vehicle inventory from three-year leases that started in 2015:

    Tesla has changed its ‘certified pre-owned’ (used) vehicle policy this week to stop “refurbishing” its used cars just ahead of them receiving a big influx of vehicles as more 3-year leases are ending. The automaker had launched the program 3 years ago and it has been tuning it over the last two years.

    Previously, certified preowned Tesla vehicles not only underwent a inspection to check the mechanics and operation of the vehicle, but they also underwent a cosmetic clean up. The cosmetic cleanup always seemed like an absolute necessity, especially given the fact that Tesla buyers are actually unable to view pictures of the certified preowned vehicles that they’re purchasing:

    The cars with this new warning still don’t have real pictures of the actual vehicle, but instead only renderings of the vehicle’s configuration.

    Tesla told Electrek that they are soon going to make it easier to request real pictures of listed vehicles.

    The change comes as Tesla is getting more and more used vehicles, especially after 3-year leases from 2015 when Tesla started ramping up production significantly and also making strides with its leasing program.

    On top of that, the company is still selling these vehicles at premium prices, which the Elektrek article hilariously calls “value retention”:

    With the increased inventory and the lack of “refurbishing”, a decrease in price would be expected, but Tesla used vehicles have historically been very good at value retention.

    Regardless, the air – and questions – of accountability continues to get thicker around Elon Musk and his band of merry brothers.

    If the stock takes another dive next week, what is Mr. Musk going to come up with in order to keep a sense of being such trivial concerns as cash flow and profitability – and more importantly, how long will his lawyers let him keep talking?

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

  • Why Trade Wars Will Unleash Central Banks

    Authored by Nomi Prins via The Daily Reckoning,

    There’s been an abundance of coverage surrounding the recent steel and aluminum tariffs. Those measures could hurt more sectors than they help within the U.S. In particular, it could damage businesses that require metals because they’ll have to pay more for raw materials.

    Trade wars also escalate geopolitical tensions and economic hardships the world over. They have in the past. When the U.S. imposed tariffs in the 1930’s to try to relieve the Great Depression at home, they achieved the opposite effect.

    A global trade war flared, governments became isolated and initiated defensive build-ups. The move ultimately resulted in lower production, reduced global trade and a prolonged international depression that gave rise to WWII.

    While the early Great Depression period in which President Hoover invoked harsh trade wars might be different than today, the threat of instability remains. What we saw then was a slowdown in the world economy that lead to regional aggressions and ultimately a world war.

    The major differences now are that we have central banks financing markets — and by extension a military buildup.

    Countries are better insulated today than they were in those days. By insulating themselves, they now have more choices about who their trading partners are, and what regional or multilateral agreements they enter.

    That’s one reason China is championing regional trade agreements throughout Asia and the Pacific Rim, and inked bi-lateral deals with Japan and the EU last year.  Those nations are growing less reliant on U.S. trade and, like good portfolio managers, are diversifying their trade partners.

    The U.S. tariffs will likely accelerate this trend.

    The tariffs, and super-regional build-ups, will also do something else. Trade wars will morph into an acceleration in global military spending. That’s because the tensions from trade wars have military ramifications.

    When government allies are less connected by interdependent economies, they are more likely to act on their own domestic needs.

    These divisions are potentially dangerous for the world. As major allies become untethered by mutual economic benefits, the world, from issues ranging from North Korea to Syria, continues to destabilize.

    Before President Trump announced his latest tariffs, Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank (ECB), was asked about their impact on the global economy.

    He noted while the “immediate impact wouldn’t be large” referring to the economic impact, he warned also, “there is a certain worry, or concern, about the state of international relations… because if you put tariffs against what are your allies, one wonders who the enemies are.”

    It is true that Trump was targeting tariffs on places like China and South Korea, countries he believes are flooding the U.S. market with low-priced metals backed by government subsidies. Yet the fact remains that China accounts for less than 10% of all U.S. steel imports. That’s well behind U.S. import-heavy countries that are also allies, ranging from Canada and Mexico to NATO allies in the European Union.

    Peter Navarro, maybe the White House’s top trade adviser, told CNBC “we come in peace here.” But embedded in the very basic trade principal is a military provocation that cannot be ignored.

    The tariffs were characterized as necessary for national security reasons. As President Trump told a White House gathering of metals industry executives before he signed the tariff orders, “You’re going to have protection for the first time in a long time.”

    He meant two things by that, the more logical of which was really economic protection, colored in military terms.

    That’s why Mario Draghi’s position matters. By examining the real trade numbers among military allies in Europe and even Japan, the tariffs were clearly seen as economic protectionism, not as a security-related action.

    The tariffs will also harm U.S. exporters. Besides agricultural products like soybeans, China has announced tariffs against, the U.S. exports a massive amount of products that use steel including aircraft autos, appliances, and industrial machinery. By increasing the cost of metals used, these business will all face the issue of raising prices that hit the consumer.

    On the other side of the tariffs argument is the issue of what hitting imports would do domestically. What you would find is that even import taxes aimed at hitting other countries would cause a chain reaction where American metal producers could charge more to U.S. companies like Boeing Co., General Motors Co. and Whirlpool Corp.

    That behavior is even worse for smaller firms that could get hit by higher steel prices from both domestic producers and foreign producers.

    As trade issues push economies to the brink, central bankers are actively taking notice. While they may not be commenting on specific policy, they are offering a measured response. Trump’s protectionist policy has already caught the eye of his new chairman at the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.

    In response to the tariffs, Powell said that “a system where goods and services flow freely is a net positive for many countries, though the benefits aren’t spread equally.”

    While Powell dodged commenting directly on trade wars, he did say that the “best approach is to deal directly with the people who are directly affected, rather than falling back on tariffs.”

    Perhaps that’s because he knows tariffs can have unintended consequences.

    If Powell really believed trade wars weren’t a source of concern, he wouldn’t have mentioned them at all. With markets move upwards of 700 points in any given direction on any given day when tariffs are headline news, the Fed can’t just watch as a sideline observer.

    You can bet that deep within the halls of the Fed they are developing a game plan to keep the markets from crashing if trade wars escalate.

    This is another reason to believe that trade wars will be met with cheap money policy. You can look at this as a financial see-saw of sorts. Trade wars, or even media soundbites about them, will spark negative markets reactions.

    That is why the Fed and other central banks will combat this with cheap words and even cheaper money policies.

    If the U.S. does jump into a hot trade war it could find itself needing to make up for the costs. The logical place to turn is to the beacon of more money creation from the Fed or to issue more debt.

    The Fed would be directly involved in order to keep the cost of debt from rising, again — which is why my analysis forecasts a return to Fed policies that keep rates low. Similarly, other major economies would also unleash their central bank money when needed.

    This type of tit-for-tat response is already playing out.

    Beijing has used its new wealth to attract friends, deter enemies, modernize its military, and aggressively assert its central bank into nearly any sector it believes requires assistance.

    This type of brinksmanship shows that it is only a matter of time before a trade war with China morphs into massive military build-up and competition.

  • Here's How The US Government Influences What Food You Eat

    Few Americans are aware of the extent to which the US government influences not just the price of their food – thanks to the massive subsidies the US Department of Agriculture disburses to America’s farmers – but also the contents of menus at restaurants and fast food chains.

    In a report published this week, Bloomberg explains how the USDA’s marketing arm helps farmer trade groups pressure fast food chains to add certain items to their menus. From mushrooms to blueberries, mandatory fees levied by the USDA help finance a cohort of industry lobbying groups that work closely with restaurants to push certain ingredients. These campaigns often have a powerful impact on farmers’ bottom lines: In March, Sonic – a fast casual burger chain – introduced two new burgers to its menu that both featured white button mushrooms: Instead of being 100% ground beef, these two burgers feature a blend of beef an processed mushrooms. The mixture dramatically lowers the calorie count of the burgers, satisfying customers’ demands for healthier alternatives, per Bloomberg.

    Grower

    What many don’t know, however, is that the introduction of these items was the result of a monthslong lobbying effort by the USDA funded Mushroom Council, a trade group that represents mushroom growers.

    The committee’s various lobbying efforts are already bearing fruit (pardon the pun): In the year ended Jan. 28, US sales of mushrooms grew by 4.9% to $1.24 billion compared with a years earlier. And much of this growth occurred before the 3,500 Sonic locations added the new menu items.

    But despite the fact that farmers get back $9 in sales for every dollar spent on marketing, according to a research study conducted by professors of agricultural economics at Texas A&M, some farmers have decided to sue the USDA to try and scrap these mandatory payments to the USDA.

    Grower

    Their argument? The marketing efforts benefit foreign and domestic farmers equally, and the marketing often doesn’t do enough to make clear that foods produced in the US are typically of a superior quality – at least, that’s what the farmers are arguing.

    In 2016, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, a nonprofit that advocates for independent U.S. ranchers, filed a complaint arguing the required fees violate the First Amendment by forcing them to subsidize speech they don’t agree with. The group supports Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee’s legislation prohibiting mandatory checkoff fees.

    “We’re forced to pay and advertise foreign beef in the U.S.,” said Bill Bullard, chief executive officer of the Montana-based legal fund. “We have a superior product, and it’s coveted the world over.”

    Others are happy to pay the fees. Why? Because who could forget marketing campaigns like “Got Milk?” and the “Incredible Edible Egg”. These campaigns had a powerful act on the American consciousness, and also helped spur tremendous boosts in sales.

    In other words, farmers will readily pay the fee – if it can be demonstrated that they benefit from the campaigns, which often take years to successfully execute.

    A victory by a trade group representing blueberry farmers is another example of how the push to partner with US restaurant chains is proving to be a successful strategy.

    Recently, blueberries landed on the menu at steakhouse chain Sizzler USA Inc. in the form of a blueberry lemonade — considered a big win for the U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council, which worked on bringing the refreshment to the chain’s menu. Sizzler had 123 outlets as of last year, according to Technomic.

    Because the fruit isn’t in season during the winter, Mission Viejo, California-based Sizzler is getting them from Peru. In May, the company will add more blueberries, as part of a spinach salad with almonds and feta cheese.

    “Because the growers all pay into this fund, they want to know what the council is doing for them,” said Andrew Hunter, a chef who works with the mushroom, egg and blueberry marketing programs. “This is a tangible way for boards to say, ‘This is what we’re doing for you.’ Sizzler’s blueberry lemonade. That’s tangible.”

    In 2015, more than 8,000 chain restaurant locations added blueberries to their menus – including Dairy Queen, Wendy’s and Red Lobster. Another group funded by the USDA via these mandatory marketing fees claimed responsibility for this, citing a multiyear effort to court fast-food companies.

    And other campaigns are underway.

    The American Egg Board, working with ad agency BBDO Worldwide Inc., is relaunching its “Incredible Edible Egg” ad campaign from decades ago with a slightly modified tagline: “How do you like your eggs?” But the name has been shortened. It’s now “The Incredible Egg.”

    So next time you see a new food trending – think how millennials love avocado toast – don’t assume it happened organically. Somewhere along the line, a carefully crafted marketing campaign devised by one of these government-backed groups forced its messaging into your subconscious – often without you even knowing it.

  • The Deflation/Inflation Debate

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    “Naïve inflationism demands an increase in the quantity of money without suspecting that this will diminish the purchasing power of the money.” ― Ludwig von mises,  The Theory of Money and Credit

    It is hardly surprising that with equity indices stalling, the financial community is increasingly worried that the long, steady bull market is coming to an end. Naturally, this makes investors look for reasons to worry, and it turns out that there are indeed many things to worry about.

    In fact, there are always things to worry about. Ever since the Lehman crisis, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have been casting long shadows across the financial stage. But as financial assets have continued to rise in value over the last nine years, bearish fund managers, spooked by systemic risks of one sort or another and the perennial threat of a renewed slump, have been forced to discard their ursine views.

    As often as not, it is not much more than a question of emphasis. There is always good news and bad news. As an investor, you semi-consciously choose what to believe.

    There are causes for concern, of that there is no doubt. Mostly, they arise from the consequences of earlier state interventions on the money side. Governments are slowly strangling private sector production with increasingly rapacious demands on taxpayers and have been resorting to the printing press to finance the shortfalls. In reality, there is a finite limit to government spending, because it impoverishes the tax base. Yet governments, with very few exceptions, seek to conceal this truism by increasing spending and budget deficits even more. In this, President Trump is not alone.

    Bankruptcy is the end result. And don’t believe the old saw about how governments can’t go bust. They can, and they do by destroying their currencies, as von Mises implied in the quote above. The naïve inflationists referred to by von Mises justify their stance by believing that inflation is invigorating, and deflation is devastating. Any and all statistics pointing to a slowdown in the growth of money supply or in the economy is therefore taken to be a forewarning of deflation.

    Inflationists are simply recycling Irving Fisher’s debt-deflation theory, which is no longer relevant. Fisher held that in an economic crisis, bad debts forced banks to liquidate collateral, pushing down collateral values. And as previously sound loans lose their collateral cover, banks are forced to liquidate those as well.

    But it is no longer the case. Central banks have removed the discipline of gold, so they can intervene to prevent financial and economic crises, rather than let them run their destructive courses. They have fully embraced inflationism, giving them the excuse for monetary and credit expansion as a cure-all.

    Therefore, when the next crisis occurs, central banks will take steps to ensure that in aggregate the quantity of money does not contract. It is the one forecast we can make with absolute certainty. And every time a crisis happens it takes more monetary heft to get out of it. But that’s not an issue for a central bank with two overriding objectives, not the targeting of inflation and unemployment as such, but to ensure a recession never happens, and to finance, through money-printing if necessary, escalating government spending.

    Minor wobbles are not the credit crisis

    We must discriminate between the momentary problems faced by central banks and the inevitable crisis at the end of the credit cycle. Dealing with problems as they arise has become routine, the justification for continual inflationism. The credit crisis is a different matter. Central bankers do not seem to realise it, but the credit crisis is their own creation, the way markets eventually unwind the distortions created by earlier monetary policy. So long as central banks suppress interest rates and expand money and credit, there will be periodic credit crises to follow.

    The trigger for the credit crisis is always the same. The general price level threatens to rise uncontrollably, reflecting the loss of the currency’s purchasing power. This forces the central bank to reluctantly raise interest rates to the point where business assumptions about the returns on capital, based on borrowing costs, turn from profit-making to loss-making. At that point, if not before, the accumulated mountain of debt becomes fatally undermined.

    The timing of the rise and level of interest rates that triggers the crisis is set by the speed with which monetary inflation feeds into prices. And the severity of the crisis depends upon the size of the debt mountain being liquidated.

    This has nothing to do with the minor wobbles along the way. Ahead of a cyclical credit crisis, central banks routinely deal with the fires breaking out in an increasingly desolate economic landscape. They are very good at it. The share prices of European banks, such as Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse raise concerns over systemic risk, but the ECB and SNB will always ensure credit is available to them. And if we are worried about systemic risk in key European financial behemoths, why is it that stock prices for major US banks such as JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are so strong?

    There is also a narrative being promoted which posits that a slowdown in broad money supply is giving an advance warning of recession. The chart below, of US M2 plotted weekly, puts it into context.

    Yes, there has been a recent slowdown in the rate at which M2 is growing. But it has hardly diverged much from the average rate of increase, shown by the black line, for the last five years. And it’s not worth repeating the chart for M1 Money Stock, which is remarkably similar, despite the Fed reducing the size of its balance sheet.

    How bank credit is used is rarely questioned

    What charts of money supply do not tell us is where money is deployed between two groups of borrowers. Newly created money, mainly bank credit, is allocated either into the financial sector, which is not included in GDP excepting fees and commissions, or into non-financial activities, where goods and services are included. Furthermore, missing from GDP is all the intermediate business-to-business activity that goes towards manufacturing and delivering the goods and services included in GDP. And it is B2B which borrows to invest.

    It is only when extra money is allocated through the markets to the production of items in the consumer price index that price inflation is recorded. However, we cannot know how new money is allocated and reallocated between the arbitrary divisions set by statisticians. Attempts to marry up changes in broad money with demand for it are never convincing.

    But as proxy for non-financial business activity away from the world of big corporates, the following chart appears to confirm that ordinary businesses are just getting on with commercial life and have been for the last six years, though you wouldn’t know it from the financial headlines.

    Again, we see that following the great financial crisis, ordinary businesses making and doing things for ordinary people, just get on with investing in production. But there is an interesting observation here, highlighted on the chart: in the first few months of every year, almost no extra loans and leases are taken out, so the sideways trend in M2 from early-January may be nothing to worry about. Furthermore, taking this seasonality into account, it appears that demand for loans and leases so far this year is stronger than in any of the previous five years.

    Investment strategists examine statistical trends to discern turning points in stocks and bonds, when the wealth creation and destruction from bull and bear markets could be the driving force for these statistical trends, having little to do with the economy itself. In this context, our next chart shows the build-up of margin debt in the financial sector, and how it has become sufficiently large to be potentially destabilising.

    The point at which a fall in outstanding margin debt flashes warning signals for the equity market is one thing, but it is unlikely to destabilise the non-financial economy on its own. It is worth noting that it fell $21bn in February, and presumably more in March, yet to be reported. While some of this finance is by brokers acting as shadow banks, reductions in loans on securities are bound to be reflected in a slowdown in the rate of growth of bank lending. But no such distinction is made by financial scribblers, attributing all changes in money supply to demand in the non-financial economy.

    Another statistic worrying the scribblers is the LIBOR-OIS spread, which has suddenly increased. This is the difference between the unsecured wholesale money market lending rate in London and the overnight index swap rate, which is a derivative that is effectively tied to the risk-free interest rate. The spread is therefore normally taken as an indication of bank lending risks.

    The explanation for this spread increasing is unknown, with few signs of lending stress apparent. One could point to the share price performance of systemically important European banks, such as Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, which suggests there is greater counterparty risk in London’s money markets than in New York. But if that’s the case, central banks will be monitoring the position closely and ready to intervene if required.

    It is perhaps more likely that tax changes in the US are encouraging US corporations to transfer dollar funds from banks in London to New York, which is bound to increase dollar rates in London, where LIBOR is set, compared with New York.

    How the credit cycle progresses

    Investors trying to understand the financial markets’ major trends should keep an eye on the credit cycle. The first point to note is that it is now nine years since the last credit crisis ended, and there are, as yet, no signs economic growth is over. However, as the cycle progresses, history and monetary theory tell us that interest rates begin to rise from the artificially suppressed levels set by central banks. That is now happening, leading us into the final phase of the credit cycle before the credit crisis finally ends it.

    Bond markets have all peaked, and their yields are rising, and not only at the short end where prices are corelated with interest rates. The 10-year US Treasury yield bottomed at 1.46% in June 2016, since when it has increased to 2.79% currently. The 30-year UST yield bottomed at the same time at 2.182%, and now yields 3.02%. The bond bear market is firmly established.

    Generally, the rise in medium and long-term bond yields anticipates increasing prices for commodities, goods and services, the consequence of earlier monetary expansion. Business conditions then appear to be improving, and equity markets have reflected this benign environment.

    It is becoming clear that a further jump in bond yields will confirm the end of an equity bull market, and the beginning of a bear market. But that will not mark the end of the current phase of the credit cycle and the onset of the crisis. Even if equities have a 1987-type crash, the credit cycle will continue, rather than enter the crisis phase.

    The concluding phase of credit expansion before the credit crisis is now about to begin. Demand will appear to be picking up while prices are rising and interest rates still low. It will be characterised by a growing belief among businessmen that they must borrow to invest. We can already anticipate the factors leading up to this happy but brief state.

    President Trump has cut taxes and increased spending. The result is there will be a substantial injection into the US economy late in the business cycle, mostly financed by monetary inflation. It is bound to create short-term optimism but being based on money created out of thin air it will be an illusion. The consequence will be an acceleration of price inflation, as the extra money is absorbed into the non-financial economy. Bond markets will anticipate higher interest rates, so banks, losing money on their bond investments, will then compete for loan business in the non-financial economy. For a brief period, buoyed up by a business-friendly fiscal policy, the economy will appear to grow more rapidly.

    The rise in prices, initially seen by business as a stimulant to production while borrowing costs remain suppressed by the Fed, will accelerate fuelled by too much money chasing too few goods. However, the business environment will only appear to be improved during the time period taken for the economy to absorb monetary inflation and reflect it in higher prices. When it dawns on markets that next year’s prices will be significantly higher than today’s the time-preference value on loans will be increasing, irrespective of the Fed’s monetary policy.

    The crisis will then be upon us. The switch from stimulative fiscal policies to sharply escalating interest rates and bond yields could be sudden. At the worst possible time, the Fed will be forced to raise the Fed Funds Rate to protect a declining dollar. If they haven’t begun to do so already, financial assets will be crashing, along with physical assets whose values are set by interest rates, such as residential property.

    America is not alone in its stimulation of markets. Interest rates are also suppressed in the Eurozone, Japan, Britain and Switzerland, all of which stand to benefit from China’s economic evolution. Those economists who in recent weeks have proclaimed that at last synchronised growth is here do not realise that the inflationary consequences for prices brings the global credit crisis forward in time.

    So, that’s the sequence. Bonds top out, followed by equities, followed by a credit crisis. We have had the first, perhaps entered the second, and have the third event still ahead of us. And if the evidence before our eyes is not enough, we have proof of central bankers’ ignorance in these matters from Janet Yellen, who in her swansong said, “Would I say there will never, ever be another financial crisis? You know, probably that would be going too far but I do think we’re much safer and I hope that it will not be in our lifetimes and I don’t believe it will be.”

    Hubris indeed, reminding us of Greenspan’s “Irrational exuberance” in December 1996, before the Dow nearly doubled, and his conversion to the New Paradigm of Larry Summers et al in 2000, just before the dot-com bubble burst. It is proof that those who have taken it upon themselves to protect us from our own financial indiscretions are clueless about the credit cycle, and their role in its creation. But will it result in a massive deflation?

    If by deflation is meant an increase in the dollar’s purchasing power, the answer must be an emphatic No. As well as the views of central bankers, that deflation must be avoided at all costs, even a mild recession plays havoc with government finances. This is why the Fed and other central banks will do everything in their power to stop it. But their power is confined to the cure-alls of reducing interest rates and throwing yet more money at the economy.

    Far from deflation, the Fed’s only response to the next credit crisis will be to take measures that will lead to the final destruction of the dollar. Other central banks are set to follow. Deflationists don’t have a leg to stand on, and unknowingly conform with von Mises’s description of naïve inflationists.

  • Trump's Next-Generation Presidential Limousine Unveiled

    The next generation of Presidential limousines called ‘the Beast,’ built for President Trump, is set to be unveiled in the second half of 2018. When Trump was sworn in as the 45th U.S. President, the United States Secret Service wheeled him throughout Washington in a presidential limousine fleet from the Barack Obama era.

    A Fox News source close to the matter indicates Trump would be getting all-new Cadillac-branded models by the summer months.

    The new presidential limousine was photographed on public roads near GM’s proving grounds in Michigan last fall. (KGP Photography/FoxNews)

    The prototype is covered in a black and white camouflage wrap to hide its styling details until its official unveiling. (KGP Photography/FoxNews)

    The prototypes of the Cadillac-branded presidential limousine are part of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreement with General Motors Llc. to build “the next generation parade limousine program phase 2 and 3,” which began in September of 2014. Three years later and some $15,800,765 later, it seems like Trump’s new limousines are ready for use.

    The heavily armored $1.5 million Cadillac-branded state car, which comes complete with five-inch thick military grade armor, a bomb-proof exterior, kevlar-reinforced wheels, and a vast array of embedded weapons — has been turned over to the United States Secret Service for the final examination.

    “We’ve completed our task and we’ve handed over the vehicle to the customer,” Cadillac President Johann de Nysschen told Fox News. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Secret Service added that “the program to build and deploy the next generation of Presidential limousines is on track and on schedule — both in terms of vendor production and internal Secret Service post production requirements. The public can expect to see the new vehicles put into operational use late summer of this year.”

    Although its designed to look like a sedan, it’s understood to be built on a sturdy truck frame that can support its armored bodywork. (KGP Photography/FoxNews)

    The sedan is longer than two large SUVs and, for the moment, remains in white and black camouflage designed to make it more difficult to identify new features aboard the vehicle. It is pictured here, middle, in March 2018. (Chris Doane/Daily Mail)

    Fox News believes Trump’s next generation limousine will resemble a stretched 2018 Cadillac CT6.

    “One feature it almost certainly won’t share with the CT6 is Cadillac’s semi-autonomous Super Cruise system, which allows for hands-free driving on highways. Instead, it will always be driven by a highly trained agent skilled in defensive and evasive driving techniques.

     

    Cadillac has built every presidential limousine since 1993 and didn’t face any known competition for this contract. Its American luxury counterparts, Lincoln and Chrysler, each told Fox News that they declined to submit bids this time around, but de Nysschen considers his company’s role helping to chauffer the world’s most powerful man around the world an important association for the brand.”

    “The public can expect to see the new vehicles put into operational use late summer of this year,” said the United States Secret Service.

    How has Twitter responded to Trump’s tricked out Cadillac?

    “I think Trump should keep the camo on his new limo,” said one Twitter user.

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

    “Lots of talk today about Trumps new limo. Supposedly comes with vanity plates too,” someone else said.

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

    “Trumps new limo looks absolutely fucking ridiculous. And by ridiculous, fucking badass!!!! Greatest president ever!!!,” exclaimed one Twitter user.

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

    Great question…

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

    Trump revamped the presidential limo into a Caddy built like a tank. Fricken boss,” another Twitter said.

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

    Trump’s long-awaited heavily armored limo is set to roll out on the streets of Washington in a matter of months. The one question we ask: Will it be featured in his military parade set for Veterans Day?

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 14th April 2018

  • A Map Of The Syrian War: Who Is Who (And Where)

    On Thursday, just 24 hours before Trump ordered airstrikes on Syria for the second time in just over a year, we said that “with war likely set to break out in Syria at any moment, a question many Americans are asking is… where is Syria?

    We then added that “geographical challenges aside, it is safe to say that the situation in Syria is extremely fluid, and changing on an almost daily basis” which is why we showed several strategic and tactical snapshot maps of Syria as of this moment.”

    Fast forward to Friday night, when at exactly 9pm ET on Friday 13, Trump announce that war airstrikes on Syria have once broken out, as expected, and for those who may have missed the various tactical and strategic maps of the Syrian theater, here they are again.

    The first and most useful one, courtesy of Turkey’s Omran Dirasat think tank, shows updated areas of control and influence in Syria by international military forces with reference to the most prominent international military sites in Syria.

    The second map, from Dirasat employee Nawar Sh. Oliver lays out the control and influence zone in Syria as of April 2018, revealing the relative % of gains and losses in the last 24 days.

    Finally, from the regional political journal, Suriye Gündemi English, here is a map showing the latest military situation as well as location of key military bases in Syria ahead of the expected US strikes.

  • Russia Responds: "We Are Being Threatened. A Predesigned Scenario Is Being Implemented"

    After the a joint force of US, French and UK fighter jets and ship launched an attack which as Mattis said, “used a little over double the number of weapons this year than we used last year”, and amid unconfirmed reports that the Syrian air force managed to shoot down one or more Tomahawk missiles, the question everyone was asking is whether Russia has responded, and if so, how.

    The answer, for now at least, is that Russia has not activated a response, although that may soon change.  Here is the statement from Russia’s ambassador to the US, Anataloy Antonov, posted on Facebook:

    The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard.

    A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.

    All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.

    Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.

    The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.

    Despite repeated warnings from Russia, President Trump ordered American forces, along with their British and French allies, to strike military targets in Syria on Friday night; as noted previously, during a press conference late on Friday, General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Russian military operating in Syria was not notified about the American targets in advance told reporters following the attacks.

    The US “specifically identified” targets to “mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved,” Dunford said. “We used the normal deconfliction channel to deconflict airspace. We did not coordinate targets.”

    While Trump said that the purpose of the US actions is to “establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons,” Antonov reminded that “the US – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.”

    The combined decision by the US and its allies to strike Syria comes after Russian Defence Ministry spokesperson Major-General Igor Konashenkov presented evidence claiming that last Saturday’s alleged chemical attack in Douma was orchestrated.

    The attack also comes just hours before experts from the UN Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were scheduled to visit Douma on Saturday to determine whether chemical weapons had indeed been used there. That particular trip is now moot.

  • Visualizing The U.S. States Most Vulnerable To A Trade War

    Last year, nearly $4 trillion of U.S. economic productivity was the result of international trade.

    However, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, with talk of a trade war heating up once again (Russia and China), , there is a real possibility that the global trade landscape could shift dramatically over the coming months and years.

    Any such shifts wouldn’t likely impact the country in a uniform and evenly distributed fashion – instead, any impending trade war would pose the largest direct risk to states that are dependent on buying and selling goods on international markets.

    THE STATES MOST AT RISK

    Today’s visualization comes to us from HowMuch.net, and it shows every U.S. state and district organized by GDP size, as well as percentage of GDP resulting from international trade.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    Here are the 10 states most reliant on international trade:

    On a percentage basis, Michigan tops the list with 38.9% of the state’s GDP reliant on international trade.

    THE LOWEST RISK STATES

    On the flipside, here are the states or districts with less to lose in the event of a trade war.

    Washington, D.C. tops the list, with only 1.5% of its regional GDP tied to trade.

    This makes sense since The District’s economy is mostly linked to the government, service, and tourism sectors. Nearby Virginia also has surprisingly little international trade, at just 8.9% of its economy.

    Want to see more on international trade? See the numbers behind the world’s closest trade relationship in this infographic.

  • Army Major Exposes America's Circle Of Absurdity: Killing The Extremists We Create

    Authored by Major Danny Sjursen via TruthDig.com,

    The U.S. military remains mired in countless wars in the Greater Middle East. Ironically – and tragically – it tends to combat Islamists that Washington either armed or birthed.

    We, Americans, truly are a strange lot. Our government in Washington – ostensibly representative of “We the People” – speaks of peace, but wages endless war, prattles on about “freedom,” but backs absolute monarchs and authoritarian strongmen the world over. A bipartisan array of politicians warns of the evils of radical Islamic (though Islamist is more accurate) terrorism; and yet, truthfully, the US once supported and/or funded those same extremists not too long ago. In some cases, and certain circumstances, it backs them still; until, that is, all those guns are turned on the US military, or those fighters threaten Washington’s (ever shifting) “interests.”

    Perhaps, one imagines, there are lessons here: be careful who you arm; be careful where you meddle; today’s “friends” are, all too often, tomorrow’s enemies; and, in the turbulent Middle East, sometimes less is more.

    Washington would do well to remember that before its next – and there will be a next – intervention.

    Russia, it seems, is once again center stage in the Middle East. Congressmen and Senators – usually neocons or hawkish liberal interventionists – warn that Russia is “running wild,” or will “win” Syria. In fact, they argue, the US military must stay put in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, indefinitely one presumes, to block potential Russian gains. US troops must also back assorted proxies, even some nefarious characters, in order to deter Russian efforts in the region.

    The whole presumption, of course, is flawed and simplistic. We are led to believe geopolitics is a simple zero-sum game, whereby any “gain” for Russia (or Iran) is somehow a “loss” for the United States. Much evil, and plenty of mistakes, stem from such warped assumptions.

    The thing is, the historian in me has seen this movie before, and knows it ends badly. A generation raised on post-9/11 alarmism regarding terrorism and the (admittedly real) dangers of political Islam, might be surprised to know the US once backed many of these very same Islamist zealots in the name of countering the then Soviet Union. It was fear of the looming Russian bear – and the competition for oil – that first brought the US military into the region in a serious way.

    US Central Command (CENTCOM), which controls all US servicemen in the Greater Mideast, was only formed in the early 1980s, largely in response to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (1979) and the ostensible threat of a broader Soviet armored assault straight south to the Persian Gulf. Of course, no such danger ever really existed; nor was it very plausible. Nonetheless, Washington took action, which heralded just the most extreme version of the sad, recurring, tales of US support for Islamists. Fighters, who, more often than not, would later turn their guns, bombs, (and box cutters on 9/11!) on America.

    The US supported, funded, and armed (including with surface to air missiles) the Afghan mujahedeen – many of whom were Islamist zealots – throughout the 1980s. It also backed its long time frenemy, Saudi Arabia, which acted as patron for the Arab extremists who flocked to the Afghan jihad. The various mujahedeen, many of whom were rather extreme, morphed into warlord militias after the defeat of the Soviets. The excesses of these venal warlords in the 1990s, and the refugee crisis that landed millions of unemployed youths in various squalid camps, led directly to rise of the Taliban. Many of the Taliban’s senior leaders had previously fought the Soviets, often with US weapons or support.

    We all know the next part of the sordid tale: Arab volunteers who had fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, returned to the Mideast radicalized, confident, and – after US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 – increasing anti-American. A popular leader of these “Afghan Arabs,” as they were called, was one young Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

    You’d think contemporary policymakers would learn from and heed this warning. By and large, though, they have not.

    US support for the Saudis continues, and, in fact, stretched way back to the 1940s – in a devil’s bargain of oil for arms and influence that remains in effect. Even in conflicts that preceded the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-1988), the U.S.-backed Saudis tended to support the forces of Islam (often of the Saudis’ own extreme Wahhabi variety) against secular Arab nationalist and/or socialist regimes from North Africa to South Asia.

    The US, frankly, was then more concerned with “radical,” secular, Arab nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. In Yemen’s Civil War in the 1960s, American-backed Saudis supported religious, royalist forces against the secular nationalists backed by Nasser. Furthermore, throughout that era – and even today – our Saudi “allies” invested billions in mosque construction and the propagation of their own intolerant brand of Wahhabi Islam across the Greater Middle East.

    Think on that for just a second. The US spent most of the Cold War backing religious kingdoms and organizations against the very, albeit authoritarian, secular movements we now purport to favor. Furthermore, the Saudis – second only to Israel among America’s regional allies – were busy spreading the toxic Islamism we’ve spent the last 17 years combating.

    Worse still, since 9/11 (and remember 15/19 of those hijackers were Saudis) the US track record is just as dismal, with America’s military all too often battling Islamists we once armed or helped create. In 2001, there existed only one truly transnational terror threat group with the aspiration and capability to attack the US homeland: Al Qaeda. More than a decade and a half later, such Islamist groups have only proliferated in response to US military interventions

    Most of the groups the US military now fights – and I’ve spent a career combating – are an outgrowth of, or reaction against, American actions in the region. Talk about counterproductive. It borders on the absurd!

    Consider just a few examples:

    • In Iraq, today, the US combats the remnants of ISIS. ISIS didn’t even exist on 9/11. There were no Iraqis on those planes, and Saddam had no serious relationship with Al Qaeda. The local AQ franchise only grew and gathered recruits in response to the wide perception of US neo-imperialism. Then, years later, ISIS, the most radical offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was birthed in that ultimate incubator of Islamist extremism: US military prisons. The rest, so they say, is history.

    • In Yemen, the US is complicit in the Saudi terror bombing and blockade. In addition to killing civilians, instigating a famine, and contributing to the spread of cholera, this war has only empowered the main AQ affiliate in the area: Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While US planes are refueling Saudi jets which bomb local Houthi “rebels,” the campaign all but ignores AQAP. If anything, they’re bombing the wrong people! This group, mind you, has been labeled the Al Qaeda affiliate most dangerous to the homeland.

    • In 2011, President Obama authorized what he’d later label a “shit show:” bombing and regime change in Libya. Muammar “Mad Dog” Gaddafi was certainly an unsavory character, but toppling him without a plan for the day after only further empowered regional Islamism. The country split into rival statelets, tribal fighters migrated south with a veritable arsenal of weapons, and too often joined or backed West African Islamist militias. And, well, you guessed it, US troops are now fighting, and dying, combating those very groups in Mali, Cameroon, and Niger.

    • In Syria, the US is mopping up ISIS and trapped between several hostile actors: Turkey, Russia, Iran, Assad’s regime, and various non-ISIS Islamist groups. The crazy thing is, our Saudi frenemies sent boatloads of cash and weapons to many of these Islamist fighters. In fact, even US arms – intended for so-called moderate rebels – ended up in the hands of the local Al Qaeda franchise, the Nusra Front.

    The disturbing truth is, that I, and most professional soldiers in the post-9/11 military, have almost never fought the enemy who’d attacked the US in the first place: Al Qaeda, that is. For the most part, US troops spent the last two decades combating Afghan farm boys, African tribal militias, local Arab Islamists, and various franchises of ISIS – the true Frankenstein’s monster of the global war on terror.

    I recount this dismal record for a specific purpose: to warn. To warn against shortsighted interventions or carelessly working through regional proxies.

    Today’s convenient friend is too often tomorrow’s sworn enemy.

    We reap what we sow, and, in the stormy Middle East, more often than not, the US sows chaos.

  • Russia Has "Irrefutable Evidence" UK Staged Syrian Chemical Attack

    As the blame game over the alleged chemical attack in Syria escalates ahead of what is expected to be an imminent, if contained, air strike campaign by the US, UK and/or France against Syria, on Friday morning, Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow had “irrefutable evidence” that the attack – which allegedly killed more than 40 people in an April 7 chemical weapons strike on the former rebel outpost of Douma  -was staged with the help of a foreign secret service.

    “We have irrefutable evidence that this was another staged event, and that the secret services of a certain state that is now at the forefront of a Russophobic campaign was involved in this staged event,” he said during a press conference according to AFP.

    Speculation that said “certain state” was the UK was confirmed shortly after, when Russia’s defense ministry alleged that Britain was involved in the suspected chemical attack. According to defense ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Kremlin has evidence that Britain was behind the attack.

    Quoted by Reuters, he said: “We have… evidence that proves Britain was directly involved in organising this provocation.”

    As RT further adds, the Russian Defense Ministry presented what it says is “proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged.”

    It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.” During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

    During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.

    In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.

    “Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage,” said Konashenkov.

    “The Russian Defense Ministry also has evidence that Britain had a direct involvement in arranging this provocation in Eastern Ghouta,” the general added, referring to the neighborhood of which Douma is part. “We know for certain that between April 3 and April 6 the so-called White Helmets were seriously pressured from London to speed up the provocation that they were preparing.”

    According to Konashenkov, the group, which was a primary source of photos and footage of the purported chemical attack, was informed of a large-scale artillery attack on Damascus planned by the Islamist group Army of Islam, which controlled Douma at the time. The White Helmets were ordered to arrange the provocation after retaliatory strikes by the Syrian government forces, which the shelling was certain to lead to, he said.

    The UK rejected the accusations, with British UN Ambassador Karen Pierce calling them “grotesque,” “a blatant lie” and “the worst piece of fake news we’ve yet seen from the Russian propaganda machine.”

    One of the interviews published by the ministry showed a man who said his name was Halil Ajij, and who said he was a medical student working at Douma’s only operational hospital. This is how he described the origin of the footage:

    “On April 8, a bomb hit a building. The upper floors were damaged and a fire broke at the lower floors. Victims of that bombing were brought to us. People from the upper floors had smoke poisoning. We treated them, based on their suffocation.”

    Ajij said that a man unknown to him came and said there was a chemical attack and panic ensued. “Relatives of the victims started dousing each other with water. Other people, who didn’t seem to have medical training, started administering anti-asthma medicine to children. We didn’t see any patient with symptoms of a chemical weapons poisoning,” he said.

    The first photos claiming to show the aftermath of the alleged chemical attack on April 7 were published online on the same day, and featured the bodies of many people, including children, some with foam around their mouths and noses. Footage from the hospital was released on Sunday, with the sources behind it claiming that it had been shot on Saturday.

    Konashenkov said Russia hoped that international monitors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is due to investigate the circumstances of the incident, will help establish the truth. He added Eastern Ghouta is currently trying to return to peaceful life after being liberated from militant groups by Syrian government forces. He called on other nations and international organizations to provide humanitarian aid, which is badly needed in the area. Russia is already supplying food, medicine, building materials and other essential supplies to the neighborhood, he said.

    Residents of the neighborhood, who previously fled violence, are returning to their homes now that the area is relatively safe, the Russian official said. The latest reports from the ground say about 63,000 people have returned, which is over half of the displaced residents, he added.

    The reported chemical weapons attack escalated tensions over Syria, just as Damascus was about to seize full control of Eastern Ghouta. The US and allies such as the UK and France threatened military action in response to what they claim is an atrocity committed by the Syrian government. Russia insists the incident was staged and said it reserves the right to counter any attack on Syria.

    RT also spoke about the Russian claims with Lord Alan West, a retired officer of the British Royal Navy. He said he had strong reservations about taking allegations against Damascus at face value, because it didn’t make much military sense.

    “It seems to be utterly ludicrous for the military that is in the process of taking over an area to go and do something with chemical weapons, which will draw the wrath of the larger enemy down upon them,” he said. “If I was advising the opponents of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, I would be delighted to kill a few people there. Let’s face it, [the insurgents] don’t care if they kill women and children.”

    “I am not willing to accept tweets. We need to see incontrovertible truth about what has happened there and make a decision on that basis,” he added.

    * * *

    On Wednesday, Russia made the first allegation that the chemical attack was staged by Western powers, in this case by the infamoous “white helmets,” a US-funded NGO lauded by mainstream media for their humanitarian work, while long-suspected of performing less-than humanitarian deeds behind the curtain

    Speaking with EuroNews, Russia’s ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizov, said “Russian military specialists have visited this region, walked on those streets, entered those houses, talked to local doctors and visited the only functioning hospital in Douma, including its basement where reportedly the mountains of corpses pile up. There was not a single corpse and even not a single person who came in for treatment after the attack.”

    “But we’ve seen them on the video!” responds EuroNews correspondent Andrei Beketov. “There was no chemical attack in Douma, pure and simple,” responds Chizov. “We’ve seen another staged event. There are personnel, specifically trained – and you can guess by whom – amongst the so-called White Helmets, who were already caught in the act with staged videos.”

    Russia said previously that it sent experts in radiological, chemical and biological warfare – along with medics, in order to inspect the Eastern Ghouta city of Douma where the attack is said to have taken place. 

    Russia’s Defense Ministry said in a statement that the experts “found no traces of the use of chemical agents,” following a search of the sites, adding “All these facts show… that no chemical weapons were used in the town of Douma, as it was claimed by the White Helmets.” 

    “All the accusations brought by the White Helmets, as well as their photos… allegedly showing the victims of the chemical attack, are nothing more than a yet another piece of fake news and an attempt to disrupt the ceasefire,” said the Russian Reconciliation Center. 

    * * *

    In any case, if Russia indeed has “irrefutable evidence”, it is probably just a matter of time before it is made public in an attempt to sway public opinion, ideally before the Syrian airstrikes begin afresh. If confirmed, it would be a major slap in the face of neo-con forces across “western democracies”, if hardly a shock: after all the US using a fabricated pretext to wage war or simply to effect a much needed distraction from domestic affairs, in the middle east is a painfully familiar narrative.

    Meanwhile, as we wait for Trump to announce what happens next, late on Thursday we reported that US National Security Advisor John Bolton and Defense Secretary James Mattis are reportedly feuding over the strategy in Syria, with Mattis favoring a more cautious approach, even as France and Britain are crafting broad strike plans and are willing to pursue any military strategy, even though as noted, a readout of a Thursday phone conversation President Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May suggests that military action may be days away, instead of hours.

  • Has London Fallen?

    “Let me be clear – there is no reason to carry a knife. To anyone who does – they will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.” London Mayor Sadiq Khan

    Dear Mr. Bad Guy, please deposit your knife here because “only cowards carry”?

    Source: The Burning Platform

  • The Rise Of Japan's Android Population: "When Abnormal Becomes Normal"

    Authored by MN Gordon via The Economic Prism blog,

    One of the unspoken delights in life is the rich satisfaction that comes with bearing witness to the spectacular failure of offensive and unjust system.  This week served up a lavish plate of delicious appetizers with both a style and refinement that’s ordinarily reserved for a competitive speed eating contest.  What a remarkable time to be alive.

    Many thrilling stories of doom and gloom were published across the tops of the finest digital news sites.  The main object of our satisfaction, however, was buried further down the pages, well below the latest Trump tweets and relentless reports on the global war buildup.  Nonetheless, our focus is not without merit.

    Today’s foil is played by Bank of Japan (BoJ) Governor, Haruhiko Kuroda.  If you’re ignorant of Mr. Kuroda, we apologize.  What follows shall forever end your bliss.

    You see, Kuroda and his cohorts at the BoJ have been surfing the razor’s edge, executing policies of mass money debasement, for several decades.  In fact, their forward thinking ways – and good intentions – have become a source of national pride.  There’s not a deranged monetary policy idea the Japanese brain trust hasn’t pioneered in the name of saving the nation from itself.

    Negative interest rates.  Direct purchases of Japanese stocks via exchange traded funds (ETFs).  Government sponsored shopping sprees.  They’ve tried it all.  And they’ve tried a lot of it.  All to suspend the deflationary effects that followed the bursting of a cheap credit induced asset bubble that popped nearly 30 years ago.

    Brutal Trifecta

    Kuroda, and those who came before him, have gone about their business with steady hands, blind eyes, and a zealous belief that they could increase wealth by increasing the supply of money.  Indeed, our hats are off to them; their track record’s unblemished.  They’ve achieved a 100 percent success rate of failure.

    By all accounts, the Japanese economy’s stagnated over the last quarter century.  At the same time, government debt has jumped up and off the chart.  The last we checked, Japan’s government debt had exceeded 250 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

    This, no doubt, is an amazing achievement.  It more than doubles, on a percent basis, the U.S. government debt to GDP ratio of roughly 105 percent.  Moreover, it pushes the limits of honest comprehension into dishonest comprehension.  There’s no other way to understand it.

    By this, consider that the way Japan’s government debt has eclipsed 250 percent of GDP is through massive central bank asset purchases.  Specifically, the BoJ owns 41 percent of the Japanese government bond market.  They buy government bonds with money they, in effect, create from thin air.

    Yet Japan also has another preeminent distinction.  The country is pioneering precisely what happens to an economy that has an aging population, burdensome debt obligations, and stagnating growth.  Taken together, these factors compose a brutal trifecta.

    Rise of the Japanese Androids

    Japan’s aging demographic trend generally precedes the European Union by about 5 years and the United States by roughly 9 years.  Japan’s government debt trend precedes the European Union and the United States by about 10 years, give or take.  How will Japan pay its massive debt bills when its population is projected to fall by about one-third by 2065?

    Obviously, something’s got to give.  Once it has become impossible for a government to service its debt one of two things can happen.  The government can humbly default on its debt.  Or the government can attempt to inflate it away.

    Can you guess what the government of Japan, and most western economies including the U.S.A., will do?  If you guessed the latter, you get a gold star for your answer.

    So it was with this context that we happened across several clarifications from Kuroda on how Japan would one day have to consider normalizing its ultra-stimulative monetary policy.  Here are several of Kuroda’s notable utterances, which were delivered in his inaugural news conference after being reappointed for another five-year term as head BoJ banker:

    “We’ll do our utmost to hit our price target.  But we’ll also need to eventually consider kicking off a process towards policy normalization.

    “I think the process of any shift (from easy policy) would be cautious and gradual, as with U.S. and European central banks.”

    Question: When does the abnormal become normal?

    Surely, after nearly 30 years of abnormal monetary policy, the abnormal is now the normal – right?

    We suspect the BoJ will never, ever remove its finger prints from the country’s money and credit markets.  They’ll keep pushing and pushing until no market’s left at all.  By then the Japanese android population – which is well on the rise – will far outnumber the human population.

    Without question, this is where an abnormal money system takes you.  It takes you straight to an abnormal world.

  • Trump Orders Military Strikes On Syria: 3 Waves Of Airstrikes Launched

    Summary:

    • Around 9pm ET on Friday, April 13, the US, UK and France launched attack on Syrian regime targets
    • Strikes targeted regime bases and chemical weapon production facilities in Damascus and Homs
    • The Strikes consisted of 3 waves of attacks and are now complete
    • Russia was not pre-notified about tonight’s “kinetic activity”
    • Double the number of weapons was used compared to last year’s Syria strike, when 59 Tomahawk missiles were launched.
    • Regime and Russia condemn what they call a ‘flagrant violation’, but have not retaliated so far.
       

     

    Update 7:  Russia responds. Here is the full statement posted by Russia’s ambassador to the US, Anataoly Antonov:

     

    The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard.

    A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.

    All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.

    Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.

    The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.

    Update 6: The White House has released the list of US demands from Assad regime  

    • Dismantle the chemical weapons program
    • Declare the weapons  
    • Destroy the stockpile
    • Allow OPCW fact-finding mission
    • Comply with the de-escalation zone

    * * *

    Update 5: Video showing the moment a tomahawk missile hits a research facility in Syria:

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

    * * *

    Update 4:  Joint Chiefs chairman Dunford said that while the strikes sought to minimize risk of Russian casualties, the US did not pre-notify Russia of the Syria strikes; separately Mattis said that double the number of weapons used compared to last year’s Syria strike – when 59 Tomahawk missiles were launched.

    More from Dunford:

    • “We did have some surface-to-air missile activity from the Syrian regime.”
    • “The US did not pre-notify Russian forces in Syria about tonight’s kinetic activity.”
    • “Russia was alerted of Syria strikes through “deconfliction” line in Qatar”
    • “U.S. forces in Syria did make adjustments to force protection levels ahead of the combined air operations against the Syrian regime.”
    • “This wave of airstrikes is over. More information will follow in the morning.”
    • “Manned aircraft involved in Syria operation”
    • “Pentagon will brief tomorrow will more strike details”

    And Mattis:

    • “We used a little over double the number of weapons this year than we used last year…We were very precise and proportionate, but at the same time, it was a heavy strike.”
    • “I am confident the Syrian regime conducted a chemical attack on innocent people.”
    • “Right now we have no more attacks planned”

    * * *

    Update 3: at 10PM ET, Defense Secretary Mattis and Joseph Dunford, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff provided the Pentagon’s update, repeating that U.S., British and and French forces struck Syrias chemical weapons infrastructure tonight. Mattis said that “Clearly, the Assad regime did not get the message last year. This time, our allies and we have struck harder.”

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

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

    Mattis adds that “I want to emphasize these strikes are directed at the Syrian regime. In conducting these strikes, we have gone to great lengths to avoid civilian and foreign casualties.”

    Then, Dunford said that the first target was a Syrian research facility, and adds that the US selected targets that would minimize risk to innocent civilians. He adds that attacks on multiple sites of Syria chemical weapons infrastructure “inflicted maximum damage.”

    In total, Targets were specially associated with the Syrian regime’s CW program. These included:

    • Scientific research center in the greater #Damascus area.
    • Chemical weapons storage facility west of #Homs.
    • Chemical weapons equipment storage facility and command post west of #Homs.

    The third target, which was in the vicinity of the second target, contained both the chemical weapons equipment storage facility and an important command post.”

    Meanwhile, the White House said that the US is confident the Syrian regime was behind the chemical weapons attack, based on:

    • media sources
    • victims’ symptoms
    • videos
    • “reliable information indicating coordination between Syrian military officials before the attack.”

    * * *

    Update 2: Witnesses are reporting explosions heard in Damascus, including residential areas, although the first wave of US, UK and French attacks is allegedly targeting the following:

    • Republican Guard headquarters
    • Military airbases
    • Chemical weapon production sites

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

    Meanwhile, Reuters adds that a total of three scientific research centers struck in the attack.

    According to media reports in addition to American ships, Tomahawk missiles and aircraft – including B-1 bombers, leading the attacks, four British Tornado GR4s have targeted a military facility in Homs with Storm Shadow missiles.

    While unconfirmed, Syria state TV claims that it shot down 13 missiles near Damascus.

     

    More details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pentagon: There will be a press briefing at 10 p.m. EDT, tonight, April 13, in the Pentagon Briefing Room on operations in Syria.

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

    *  *  *

    Update 1: President Trump has now confirmed that in a combined operation with France and UK, a military strike is now under way against Syria

    “A short time ago, I ordered the United States Armed Forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapons capabilities of Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad.”

    “This massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.”

    “These are not the actions of a man; they are crimes of a monster instead.”

    “The combined American, British, and French response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power, military, economic, and diplomatic.”

    “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.”

    “In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons.”

     “Assad’s recent attack and today’s response are the direct result of Russia’s failure to keep that promise. Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace.”

    “The United States will be a partner and a friend, but the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people.”

    “Tonight, I ask all Americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors and our allies as they carry out their missions. We pray that God will bring comfort to those suffering in Syria.”

    Theresa May has commented:

    • *MAY: AUTHORISED FORCES TO CONDUCT TARGETED STRIKES IN SYRIA

    • *MAY: WE ARE ACTING TOGETHER WITH OUR AMERICAN & FRENCH ALLIES

    • *U.K.’S MAY SAYS STRIKE IS LIMITED, TARGETED

    • *MAY: SYRIA’S PERSISTENT PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR MUST BE STOPPED

    • *MAY: ATTACKS `NOT ABOUT REGIME CHANGE’ IN SYRIA

    • *MAY: CAN’T ALLOW CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO BECOME NORMALISED

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

    Mr. Trump has threatened military action against Syria for days as retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack by the forces of President Bashar al-Assad on a Damascus suburb last week.

    *  *   *

    With two Tomahawk-capable destroyers in The Mediterranean Sea, and following “highly confident” intel that Syria launched the chemical attack, NYTimes reports that President Trump is expected to make a statement about Syria on Friday evening at the White House, an administration official said.

    Additionally,  Gateway Pundit’s Josh Caplan reports that Vice President Mike Pence was seen “‘rushing back” to his hotel in Peru amid speculation about possible U.S. military action in Syria.

    FOX News reports that President Trump has approved military strikes on Syria and is set to announce them within 30 minutes.

    Watch Live:

    The Donald Cook and The Winston Churchill are capable of carrying up to 150 Tomahawk missiles between them (last April Trump fired 59 Tomahawks into Syria).

    As a reminder, here is the largest missile diplomacy strikes from Washington…

  • Comey Failed To Tell Trump Hillary Paid For Dossier

    Former FBI Director James Comey admits in an upcoming ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos that he never told President Trump that the infamous unverified Steele Dossier was paid for in part by Hillary Clinton. Comey notified Donald Trump in the fall of 2016 that the FBI had received “materials” alleging deviant behavior and financial misconduct tied to Russia. 

    The “Steele Dossier,” created by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele on behalf of Clinton-commissioned opposition research firm Fusion GPS, was notably used as the basis for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page (and presumably, via unmasking, anyone he communicated with) as part of a sweeping, ongoing counterintelligence operation which began during the 2016 election. 

    Curiously, the FBI refused to pay Christopher Steele $50,000 when he couldn’t verify claims within the dossier, yet the agency felt that it was fit to use in a FISA warrant application and bring to Donald Trump’s attention.

    New York Times

    When Comey was asked by Stephanopoulos whether or not he thought President Trump should know about the origins of the salacious and unverified dossier, the former FBI Director simply replied “I don’t know the answer to that.” 

    “Did you tell him that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents?” asks ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.

    “No. I didn’t,” Comey responded. 

    “But did he have a right to know that?” continued Stephanopoulos.

    “That it had been financed by his political opponents? I don’t know the answer to that,” Comey said.

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

    Comey also said that he “wasn’t sure” about a claim in the dossier that in 2013, Donald Trump hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed that President Obama had slept in.

    As Kate Pavlich of TownHall points out, Hillary Clinton initially denied knowing anything about the dossier.

    Hillary Clinton was unaware of the now-infamous dossier of allegations about Donald Trump and Russia prior to Buzzfeed’s publishing of the document earlier this year, a source familiar with the matter has told CNN.

    Clinton was disappointed that the research from the document was not made public before she lost the 2016 election, the source said. –TownHall

    Then, when reports emerged that Clinton actually funded part of the dossier – “she and her team justified the move as “opposition research,” writes Pavlich.

    Not surprisingly, Clinton misrepresented the original hiring of Fusion GPS by a Republican donor. That donor was Peter Singer, who hired the firm on behalf of the Washington Free Beacon to do research on all of the GOP candidates during the primary, including Trump. Fusion GPS did not employ Christopher Steele, a British spy, to do any of this work. When the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS after Trump won, Steele was hired and worked with Russian officials to come up the infamous and salacious dossier.

    Keep in mind the Clinton campaign and DNC officials have denied paying for the dossier for nearly a year, but were forced into an admission after a subpoena from House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes revealed both entities had in fact employed Fusion GPS to create the dossier. –TownHall

    See a longer preview of Comey’s upcoming interview below:

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

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 13th April 2018

  • Visualizing America's Cruise Missile Diplomacy

    President Donald Trump has threatened the use of missiles against targets in Syria. “Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’”, he tweeted, referring to Russia as an ally of the Syrian regime which stands accused of having once more used chemical weapons against targets in rebel-held areas, this time in Douma, a suburb of the capital Damascus.

    Statista’s Dtfed Loesche notes that only a year ago, the United States Navy fired 59 “Tomahawk” cruise missiles from two destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean to hit a Syrian military airfield in Homs province. Trump ordered the assault in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib province, five days before.

    However, as our infographic shows, that wasn’t the first time the U.S. military fired such devices at targets in Syria. According to U.S. Central Command, Islamic State positions were targeted with up to 50 cruise missiles in September 2014, launched from the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf at the onset of the continuing aerial bombardment of the Islamist militants.

    Infographic: United States Cruise Missile Diplomacy | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Cruise missiles have been employed by the United States military (mostly the Navy) regularly, ever since their introduction during the Gulf War of 1991. Though they have been used as a tactical weapon in full scale wars, cruise missiles have mostly been used in limited strikes.

    In his 1997 thesis, Timothy Sparks calls these strikes a “means of delivering a military punch to achieve political gain” and “an instrument in the execution of U.S. foreign policy”. In this sense, the cruise missile has been said to have replaced the gunboat. Hence, the phrase “gunboat diplomacy” has been modified to read “cruise missile diplomacy”.

    Cruise missiles have often been favored by U.S. civilian and military leadership, as they allow for limited strikes, a show of force or punitive raid, while not placing service personnel in danger of death. The missiles are fired from a safe distance to the target and can travel up to 1,500 miles, depending on make and explosives payload.

  • Taking The World To The Brink Of Annihilation

    Authored by Rick Sterling via Oriental Review,

    Western neoconservatives and hawks are driving the international situation to increasing tension and danger. Not content with the destruction of Iraq and Libya based on false claims, they are now pressing for a direct US attack on Syria.

    As a dangerous prelude, Israeli jets flying over Lebanese airspace fired missiles against the T4/Tiyas Airbase west of Palmyra.

    This was Predicted

    As reported at Tass, the Chief of Russia’s General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, predicted the current events almost a month ago. The report from March 13 says, “Russia has hard facts about preparations for staging the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the government forces. After the provocation, the US plans to accuse Syria’s government forces of using chemical weapons … furnish the so-called ‘evidence’ … and Washington plans to deliver a missile and bomb strike against Damascus’ government districts.”

    Gerasimov noted that Russian military advisors are staying in the Syrian Defense Ministry’s facilities in Damascus and “in the event of a threat to our military servicemen’s lives, Russia’s Armed Forces will take retaliatory measures to target both the missiles and their delivery vehicles.”

    The situation is clearly dangerous with risk of sliding into international conflict and even WW3. If that happens, it would mean the demise of civilization. All of this so that the West can continue supporting the sectarian armed groups seeking to overthrow the Assad government … in violation of international law and the UN Charter.

    US President Donald Trump, joined by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, left, Vice President Mike Pence, second from left, and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, right, speaks to the media as he arrives at the Pentagon in January 2018

    The most powerful country in the world is now led by a real estate, hotel and entertainment mogul without political experience. Behind the scenes, there is a powerful foreign policy establishment determined to maintain and reclaim US unilateral “leadership” of the world. They don’t like the fact that the US is losing influence, prestige and power around the world. Israel and Saudi Arabia are especially upset that their plans for regional domination are failing.

    East Ghouta, Damascus

    East Ghouta is a district of farms and towns on the north-east outskirts of Damascus. For the past six years, various armed factions controlled the area. On a nearly daily basis, they launched mortar and hell cannon missile attacks into Damascus, killing many thousands. This author personally witnessed two such mortar attacks in April 2014.

    By the end of March most of East Ghouta had been retaken by the government. With the peaceful evacuation of armed militants, civilians flooded into the humanitarian corridors and then government camps for the displaced. The campaign was proceeding quickly with minimal loss of life as the Russian Reconciliation officers negotiated agreements which allowed the militants to keep small weapons and be transported to Idlib in the north. Vanessa Beeley documented the situation including the happiness and relief of many civilians as they finally made it to safety. One described the feeling as “like being reborn”. Robert Fisk was on site and reported what he saw first hand in stories titled Watching on as Islamist fighters are evacuated from war-torn Eastern Ghouta and Western howls of outrage over the Ghouta siege ring hollow.

    As reported at the Russian Reconciliation Centre, by the end of March, 105,857 civilians had moved into government controlled areas while 13,793 militants plus 23,433 family members had been transported north. Those who wanted to stay, including former fighters, were welcomed. They could rejoin Syrian society with the same rights and obligations as other Syrians.

    Jaish al-Islam terrorist fighters in East Gouta

    The last remaining opposition stronghold was the town of Douma, controlled by the Saudi funded Jaish al Islam. Negotiations were prolonged because Jaish al Islam did not want to go to Idlib which is dominated by another militant opposition group, Jabhat al Nusra also known as Hayat Tahrir al Sham.

    The Chemical Incident

    On Saturday April 7 video and stories claiming a chemical weapons attack in Douma were broadcast. The video showed dozens of dead children. On Sunday the story grabbed western mainstream media headlines. US President Trump quickly come to a conclusion: “President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay”.

    There has been no objective investigation. The media claims are based on statements and videos from members of the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) and White Helmets. Both organizations receive significant funding from the US government and call for Western intervention in Syria.

    Chemical weapons have emerged as the quick and easy justification for aggression. One year ago, in April 2017, it was the incident at Khan Shaykoun. That resulted in a US attack on a Syrian air base just days later. The subsequent investigation discovered that dozens of victims had shown up in hospitals in diverse locations and up to 100 km away from the scene of crime BEFORE the event happened. Strangely, and indicating the investigation team bias, this red flag pointing to fraud was not investigated further. If it was just a few victims or just one location, it might be a mistake in time record-keeping. However in this case there were dozens of discrepancies in multiple locations, clearly raising the possibility of fraud.

    Now we have the incident in Douma, at town on the outskirts of Damascus. The armed opposition is in retreat. They have tried to pressure the US and NATO to intervene directly since 2012. They have access to chemical weapons in East Ghouta and motive. They also have thousands of prisoners. This is the group which put hundreds of prisoners, primarily women and children, in cages on the streets of Douma.

    Who Benefits?

    The timing of the chemical weapons incidents is also noteworthy. As documented here, one year ago on 30 March 2017 Ambassador Haley said the US policy was no longer focused on getting Assad out. Five days later the chemical incident at Khan Sheikhoun happened, quickly followed by blaming the Syrian government, a US attack and a restoration of the demand that “Assad must go”. On March 29 Trump said that US forces will withdraw from Syria “very soon”. This was followed by outcries from the media and political establishment. Now, following the Saturday chemical weapons incident, the US is again threatening to intervene directly. The chemical weapons incidents have consistently resulted in the reversal of a proposed change in hostility toward Syria.

    US Ambassador to UN Security Council Nikki Haley

    Neoconservatives and the supporters of ‘regime change’ foreign policy have various theories why the Assad government would perpetrate a chemical weapons attack. Senator John McCain says the Syrian President was “emboldened” by the previous Trump statement.

    Juan Cole, an academic who promoted the assaults on Libya in 2011, has a different theory. He says“Chemical weapons are used by desperate regimes that are either outnumbered by the enemy or are reluctant to take casualties in their militaries. Barrel-bombing Douma with chem seems to have appealed to the regime as a tactic for this reason. It had potential of frightening the Douma population into deserting the Army of Islam.” In contrast with his theory, chemical weapons were used extensively by the US in Vietnam and Iraq when they were far from desperate. As evidenced in the flow of civilians into government held areas, most of the civilian population are happy to get away from the sectarian and violent Army of Islam (“Jaish al Islam”). Cole seems to be basing his theories on inaccurate western media coverage just as he did regarding Libya where sensational claims about a looming massacre in Benghazi were later shown to be fraudulent.

    It’s clear who benefits from sensational media coverage about a chemical weapons incident: those who seek to demonize the Syrian government and President and want the US government to intervene militarily. Every time there is an incident, it is quickly accepted and used by the governments and organizations who have been seeking ‘regime change’ in Syria for many years.

    Manipulating Public Opinion

    The manipulation of western opinion about the Syrian conflict using fake events is not theory; it has been proven.  A good example is the fake kidnapping of NBC reporter Richard Engel in December 2012.  Engel and his media team were reportedly kidnapped and threatened with death by “shabiha” supporters of the Syrian president. After days in captivity the American team was supposedly rescued by Free Syrian Army “rebels” after a shootout. In 2015 it was confirmed this was a hoax perpetrated by the FSA and their American supporters. The entire charade was carried out by the “rebels”. The goal was to demonize the Assad government and its supporters, and to romanticize and increase support for the armed opposition. Neither Engel nor NBC confessed to the reality until it was about to be exposed years later, pointing to duplicity and collusion in the deception.

    Four and half years ago, on 21 August 2013, the most famous chemical weapons incident occurred. The Syrian government was immediately accused of launching a sarin attack which killed hundreds of children and civilians. Over the next six months investigations were carried out. The conclusions of Seymour HershRobert Parry and the research site whoghouta.com concluded that the attack was almost certainly NOT from the government but actually from one of the ‘rebel’ factions with support from Turkish intelligence services. Two Turkish parliamentary deputies held a press conference and publicly revealed some of the evidence. The intent then, as now, was to provide justification and provocation for the US and NATO to intervene directly.

    Conclusion

    Today there is the imminent possibility of a major attack based on the allegations of a clearly biased source. What ever happened to international law and legal due process? Why is violence being threatened before there is a serious objective investigation of the chemical incident? If the accusations against Syria are true, why not have a serious investigation, especially now that the area has been liberated today (9 April) and safe access can be provided?

    The drums of war are pounding. After over one year of incessant Russia bashing and disinformation, is the public ready to go to war with Russia over Syria? Neoconservative hawks and their Israeli and Saudi allies seem to want this. Their plans and predictions for Iraq, Libya and Yemen were delusional fantasies with the price paid in blood by the people of those countries and in treasure by Americans as well. Sadly, there has not been any accountability for the media and political establishment that promoted and launched these wars. Now they want to escalate the aggression by attacking Syria, causing vastly more blood to flow and risking confrontation with a country which can fight back.

  • Amazon Pulls Child Sex Dolls Following Complaints

    Amazon UK has pulled child sex dolls from their online storefront after widespread complaints from a watchdog group and others in Britain over concerns that pedophiles may use them as a “gateway doll” which would lead to the sexual abuse of children.

    Over a dozen child sex dolls were removed in all, having been listed by third-party sellers. 

    “All Marketplace sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who don’t will be subject to action including potential removal of their account,” said an Amazon spokesman in a statement. “The products in question are no longer available.”

    Amazon does not sell the products itself but instead receives money from the sellers.

    Dolls found on the website were typically three or four feet tall with waist sizes around 16 inches (41cm).

    In the accompanying pictures they were placed in sexual poses with descriptions such as “Mannequin Sexy” and “100% mimics girl’s body”.

    Several dolls were described as coming with “sexy lingerie”.

    A couple from Durham were horrified to find that a child sex doll came up in the results for their online search for sex toys.

    “We felt disgusted and we straight away reported it to Amazon,” they told the BBC.

    Twenty four hours later the couple had received no response from the retailer. –BBC

    UK authorities want to know how the dolls were allowed on Amazon’s platform in the first place.

    England’s Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said that Amazon needs to explain what happened (Too bad the Children’s Commissioner wasn’t around during Jimmy Savile’s reign of pedophilic terror, or while former PM Sir Edward Heath was abusing children for decades, – which we’re isn’t going on today of course).

    Last year, a judge at Canterbury Crown Court dismissed ex-primary school governor David Turner’s argument that a child sex doll he imported was not obscene. Turner, a former churchwarden, pleaded guilty last July to importing the child sex doll.

    Responding to a BBC investigation, Anne Longfield, England Children’s Commissioner, said: “These dolls are disgusting and are clearly meant to look like children.

    “Not only do I, as Children’s Commissioner, but the wider public also, have a right to expect a huge company like Amazon, to not only remove these products from their platform, but to explain why they are on there in the first place and ensure they can’t just be reloaded having been taken down.”

    Such dolls are clearly built for one purpose and that purpose is a clear danger to the safety of real children,” she added.

    Ms Stewart said the dolls were unlike those people might associate with stag dos and were the precursor to more sophisticated child sex robots, which she warned were “just around the corner”.

    “They are the weight of a seven-year-old child, they are not something that is the traditional blow-up doll, she said.

    “(They are) very, very different – very, very more accurate anatomically.”

    The dolls, with their unnerving glass-eye stare, false eyelashes and crooked fingers and toes, often come packaged with accessories including a choice of wigs, a USB device to warm the spongy silicone skin, and a cleaning device. –independent.co.uk

    The UK has seized 179 child-like sex dolls since March of 2016 as part of Operation Shiraz – an operation set up in conjunction with the National Crime Agency. Last July, a judge ruled that child sex dolls were obscene, and therefore covered under the 1979 Customs and Excise Management Act. That said, it is not a criminal offense to manufacture or own a child sex doll – just to import them.

    The dolls are designed to be as lifelike as possible – made of silicone type material and weighing as much as a child, and made in such a way as to enable sexual acts to be performed on them. 

    NPSCC head Almudena Lara told the BBC “We already know that there is a risk that people using these dolls could become desensitised and their behaviour could become normalised to them, so that they go on to harm children, as is often the case with those who view indecent images of children online.

    There is absolutely no evidence that using the dolls stops potential abusers from abusing children.”

  • The US Fading Into Irrelevance – A Good Thing For The World?

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Chaos reigns in the United States, spreading to its closest allies. The war amongst Western elites is in full swing, manifesting itself from commercial wars to failed diplomacy, empty threats of war, corruption, and announced military withdrawals and attacks.

    To sum up the last few weeks of international events, it is worth comparing the direction taken by the multipolar troika of Russia, China and Iran, and the one taken by the fading unipolar order led by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    We can analyze the respective changes taking place within the unipolar and multipolar camps, especially in the economic, commercial, diplomatic and military fields.

    The introduction by the US of duties on imports, applied to 1,300 products, including iron and aluminum, has triggered a chain of events, including the imposition of as many duties on various products exported by the US to China. The pressure on America’s European allies continues, against the protests of France and Germany. It seems that Europe is struggling to form a common front on many issues relating from foreign policy to trade. The Western elites continue its in-fighting, between the European Union (led by Berlin and Paris) and the UK and the US, clashing over agreements between London and Brussels and Washington and Brussels. The Trump tariff war aims to deliver a blow to America’s opponents, but it risks provoking strong responses, even from allies. Moreover, many analysts and economists have warned that this form of commercial warfare risks harming American workers the most.

    A divided Europe finds itself dealing with an ever-increasing need to justify its defense and security package. The British, thanks to the artificial Russian threat – characterized by fake chemical attacks, hypothetical invasions of the Baltic countries, and the situation in Ukraine – continue to sustain an environment in which Europeans seek the protection of NATO, which includes Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Looking at this critically, the intent of Berlin, Paris, and especially London and Washington, is evidently to justify increased military spending to counter an alleged threat emanating from Moscow. All this comes down to increased sales of British, German, French and, above all, American weapons to NATO and EU countries. This only serves to continue the flow of money into the coffers of the elite, thanks to artificial tensions like the one generated between Russia and the UK over the poisoning of the former Russian spy in England.

    If the unipolar world seems to have thrown to the wind the concept of diplomacy and adherence to international norms – with a flurry of expulsions of diplomats, false accusations, one-sided motions in the UN’s Security Council, and ignoring the basic rules of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – in Asia, on the other side of the globe, diplomacy continues to bear fruit. Xi Jinping just met with Kim Jong-un, in the first of a series of meetings that could bring the North Korean leader to an initial meeting with Moon Jae-in, and later with Putin. We have heard from Washington only bellicose rhetoric directed against Pyongyang, even within the confines of the United Nations. In line with the ideological attitude of American exceptionalism, the American establishment appreciates Trump’s threats, but is quite naturally less enamored with the announcement of a meeting between the American president and the North Korean leader. According to America’s traditional ideology, no negotiations are to be entered into with geopolitical opponents and peer competitors, for the simple reason that Washington is not willing to negotiate or make any concession on any matter; the only way it knows how to engage in international relations is to impose its will by any means possible. In Syria, the example is clear, where indirect or direct military force has failed to remove Assad, and now Washington finds itself isolated, mainly diplomatically, with the Geneva II Conference on Syria now replaced by the agreement reached in Sochi, from which the United States excluded itself on account of not enjoying a leading position, thereby conceding this role to Ankara, Tehran and Moscow. This is a good example of how the Western elite’s strategic attempt to overthrow Assad and partition Syria has ran into the military reality on the ground, which includes the strength of alliances (especially between Iran, Russia and China), and the willingness of Moscow and Tehran to resolve the Syrian crisis by military and diplomatic means.

    In economic terms, the revolution the petro-yuan represents becomes more and more real, this new medium of exchange set to sooner or later involve Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of crude oil, with China as its largest buyer. The Western elites will try to oppose by any means possible such an arrangement, given that the petrodollar is the basis American military power. But it is an inevitable process, which must necessarily be backed up with a military component in order to discourage the United States from behaving recklessly. Iraq and other countries have been on the receiving end of America’s imposition of its petrodollar hegemony militarily. For this and other reasons, mainly related to US ABM systems placed all around Russian borders, Putin has had to resort to a very public demonstration of the Russian Federation’s means of deterrence, advertising the existence of the country’s new hypersonic weapons.

    As demonstrated by the recent meeting between the defense ministers of Russia and China, the multipolar strategy is now wide-ranging, relegating Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to further digging themselves into the hole they have already dug themselves into (see recent events in Syria with Israel launching 8 missiles and Trump beating the drums of war). As General Wei Fenghe stated, “We came to Moscow to let the Americans know about the close military ties between the armed forces of China and Russia.” When these two military and economic powers unite their efforts, involving regional powers and mediating over various conflicts, it becomes clear that the challenge to Washington’s hegemony is progressively leading away from an international reality consisting of one superpower to one consisting of three to four powers that maintain an international balance via diplomatic, economic and military means.

    The phase in which we currently live is turbulent and is essentially caused by a single factor that has two very strong thrusts.

    The acceleration of the dwindling of the unipolar phase is directly connected with the strategic and tactical errors of the American deep state and its main sponsors, like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    At the same time, the opposing push comes from the multipolar environment, which tends to consolidate its sphere of influence via diplomatic and military means. The goal for Moscow and Beijing is to present to the American and European elites a viable alternative that is shared among several actors. For the time being, the Euro-Atlantic establishment continues to consider itself capable of changing the course of events and preventing the drift towards multipolarity.

    Whether the Western oligarchy is a victim to its own propaganda or whether it simply wishes to avoid facing reality and is using every means available to postpone an epochal change, is difficult to determine; and this makes the future uncertain, and is therefore highly dangerous.

  • Increase In US Exports Rendering Once Crucial Cushing Data Irrelevant

    Houston is quickly becoming the new benchmark for oil, while Cushing is losing its relevance to the industry.

    Cushing wasn’t just relevant to the industry for storage purposes, but also for sector wide data purposes. According to Reuters, it “got its distinction in the early 1920s when tanks sprung up to store oil en route from Oklahoma and Texas to major metropolitan areas and refineries in the Midwest. In 1983, it became the delivery point for the newly-launched WTI futures contract CLc1.”

    For years, Cushing oil inventories were a staple for any business, trader or entity that dealt in the commodity, not to mention those who actively traded it on a daily basis. Cushing inventories were once the key indicator the the supply of crude oil held in the United States. These are the Cushing storage tanks in Cushing, OK:

    (Photo: Reuters)

    Decades ago, Cushing was seen as a fairly easy way to measure oil supply because the United States was not exporting any oil, but rather only importing it. This made it a novel and effective idea to have one major storage point to reference when trying to help gauge the amount of supply the United States had, which could quickly be used by traders and those in the industry to help with price discovery on oil futures contracts.

    Just as the trading market for oil futures has evolved, replacing open outcry with computers, so has the efficiency and method with which we collect oil inventory data. Cushing seems to be “slowly going the way of the buffalo“ while focus turns further south. Reuters reported about Cushing’s storage this morning:

    But those tanks could soon drain to levels near effectively empty, even as U.S. oil production soars past a new record of 10.4 million barrels per day.

    Oil supplies have fallen before in Cushing for a variety of seasonal or market-driven reasons. But this time, there is no shortage of crude in the market. In fact, U.S. production is straining pipeline and storage capacity.

    The declining volumes stored at Cushing reflects a more permanent shift, underscoring the hub’s waning influence as the primary measuring stick for the U.S. oil market and the leading barometer of future supply, demand and prices.

    Things have changed in the industry over the years. Nowadays are oil exports play as big of a role as our imports and, with that, our infrastructure needs have vastly shifted.

    The most obvious change in our infrastructure needs naturally and organically pushes focus toward port cities like Houston to be better indicators of oil activity coming both in and out of the United States. To arrive at spot prices, traders need to have a full grasp on what is now a much more dynamic oil inventory situation that it was decades ago. For this purpose, Houston is now the area most traders are focusing on and want to replace Cushing as a gauge for the oil market in the United States. The article continues:

    Instead, producers are increasingly shipping directly to seaports such as Houston, where vessels carry the oil to dozens of countries worldwide. That reflects a major transformation in global crude flows since the United States lifted a four-decade ban on oil exports in late 2015. Some traders and buyers argue the benchmark needs to change to reflect this.

    Joshua Wade, a crude oil marketer in Oklahoma, sees the benchmark delivery point moving south before long.

    “That’s the direction it’s moving,” he said. “As opposed to importing, now you’re exporting through the same infrastructure … The oil capital of the nation is in Houston.”

    Although it ends decades of focus on the Cushing area for the oil industry, this move toward establishing a new focus on Houston is commensurate with an oil market that has changed significantly over the last several decades. In addition, new pipelines are being built and are expected to come online over the next 2 years, as the country’s oil infrastructure continues to evolve to meet the needs of both importing and exporting. 

    Cushing’s future may not be completely bust, however – it could simply wind up as off-shore gulf storage, or a to act as a back up, rather than a primary storage site:

    A spokesman for Magellan Midstream Partners, which owns about 12 million barrels of Cushing storage, said it will remain important because of its connections to the Gulf and Midwest.

    Cushing is also connected via pipeline to the Gulf, 500 miles to the south, and can offer cheaper storage than what’s available on the coast, said SemGroup’s Conner.

    “I believe Cushing’s next chapter,” he said, “is that it’s going to become an offsite Gulf Coast storage center.”

    But Cushing’s relevance seems to be on the way out, as least as a crucial data point for the industry. Just as markets “evolve”, so do their data points and methods for collecting crucial sector wide data. Now, if we could only get the Fed to do the same with the way it measures CPI.

  • Russia's Real Endgame

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    Russia’s Putin has never taken his eye off the ball. His ambition is not global hegemony or European conquest. Putin seeks what Russia has always sought: regional hegemony and a set of buffer states in eastern Europe and central Asia that can add to Russia’s strategic depth.

    In Syria, Russia has the warm water port of Tartus – which is important when you consider that most Russian ports are ice-bound for months of the year.

    It is strategic depth — the capacity to suffer massive invasions and still survive due to an ability to retreat to a core position and stretch enemy supply lines – that enabled Russia to defeat both Napoleon and Hitler. Putin also wants the modicum of respect that would normally accompany that geostrategic goal.

    Understanding Putin is not much more complicated than that.

    In the twenty-first century, a Russian sphere of influence is not achieved by conquest or subordination in the old Imperial or Communist style. It is achieved by close financial ties, direct foreign investment, free trade zones, treaties, security alliances, and a network of associations that resemble earlier versions of the EU

    Russian military intervention in Crimea and eastern Ukraine is best understood not as a Russian initiative, but as a Russian reaction. It was a response to U.S. and U.K. efforts to attack Russia by pushing aggressively and prematurely for Ukraine membership in NATO. This was done by deposing a Putin ally in Kiev in early 2014.

    This is not to justify Russia’s actions, merely to put them in a proper context. The time to peel off Ukraine for NATO was 1999, not 2014.

    The Russian-Ukraine situation is a subset of the broader U.S.-Russian relationship. Here, the opposition comes not just from domestic opponents but from the globalist elite.

    Globalization emerged in the 1990s as a consequences of the end of the Cold War and the reunification of Germany. For the first time since 1914, Russia, China and their respective empires could join the U.S., Western Europe and their former colonies in Latin America and Africa in a single global market.

    Globalization relied on open borders, free trade, telecommunications, global finance, extended supply chains, cheap labor and freedom of the seas. Globalization as it existed from 1990 to 2007 made steady progress under the Bush-Clinton duopoly of power in the U.S. and like-minded leaders elsewhere. The enemy of globalization was nationalism, but nationalism was nowhere in sight.

    The financial crisis of 2007–2008, caused by the elites’ own greed and inability to grasp the statistical properties of risk, put an end to the easy gains from globalization.

    Ironically, globalization gained in the short-run despite financial calamity. The same elites who created disaster were empowered to “fix” the situation under the auspices of the G20 Leaders’ Summit. This global rescue began with the first G20 summit hastily organized by George W. Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy, then the President of France, in November 2008.

    Despite the financial bailouts and central bank easy money of the decade following the crisis, robust self-sustaining growth in line with pre-crisis trends has never really returned. Instead the world has suffered through a ten-year depression (defined as depressed below-trend growth), which continues to this day.

    What little growth emerged was captured mostly by the wealthy, which led to the greatest income inequality levels seen in over 80 years.

    Discontent was palpable in middle-class and working class populations in the world’s major developed economies. This discontent morphed into political action. The result was the U.K. decision to leave the EU, called “Brexit,” the election of Donald Trump, and the rise of politicians such as Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen in France, among others.

    What unites these politicians and political movements is nationalism. This can be defined as a desire to put national interests ahead of globalization. Nationalism can mean closing borders, restricting free trade to help local employment, fighting back against cheap labor and dumping with tariffs and trade adjustment assistance, and rejecting multilateral trade deals in favor of bilateral negotiations.

    This brings us to the crux of the U.S.-Russia relationship.

    Simply put, Putin and Trump are the two most powerful nationalists in the world. Any rapprochement between Russia and the U.S. is an existential threat to the globalist agenda.

    This explains the vitriolic, hysterical, and relentless attacks on Trump and Putin.

    The globalists have to keep Trump and Putin separated in order to have any hope of reviving the globalist agenda.

    Just as Trump and Putin are the champions of nationalism, President Xi Jinping of China and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have emerged as the champions of the globalist camp.

    Understanding this dynamic requires consideration of the paradoxical roles of Xi and Merkel.

    Xi positions himself as the leading advocate of globalization. The truth is more complex.

    President Xi is the most nationalist of all major leaders. He continually puts China’s long-term interests first without particular regard for the well-being of the rest of the world.

    But, China’s relative military and economic weakness, and potential social instability, require it to cooperate with the rest of the world on trade, climate change, and supply-chain logistics in order to grow. Xi is in a paradoxical position of being nationalist to the core, yet wearing a globalist veneer in order to pursue the nationalist long game.

    Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany is also in a paradoxical position — but the opposite of Xi’s role. Merkel knows Germany must embrace globalism both because of its unique historical burden of being the source of three major wars (Franco-Prussian, World War I, and World War II), and the necessity of German integration with the EU and Eurozone.

    At the same time, Merkel has advanced her globalist agenda by promoting German interests through exports and cheap foreign labor.

    For the globalists, the world breaks down into Manichean struggle between the nationalists, Trump and Putin, and the globalists, Xi and Merkel. Globalists may be playing a two-sided game of nationalists versus globalists, but they need to widen the lens to see that the world today is really a three-party game.

    There are really only three superpowers in the world today — Russia, China and the U.S. All other nations are secondary or tertiary powers who may be aligned with a superpower, neutral or independent, but who otherwise lack the ability to impose their will on others.

    Some analysts may be surprised to see Russia on the superpower list, but the facts are indisputable. Russia is the twelfth largest economy in the world, has the largest landmass, is one of the three largest energy producers in the world, has abundant natural resources other than oil, has advanced weapons and space technology, an educated workforce and, of course, has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons of any country.

    Russia has enormous problems including adverse demographics, limited access to oceans, harsh weather, and limited fertile soil. Yet, none of these problems negate Russia’s native strengths.

    Notwithstanding the prospect of improved relations, Putin remains the geopolitical chess master he has always been.

    His long game involves the accumulation of gold, development of alternative payments systems, and ultimate demise of the dollar as the dominant global reserve currency.

  • Burned-Out Shack In Silicon Valley Selling For $800k

    Silicon Valley, the southern region of San Francisco Bay Area of California, is arguably the most expensive place in the United States to live. At the epicenter of all this, Palo Alto is a breeding ground for many unicorn start-ups and overvalued technology companies. The region has a median home price of roughly $2,598,200.

    To gain a perspective of just how outrageous real estate in Silicon Valley is, the median sales price of existing homes in the United States averages around $241,000.

    The meteoric rise in home prices has accelerated Silicon Valley’s real estate market into bubble territory. Even San Francisco’s median cost of a one-bedroom rental floats around $3,590 per month. As the housing bubble infects much of the San Francisco Bay area, we have stumbled across the latest installment of real estate insanity that could very well be an essential clue to what comes next.

    Take, for instance, a burned-out shack in San Jose’s Willow Glen neighborhood listed on Monday for $799,000. The realtor said the asking price is reasonable — given the housing market dynamics and its geographical location, said KTVU FOX 2.

    The owners of an abandoned, fire-destroyed home in San Jose are asking $800,000 for the house and surrounding 5,800 square foot lot. Holly Barr

    Realtor Holly Barr told KTVU the owners of an abandoned, fire-destroyed shack reflects the value of the property, not necessarily the burnt down structure. She noted in the interview, the home caught fire more than two years ago, and has been dormant ever since.

    “They did leave it standing so you can remodel it versus tearing it down so you save a lot of money when you can leave a wall up and do a remodel versus a complete tear-down,” Barr told the station. The Bird Avenue address in San Jose’s Willow Glen neighborhood sits close to a proposed transit-oriented Google “village” of offices, research sites and retail stores.

    Barr’s realtor Facebook page describes the home and lot combination as a “Great opportunity to build your dream home!” Since the posting, Barr told KTVU she has received ten offers and expected a contract on the property by the end of the week.

    Barr has yet to list the property on multiple listing services (MLS), a suite of services that real estate brokers use for completing transactions. However, she says, a home down the street recently sold for $1.6 million. Glancing at the current Glen San Jose real estate market (Zillow), the average price of a home is around $1,365,900 with total square footage around 2,500 sqft.

    Some Facebook users found the price of the shack as absurd. Here is what they said:

    “800k for that…What has this area come to when a family earning good money cannot even afford to buy even a burnt out wreak.Greed, pure greed from all concerned right here,” said Cally Jayne, a Facebook user.

    “And here we see a perfect example of unchecked free market capitalism. A Chinese billionaire will pay $850k without blinking an eye because all they are interested in is the land as an investment. Thousands of properties bought up like this with zero interest in actually living in that lot or renting or anything. The actual housing market shrinks as a result to the point where even Silicon Valley engineers are priced out. Years later, we’ll all shrug our shoulders and go “WHAT HAPPENED!?!” like it’ll be some big mystery,” said another Facebook user.

    Shocking, one Facebook user claims this million dollar neighborhood filled with shacks is located down the street from “homeless encampments every which way you turn!!!”

    Another user warns the neighborhood where the million dollar shack resides is “full of crime” and homeless people.

    About a hundred comments down, Facebook users started revolting against the realtor — showing pictures of their non-shack, McMansions for substantially less in other states…

    “This only cost me 250k to build but I’m in Texas lol,” said Gomez.

    “This is what you can get in Spicewood Texas for under $500,000,” said another.

    While it is interesting to watch the dynamics of the market. What we see in San Francisco Bay Area of California is a classic bubble. Let us explain below:

    The first graph shows house prices in the Bay Area have increased faster than the national average…Why has this been happening?

    S&P/Case-Shiller CA-San Francisco Home Price Index/S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index

    The second graph shows the working population in the region has, in fact, declined versus the national average. So, perhaps, an influx of residents is unlikely the cause behind the rising housing prices.

    All Employees: Total Nonfarm in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

    The third graph follows the progression of personal incomes in the Bay Area compared with the rest of the country.

    Per Capita Personal Income in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA

    ..And alas, the problem has been solved, the Bay Area has fewer people with much more money chasing the same houses, a classic symptom of a bubble. As for the burned out shack worth 3.3x than the median sales price of existing homes in the United State, well, that is also a sign of peak stupidity for whoever buys it next.

  • Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out Of Social Media

    Submitted by Bill Blunden,

    As the Facebook fracas unfolds, the agenda-setting members of the press have been inclined to frame Cambridge Analytica as an isolated incident. This belies the fact that mass surveillance is a fundamental aspect of social media’s business model, and that social media users cannot have their cake and eat it too, despite what tech CEOs might claim. In lieu of regulatory measures, protecting your privacy online entails swallowing a bitter pill: opting out of social media.

    While the pool of Facebook accounts suspected of being harvested by Cambridge Analytica continues to grow it’s important to recognize that there’s more to this story than a cabal of shady republican operators. By focusing on Cambridge Analytica and its parent company, SCL, the major news outlets are creating the perception that what’s happening is the work of a few bad apples. When the reality is that the underlying problem is systemic in nature.

    It’s not just the GOP. Political influence operations are a bipartisan affair. According to a number cruncher who worked for the Democrats, the 2012 Obama campaign aggregated almost five times as much Facebook data as Cambridge Analytica. It’s just that in Obama’s case Facebook execs decided to turn a blind eye. As the source explained, “they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

    In the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica revelations, Zuckerberg has hired public relations experts and launched an extensive damage control campaign. Note, for example, the tacit assumption baked into the title of Brian Chen’s piece in the New York Times: “How to Protect Yourself (and Your Friends) on Facebook.” Are editors at the Times alleging that users can have their cake and eat it too?

    Reading down into the article, Chen acknowledges that truly protecting your data would entail deleting your Facebook account. This frank admission underscores the fact that it’s nearly impossible for social media users to escape data collection. After all that’s how social media companies make their money. Well over a hundred billion dollars per year. Your online activity inside their walled internet gardens as well as your dopamine addiction to “tweets” and “likes” are their income stream.

    What? You thought these online services were free? A miracle of the new economy?

    Social media’s big data collection directly informs Madison Avenue. All that aggregation begets carefully targeted attempts at manipulation (though marketing execs prefer harmless euphemisms like “educate” and “inform”). And if that wasn’t bad enough, when intelligence services ask to have a gander its dollars to donuts that social media will silently collaborate, chatting away with spy masters on a first name basis. Keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

    So there you have it. Social media is a form of mass surveillance and a tool of elite control. Buy product X, vote for candidate Y, support regime change movement Z. Pay no attention to the CEO behind the curtain.

    What to do, what to do?

    In the spirit of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), journalists like Matt Taibbi have suggested that government regulation is the way forward. The idea is that lawmakers should enact laws that force social media companies to “dial back the use of the data-collection technologies.” Luminaries like Richard Stallman have echoed similar thoughts. And although there’s merit to the idea, it’s unlikely to be immediately feasible in the United States given the tech industry’s lobbying footprint. Companies like Facebook and Google have been more than generous with lawmakers. At best, serious legislative reform is a long term approach that’s linked to state capture. At worst it’s wishful thinking.

    Thus we return to Brian Chen’s advice: cold turkey. Take personal responsibility for your own social life. Go back to engaging flesh and blood people without tech companies serving as an intermediary. Eschew the narcissistic impulse to broadcast the excruciating minutiae of your life to the world. Refuse to accept the mandate that you must participate in social media in order to participate in society. Reclaim your autonomy. 

    Having said that, the option of forgoing digital platforms in favor of genuine human interaction is related to another legitimate critique of social media; that it tends towards ideological echo chambers. Where people take refuge in the comfort of messaging that serves only to reinforce their existing beliefs. A novel incarnation of the divide and conquer strategy which the power elite have traditionally wielded to hobble the proles.

    Readers should be wary of social media bubbles, safe spaces, and the like. In the absence of billionaire donors like Robert Mercer and Tom Steyer, instituting societal change means reaching out to other folks. Some of whom may have different ways of viewing the world. Resist the temptation to write them off and have the humility to accept the limits of your own understanding.

     

  • Students Demand Penn State Defund Conservative "Hate Groups"

    Authored by Adam Sabes via Campus Reform,

    Student demonstrators at colleges across Pennsylvania are demanding that their schools cut funding to “hate groups” such as Turning Point USA (TPUSA) and the Bull Moose Party.

    The Pennsylvania Student Power Network, as well as students from other clubs such as the United Socialists, protested Monday outside an administrative building at Pennsylvania State University, complaining that the school provides funding to groups such as TPUSA and the Bull Moose Party, according to The Daily Collegian.

    The students also delivered a petition President Eric Barron’s office that urges him to defund the conservative “hate groups” that have “attracted avowed white nationalists to campus.” 

    Additionally, the petition demands that “school and student activities funds, which mostly draw from students’ tuition and fees, not be used to support student hate groups,” and that “our colleges and universities formally and publicly denounce hate groups on and around campus…”

    PSU has pushed back on the accusation that it funds TPUSA and the Bull Moose Party, arguing that neither group receives direct financial support from the school.

    “TPUSA and the Bull Moose Party have not requested nor received any funding from the University Park Allocation Committee, the entity that distributes portions of the student-initiated fee for student organizations,” Lisa Powers, a senior director for PSU’s Office of Communications, told Campus Reform.

    To that extent, Powers said that the university is committed to upholding First Amendment rights, even when it comes to defending speech that people may disagree with.

    “As an institution of higher education, Penn State not only has an obligation to support Constitutionally protected free speech, but also is committed to open and civil exchange of ideas,” Powers maintained.

    One protester, Leslie Johnson, argued during the protest that “right-wing student organizations have a responsibility to shut down hate and violence stemming from their own members” while accusing TPUSA members of previously using offensive slurs against individuals with disabilities, the Daily Collegian reported.

    Michael Csencsits, the treasurer of TPUSA at Penn State, told Campus Reform that the group’s members “never spoke with ill intent towards minorities of any kind,” adding that “we, TPUSA at Penn State, were shocked to hear [the demonstrators] calling us a hate group, as we don’t associate ourselves with any of those ideals.”

    Vincent Cucchiara, the communications director for the Bull Moose Party at PSU, echoed Csencsits criticism of the protest, arguing that the activists’ claims are “unfounded.”

    “The claims are completely unfounded, which is why they make no specific accusations, and they serve as excellent examples of how unreasonable and indecent college leftists really are,” Cucchiara told Campus Reform.

    According to its Facebook page, activists from the Pennsylvania Student Power Network protested on 21 campuses across the state, making similar demands to “denounce campus hate groups” and “deny these groups school funding.” 

    Campus Reform reached out to the Pennsylvania Student Power Network, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

    Disclaimer: the Leadership Institute previously provided financial support for The State Patriot, which is affiliated with the Bull Moose Party at PSU.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 12th April 2018

  • Europe's Civilizational Exhaustion

    Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

    • Islam is filling the cultural vacuum of a society with no children and which believes — wrongly — it has no enemies.

    • In Sweden, by 2050, almost one in three people will be Muslim.

    • The European mainstream mindset now seems to believe that “evil” comes only from our own sins: racism, sexism, elitism, xenophobia, homophobia, the guilt of the heterosexual white Western male — and never from non-European cultures. Europe now postulates an infinite idealization of the “other”, above all the migrant.

    • A tiredness seems to be why these countries do not take meaningful measures to defeat jihadism, such as closing Salafist mosques or expelling radical imams.

    • Muslim extremists understand this advantage: so long as they avoid another enormous massacre like 9/11, they will be able to continue taking away human lives and undermining the West without awakening it from its inertia.

    In a prophetic conference held in Vienna on May 7, 1935, the philosopher Edmund Husserl said, “The greatest danger to Europe is tiredness”. Eighty years later, the same fatigue and passivity still dominate Western European societies.

    It is the sort of exhaustion that we see in Europeans’ falling birth rates, the mushrooming public debt, chaos in the streets, and Europe’s refusal to invest resources in its security and military might. Last month, in a Paris suburb, the Basilica of Saint Denis, where France’s Christian kings are buried, was occupied by 80 migrants and pro-illegal-immigration activists. The police had to intervene to free the site.

    Pictured: French police eject some of the 80 migrants and pro-illegal-immigration activists who occupied the Basilica of Saint Denis, on March 18, 2018. (Image source: Video screenshot, YouTube/Kenyan News & Politics)

    Stephen Bullivant, a professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary’s University in London, recently published a report, “Europe’s Young Adults and Religion”:

    “Christianity as a default, as a norm, is gone, and probably gone for good – or at least for the next 100 years,” Bullivant said.

    According to Bullivant, many young Europeans “will have been baptised and then never darken the door of a church again. Cultural religious identities just aren’t being passed on from parents to children. It just washes straight off them… “And we know the Muslim birthrate is higher than the general population, and they have much higher [religious] retention rates.”

    Richard Dawkins, an atheist and the author of The God Delusion, responded to the study’s release by tweeting to his millions of Twitter followers:

    Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme:
    “Always keep a-hold of nurse
    For fear of finding something worse.”

    Dawkins is apparently concerned that that after the demise of Christianity in Europe, there will not be an atheistic utopia, but a rising Islam.

    That is the major point of what Philippe Bénéton in his book The Moral Disorder of the West (“Le dérèglement moral de l’Occident“): Islam is filling the cultural vacuum of a society with no children and which believes — wrongly — it has no enemies.

    According to Radio Sweden, fewer newborns in that country are being baptized due to the demographic shift. By 2050, almost one in three people in Sweden will be Muslim, according to a recent Pew report

    The European mainstream mindset now seems to believe that “evil” comes only from our own sins: racism, sexism, elitism, xenophobia, homophobia, the guilt of the heterosexual white Western male –and never from non-European cultures. So Europe now postulates an infinite idealization of the “other”, above all the migrant. The heritage and legacy of Western civilization gets sectioned off piece by piece so that nothing remains; our values are mocked and our survival instinct is inhibited. It is a process of decomposition that Europe’s political authorities seem to have decided to mediate, as if it were inevitable. Now, the European Union waits to receive the next surge of migrants, from Africa.

    In German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s major speech in the Bundestag after the unprecedentedly long and difficult process of forming a new government, she struck a conciliatory tone on immigration while offering an inclusive message on Islam. “With 4.5 million Muslims living with us, their religion, Islam, has also become a part of Germany”, she said.

    The most powerful politician in Europe capitulated: she evidently forgot (again) the difference between the civil rights of individuals, which Muslim citizens enjoy in Germany, and the sources of a national identity, on which Europe is based: humanistic, Judeo-Christian values. This realization may why a week earlier the new German Interior minister, Horst Seehofer, said that “Germany has been shaped by Christianity” and not by Islam.

    Europe’s tiredness can also be seen in a generational conflict embodied in the alarming rise of public debt. In Italy, the political establishment was recently shaken up by the election of two major populist parties. It is a country with a public debt of 40,000 euros per capita, and a tax burden equal to 43.3% of GDP. The average age of the population is the third oldest in the world, together with one of the lowest birthrates on the planet, one of the lowest retirement ages in Europe and the highest social security spending-to-GDP ratio in the Western world. It is also a country where pensions account for one-third of all public spending and where the percentage of pensioners in proportion to workers will rise from 37% today to 65% in 2040 (from three workers who support one pensioner to three workers who support two pensioners).

    An Islamist challenge to this tired and decaying society could be a decisive one. Only Europe’s Christian population is barren and aging. The Muslim population is fertile and young. “In most European countries—including England, Germany, Italy and Russia, Christian deaths outnumbered Christian births from 2010 to 2015,” writes the Wall Street Journal.

    Terrorist attacks will continue in Europe. Recently, in Trèbes, southern France, a jihadist took hostages in a supermarket and claimed allegiance to ISIS. It seems that Europe’s societies consider themselves so strong and their ability to absorb mass immigration so extensive, that nothing will prevent them from believing they can assimilate and manage terrorist acts as they have automobile fatalities or natural disasters. A tiredness also seems to be why these countries do not take meaningful measures to defeat jihadism, such as closing Salafist mosques or expelling radical imams.

    Muslim extremists understand this advantage: so long as they avoid another enormous massacre like 9/11, they will be able to continue murdering people and undermining the West without awakening it from its inertia. The most likely scenario is that everything will continue: the internal fracture of Europe, two parallel societies and the debasement of Western culture. Piece by piece, European society seems to be coming irreparably apart.

  • The World's Two Superpower Countries Are Walking On The Edge Of The Abyss In Syria

    Authored by Elijah J. Magnier,

    For the first time since he is in office, the US President Donald Trump has launched a clear threat in the direction of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin saying “he will pay a price”. This menace is related to the claim that the Syrian army had launched a chemical attack against the city of Duma, in eastern Ghouta, the last stronghold of Saudi Arabia’s proxies close to Damascus.

    Trump is maybe thinking of bombing the Syrian Army positions spread throughout the Syrian geography, or perhaps even the Al-Muhajereen President’s palace in Damascus- of course, without necessarily saying when and where his army will strike.

    On the other side, Russia is saying it won’t stand still and will respond to any threat against its soldiers. Indeed, Russian officers are deployed in every single Syrian unit on the ground and in command and control headquarters in the Levant, coordinating and participating in attacks against jihadists since September 2015. Therefore, it is almost certain that any direct hit against the Syrian Army will cause Russian casualties.

    Such an act of war may trigger a Russian response by President Putin who will certainly not want to look weak in front of Russian politicians, the Russian military and in front of his own people. Russia has just returned to the international arena, not only as a country in possession of nuclear weapons, but also as a country trying to create a world balance and put an end to the US unilateral dominance that Washington enjoyed since the Perestroika in 1991.

    But how could the US benefit from military action in Syria?

    The mainstream media, the think tank generously financed and nourished by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrein, Trump’s team and the intelligence community- are all asking the US President to go to war in Syria to change the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and replace it with “freedom fighters” that the same Donald Trump is very familiar with and has specifically criticised.

    These rely on a video by activists close to the jihadists, claiming civilians were killed by a chemical attack on the city of Duma, which has gone viral on social media.

    The world chooses to believe mainstream media reporting the content of this video without proof or reference to any verified sources or neutral investigation by any reliable and international investigation committee. The lies of mainstream media during the war in Syria are too numerous to count, amplified by a journalism motivated by the “regime change” agenda, rather than by accurately reporting verifiable events.

    It was perfectly possible for the world to send an international investigation team, since the jihadists of “Jaish al-Islam” have been talking for a long time with the Russians, who are coordinating the exit of these to the north of Syria. Nonetheless, this option seems unavailable and remains unused. The US thirst for waging war and seeing blood flow may not be realisable if the jihadists’ version of the “incident” were seen to be untrue.

    What is more plausible is the fact that the US is not after Assad’s head to cut off, but after Putin’s hands, to cut him off from his new dominance over the Levant.Moreover, what the US would like to see ending is Russia offering the possibility of rejecting US supremacy to Middle Eastern countries (and others in far continents to reject US supremacy).

    The other problem the US finds difficult to digest is the fact that both Assad and Putin have won the war with the help of Iran, and that the US failed to change the regime, and did not protect its Kurdish allies in Afrin. It was unable to stop its NATO partner, Turkey, from striking alliances with Russia and Iran.

    Moreover, the Jihadists (al-Qaeda and the “Islamic State” ISIS) card failed to achieve their objective to replacing a secular Syrian regime with a bloody radical Islamic regime. These Takferee were willing to eliminate the presence of all minorities (Christian, Shia, Allawite and others) and cover the Middle East with black banners. Transforming the Middle East into a sectarian arena and creating failed states like in Libya was not possible to reproduce in the Levant, thanks to the strategies pursued by Russia and Iran.

    So as a winner, it would be foolish for Assad to use chemical attacks and turn the entire world against him when he is about to celebrate his total victory over Ghouta. The city of Duma was not only surrounded but thousands of Jihadists had already left.

    Negotiations failed last week only because these Jihadists in Duma were buying time and were asked to hold on until the world intervened in their favour. They have presented many excuses to their Russian interlocutor asking that:

    • 1000 of these would remain in the city and take up the police role.
    • The $900 million they have accumulated throughout the years from taxes and donations should be transported outside Ghouta by those exiting to the north of Syria.
    • No Syrian intelligence services be allowed to be in Duma.

    All these demands were rejected by the Russian and the Syrian government, who finally understood that the jihadists were waiting for something, a hope: a chemical attack! This is why Russia and Damascus ordered the military to resume the pressure. Today over 165,000 jihadists and civilians left eastern Ghouta and the remaining twenty to thirty thousands are expected to leave in the coming days.

    So Damascus will be totally cleared and no force on the ground – as the US four star general Joseph Votel said – can make a change on the ground in Syria or defeat /change the regime. Therefore, there will be no one who could take advantage of the consequences of a possible US attack on Syria in the coming days.

    Furthermore, a possible US war in the Middle East would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to Trump, he who is digging into the Saudi and Emirates’ pockets to take every single penny, for any excuse.

    It is not a matter of cost or a question of human principle because Saudi Arabia, with US, France and UK support, has been killing tens of thousands of Yemenites for 3 years without blinking an eyelid, under the gaze of the world.

    It is absolutely not a matter of “chemical attack”, because Russia warned the world about this staged excuse Jihadists were preparing, weeks before it was announced to the world in Duma. When it comes to human casualties, the US, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of the embargo on Iraq (and indeed in many other US “adventures”), clearly has almost zero sensitivity, considering these casualties as collateral damage.

    So what can hundreds of tomahawks do against the empty Presidential Palace? Are these going to create a difference on the ground? Will bombing Syrian Army airports and military bases defeat Assad? No, it will only increase the number of those killed. The Syrian war casualties are close to 400,000 men, women and children. If the number becomes 401 or 405 or 410,000 to achieve……. There is no answer here but one: to slap the face of Putin and make him look weak, a head of state incapable of defending his friends and allies.

    So the aim is to create a balance in the existing equation to embarrass Russia. The US has no friends, only “common interests”, whereas ‘rising Russia’ is striking alliances yet feels impotent to react faced with an American decision to strike Moscow’s ally.

    Yes, all these possibilities exist. But these other possibilities are much more dangerous:

    • What if Syria decides to react by bombing Israel with dozens of missiles? Damascus already has an excuse to retaliate against the Israeli violation of its air space this week and the bombing of a military air base at the T4 in rural Homs, killing 8 Syrian and 7 Iranian officers. Iran, at the Syrian government’s request, supports the Syrian Army in its fight against jihadists.

    • What if US destroys the Syrian air force? Not a huge change because Russia overwhelms the sky above Syria and is running the show against the Jihadists. It would be an opportunity for the Syrian Air Force to get more modern jets.

    • What if Russia decides to react and hit back at all sources firing against Syria? What if Russia executes its menace and stands against the US? Are the American people ready to die for a country only few would manage to find on the world map? Are Americans ready to receive their children in plastic bags just because Moscow’s influence in the Levant is increasing and therefore bothering Washington?

    This is a very dangerous game Trump is venturing into with his head hidden in the sand, without weighing all the possible consequences.

    The two superpower countries are walking on the edge of the abyss.

    Will both the US and Russia fall into it or will Trump stand down, pull out of this game with his tail between his legs, accept his defeat and try to find another less dangerous arena than the Levant to face Russia? Could it be that Trump is gathering larger coalition, to make sure Russia can’t respond against several nations, and therefore avoid a wider war? The coming days will carry the answer for the world.

  • This Japanese Firm Is Paying Employees In Bitcoin

    As Japan becomes more accepting as cryptocurrencies as a means of exchange, a Japanese company is offering its employees the option to receive some of their pay in crypto.

    The company, GMO Internet Group, said it introduced the option last month, and it will gradually be extended to all of the company’s 4,000 full-time employees.

    Those opting in can select what portion of their monthly salary will be received in bitcoin, between a minimum of 10,000 yen (around $88) and a maximum of 100,000 yen ($882), Fortune said.

    The company is even incentivizing its employees to choose the bitcoin option by offering to tack on a bonus of 10% to whatever portion of their salary is being paid in crypto. 

    While Japanese labor laws require paying salaries in yen, GMO claims it’s not breaking any laws since the optional bitcoin payment would be based on mutual consent and deducted from an employee’s monthly paycheck.

    Bitcoin

    GMO registers domain names and offers web hosting and other services. It also launched an exchange in May, GMO-Z.com Coin, which was later rebranded as GMO Coin. In September, GMO announced it would invest $3 million to mine bitcoin beginning in early 2018.

    The firm says it believes cryptocurrencies like bitcoin will evolve into “universal currencies” available to anyone globally, leading to a “new borderless economic zone.”

    Of course, many financial luminaries from Warren Buffett to Ray Dalio to Robert Shiller would disagree.

    Earlier this week, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller compared bitcoin to a “contagion” with rapid price fluctuations reflecting the “intensity of the epidemic”. He said this despite Fed officials’ insistence that the crypto market isn’t large enough to have an impact on the broader financial system.

    According to Japanese bitcoin monitoring site Jpbitcoin.com, yen-denominated bitcoin trading reached a record 4.51 million bitcoins last year – or nearly half of the volume on the world’s major exchanges.

  • America 2.0

    Authored by “Dr.D.” via Raul Ilargi Meijer’s Automatic Earth blog,

    Herbert Stein’s Law states “What Can’t Go On Forever, Doesn’t.” 

    This is a neat summary of the present trade and currency imbalance. China makes real goods and the U.S. consumes them by typing digits on a keyboard. This is the very definition of what cannot go on forever.

    • How long do you expect a nation can make nothing and consume everything?

    • How long do you expect a nation without manufacturing, without a workforce, and now without a viable military to remain pre-eminent?

    • How long does wealth and influence remain in a nation that makes nothing, does nothing, and knows nothing?

    Reminds me of that other Law: “A fool and his money should be parted as soon as possible”, for to be wealthy, and helpless, and dumb, is not a combination that lasts for very long.

    Since China cannot send the U.S. free goods forever, ergo, they won’t. That means slowly or quickly, now or later, they will cut us off. Right now it appears that can never happen, but I assure you it will very soon. And what will the U.S. do then?

    Actually, that’s very simple: the U.S. will have to close a $600B trade deficit instantly. Roughly, that means the U.S. will no longer import $600B worth of goods and be $600B/year poorer, or $2,000/year per person. Nor is this unusual. History is rife with examples of nations that once were prosperous and were suddenly cut off: Spain and Greece come immediately to mind. So how does this happen?

    The Core nation, the trading hub has failed dozens of times in history, from Venice to Holland, Spain to England, and although most of history was on a gold standard, nevertheless the same thing happened: repudiation and devaluation of the currency. That’s why a U.K. Pound is no longer a troy pound of pure silver ($192) and why the U.S. Dollar is no longer 1/20th ounce of gold ($267). So let’s run down how this might unfold.

    Like other empires, the U.S. rose to prominence with hard work and industry. Like other empires, this personal and physical industry was the foundation of an effective military. This military eventually stood alone, leaving the U.S. to set the rules of trade, the rules of diplomacy, and the rules of conduct. Like other nations, the U.S. bent those rules in its own favor, both early and late. Like other nations, the natural way to take advantage was to run an overvalued currency, which draws in capital from all trading partners worldwide, creating a 100-year spiral of wealth and influence that seems truly endless.

    However math, the cruelest of Mother Nature’s laws, is not fooled. If you bend the rules to create market distortions, those distortions are indeed created. If there were fair trade, a gold standard, a nation that increases their wealth would find its currency rise. A rising currency would dampen manufacturing and efficiency, the gold would flow back out, and the unfair advantage would be corrected. But only in a free market. Any market on Earth has an Army, and that Army’s job day and night is to make sure that unfair advantage does NOT end. Ask Smedley Butler.

    Mother Nature is never deterred. However long it takes, she waits. Lacking fair trade, an abnormally strong currency does the only other thing it can: destroy the Core nation’s industry, totally and completely. More certain than a nuclear explosion, economics will not miss a single spot until the wrong is righted and the truth is out. At first the low-gain commodity industries go: mining, shipping, smelting; then their sooty kinsmen: heavy rail, ships, ports, transportation.

    After that go the lighter industries: manufacturing, stamping, autos, and so on up to mainframes, silicon chips and phones, and with them, their children, manufacturing processes and R&D. However, as London and NY showed, you can forestall currency correction even now by moving market distortions into services and financial engineering. At this point, however, the Core nation has nothing left but Banks, Universities, and the Government/Military, and no underlying economy to support them.

    However, what Charles Hugh Smith calls the fiefdoms of monopoly cartels and apparatchiks of the 1% now lead an empty parade, horse-whipping the uncompliant 99% into supporting an economy that exists only in their minds. And then “What can’t go on, doesn’t.” The empire collapses from within, to the total surprise of historians of the 1%, and the total lack of interest of the 99%, for whom it had already collapsed decades before.

    And of the other side? Thanks to the overly-high currency of the Core nation, the perimeter nation has an artificially LOW currency. They didn’t do that, because they are by definition small and weak and aren’t using an army to set the rules. The artificially low currency leads to low costs, low labor, high enterprise, and in the mirror image of the Core nation, the constant INCREASE in manufacturing. The increase in wealth, and the addition of commodity goods, then heavy industry, then manufacturing, then R&D. Whose fault is that? Who used a worldwide army to enforce the very rules that gutted their homeland? Not the Vandals; not China. It was Rome; it was D.C.

    What is this whole imbalance based on? In our case, the artificially strong dollar, backed by a worldwide U.S. military. So how must it end? With a weak dollar, falling real markets, and a U.S. military returning home.

    You say this can’t happen? Yet it must happen. To say otherwise means China will give us free goods for 10,000 years, and the U.S. will get always weaker that whole time. So how does the transition go?

    The U.S. financial bulwark cracks, being highest and most based on psychology, not reality, very likely in conjunction to a military failure or withdrawal, as in empire finance, the military and currency are equivalent. Slowly, then rapidly, the tide flows out, the U.S. dollar gets weaker, the Chinese Yuan gets stronger, and the whole process reversed as it should have done years ago.

    (mind the log scale)

    Mother Nature isn’t fooled, and those 70 years of repression and manipulation are made up in a few years.

    Down on the ground, what happens is not that China shuts off free imports to the U.S. directly, with a political embargo, what happens is the U.S. is seen as a has-been and the U.S. dollar falls in purchasing power on the world market, raising the price of foreign goods in a “free” and “open” marketplace. Lacking manufacturing and the military power to stop it, the U.S. can’t hold off Mother Nature and the laws of physics any more.

    Knowing this to be inevitable, how would a nation prepare? For one thing, you would need to kick-start your industry, post-haste. Anything that can be made internally will find its prices stabilize and not rise. Yet before the currency rates are corrected this face overwhelming headwinds. Second, as income will be lost and the borders will be shut off, you need to switch the focus of taxation from income to tariffs, from finance to real goods.

    Third, you need to open your pipelines, ports, and infrastructure, and expand the required steel, oil by any means necessary, even armed standoffs. Fourth, you’ll need to shove the culture away from government support and subsidies that will soon disappear, and into self-reliance and productivity. Firth, you’ll need to downsize the government and especially the military, which will and must return home. Any of those platforms sound familiar?

    Despite what you read, it’s not all bad. Just as “The arrogant people will be brought down, and high and mighty people will be humbled”, “Every valley shall be raised up, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places smooth.”

    This is a master reversal of all manipulations, of all imbalances that have reached extremes. As the U.S. – China trade deficit must balance, we know that Chinese goods must rise. But that also means the cost of production for U.S. goods must fall. This cost-advantage puts Americans back to work just as it did the Chinese, while the rise of the Yuan will make China rich, but less productive.

    What’s more, as matters reverse, the U.S. will raise prices on their exports: food and oil, two things China must have and cannot get elsewhere. Agriculture is at an all-time, 1,000 year low and must rise. Stocks and housing are at an all-time high and must fall. In a reversal, the high prices fall, the low prices rise, that’s obvious. That’s what “reversal” means, that’s what “extreme” means.

    As for manufacturing, the world is changing fast. Even China is opening “dark” factories that employ no people, only robots. That will be true here as well, which undercuts any labor savings they once had. There’s a few problems, however: robotic mega-factories only work with very large scale of identical goods that can source reliable, high-quality inputs. If oil is too high, and/or shipping or marketing fractures, those factories scale down, retool more, and therefore require more people than presently.

    How is China going to have huge robotic mega-factories if half their export market can no longer afford them? If the U.S. and China split the market, aren’t all those factories half the size of present? Since the U.S. will now have low-cost people and raw materials, what advantage does China bring to offset shipping and tariffs? The “market” isn’t uniform. There was worldwide mass-integration of manufacturing between India and England and the world in 1910 too, yet it’s didn’t persist; it changed.

    One way it can change is to leapfrog China. We hear about how the U.S. is a has-been as we are supporting legacy copper telephones while the 3rd world goes directly to fiber and cell, and this is true. However, China has mainlined on low-price, low-profit, mass-manufacturing. Why would anyone compete with them there? It’s irrational. Build a baseline and let them have all the low-profit, environment-destroying work they want, the U.S. can’t and won’t beat them there.

    We can beat them by leapfrogging into technology that’s out there, but no one is revealing yet, things they haven’t done, but Americans are good at doing: innovating, high-tech, medical. Much as I hate high-tech and its panacea as an answer, yet I believe there are goods, ideas out there that can transform the way things work.

    Look at the rapid development and uptake of LEDs for example. The patent office is filled with them, and an outsized number are American. We have superconducting maglev, field physics, material science of no-weight foam, color-shifting paint, hyperconducting graphite, and transparent concrete to name a few. All there, all unused. Let’s make an example case in a very large, very quiet investment.

    Medical and Biotech are to some extent used up, with overpriced, mass-market pharmaceuticals being rejected by price and form even by the wider population. But that’s so last-century. The new biotech is going to take a blood or DNA sample and synthesize a drug specifically for your blood and DNA. They are going to create another organ, a blood transfusion no one but you can use.

    In one way, this may be more expensive, and that’s good for profits, but in another way, they will work for you, much better and guaranteed, and therefore fix your health faster, spare you useless drugs, bad side effects, and actually work, and therefore be cheaper. What does it take to make them? A complete revolution in drug manufacturing. Multi-billion dollars’ worth of equipment, extremely unique development and patents, a 20 year head start.

    Could you sell such a thing to the Chinese? You bet. Could they get off retail manufacturing and scoop us on it? Not a chance. So you see how such a thing could happen, even with a U.S. dollar falling and a hard readjustment ahead. And that’s just one.

    If boutique and robotic goods are the new industries, what do we do with 200 million unemployed? We won’t have 200 million. That’s a consequence of the distorted extreme of our finance, our centralization, our currency. For one thing, we have only 100 million now and a lower dollar will definitely restore the competitive advantage of highly-productive U.S. workers. At the same time, if work requires fewer workers, we will find a solution. Why?

    Because you can’t have 200 million unemployed. Not even 100 million. The resulting inequity and income disparity can and has caused a revolution. Faced with that, any nation will adjust because they must or perish. As difficult as Americans can be, they are a practical people above all. This has happened to dozens of nations in the past: Spain, France, Germany, England, China, Japan, and they all still exist. Things rotated out in the big wheel of time. New things were made and the old ones faded away, and we will too.

    We’re going back to being just one of many nations, and a fair and productive one too. There are ways and we will find them. How can I be so sure? Because “What Can’t Go On Forever, Doesn’t,” and it won’t this time either.

  • Four CBS Producers "Terrified" Over Upcoming Charlie Rose Sex Scandal Exposé

    CBS has been scrambling to have employees sign NDAs in order to silence potential sources ahead of an upcoming Exposé on Charlie Rose in the Washington Post, reports Page Six.

    We’re told that CBS News president David Rhodes, “CBS This Morning” executive producer Ryan Kadro, “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager and former “CBS This Morning” executive producer Chris Licht are all terrified about a looming Washington Post investigation that’s now been in the works for months.

    There are a lot of executives looking around corners, hoping they’re not named in the story,” an industry insider told us. “[CBS is] trying to suppress [the story] by using the NDAs.” Meanwhile, said the source, “Jeff, Ryan and David are all waiting for the other shoe to drop.”  –Page Six

    Page Six notes the hypocrisy of CBS News framing alleged Donald Trump mistress Stormy Daniels as “brave” for breaking her NDA, while forcing their own employees to sign them. 

    Rose, a veteran journalist and paragon of the MSM saw his nearly half-century career end within hours of eight women coming forward in a November 2017 Washington Post Exposé  accusing him of predatory “casting couch” behavior similar to Harvey Weinstein. 

    Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.

    The women were employees or aspired to work for Rose at the “Charlie Rose” show from the late 1990s to as recently as 2011. They ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged encounters. Rose, 75, whose show airs on PBS and Bloomberg TV, also co-hosts “CBS This Morning” and is a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes.” –WaPo

    *POOF* …end of the road Charlie. 

    Rose issued an “I’m sorry and ashamed for walking around with my dick out and groping women” statement before his dishonorable discharge into a shame-filled retirement full of country-club whisperings and fewer holiday parties, we imagine. 

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

    It looks, however, like the Washington Post isn’t done with Rose – as those previously in his orbit who may have enabled his behavior appear to be firmly in the crosshairs of JEFF BEZOS (and his robot dog).

  • Holter: "It's Pure Math – We're Headed For A Train Wreck"

    Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com 

    Financial writer and gold expert Bill Holter says China has a lot of weapons to fight a trade war with the U.S. China could stop buying Treasury bonds (as it reportedly already has done).  It could sell Treasury bonds.  It could slash the value of the Yuan, or something much simpler could happen such as a failed delivery of physical precious metals.  Holter says,

    “If what has happened so far in the first three months of the year were to continue for the full year, you would be over three billion ounces (of silver).  That is not deliverable.”

    What happen when the world figures out that three billion ounces of physical silver cannot and will not be delivered to the buyers?

    Holter explains, “That’s called an old fashion run on the banks.  It will be a run on the entire system.  You would have a run on every metals exchange, and you would probably have runs on many physical commodities.  Confidence throughout the whole system would break.  You would basically show the western fractional reserve system is a fraud and has been for many, many years…

    Can London deliver a billion ounces, or two billion ounces or three billion ounces of silver?  The answer to that is no.”

    So, when does this all blow up? Holter says, “I think this whole thing has a very good chance of blowing this year.”

    There are a variety of financial trip wires, according to Bill Holter, such as thousands of sealed criminal indictments that will be unsealed in 2018. Holter also points out the explosion of global debt.  Holter charges,

    It’s now $237 trillion.  The amount of debt grew by $21 trillion globally over the last 12 months. That’s roughly 10 %.  How much did global GDP grow?   2% or 3%, I mean that is totally unsustainable.

    The biggest worry for Holter right now is escalating military action in Syria. Holter warns,

    “This is so, so dangerous.  Obviously, you worry about a hot war because with the weapons you have today, you could have WWIII start in a heartbeat.  But look at the market today.  It’s up 400 or 500 points.  You have talk of trade wars.  You have talk of hot wars.  It amazing the markets can hold together and ignore potential annihilation.”

    In closing, Holter says,

    This is math logic and common sense. This is no longer opinion.  You could go back to 2006 and 2007, and it could be argued it was opinion at that point.  It’s no longer opinion.  It’s pure math.  The system is unsustainable.  We’re headed for a train wreck.  Do I absolutely know it’s going to be this year?  No, I don’t know that, but you can see the events are piling up so quickly it certainly looks like it’s going to come to a crescendo very soon.”

    Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Bill Holter of JSMineset.com.

  • China Launches Massive Combat Drill In Hainan As War With Taiwan "Becomes More Probable"

    Chinese President Xi Jinping promised a more transparent China on Tuesday, during a keynote speech at an economic forum in Boao, on the southern island of Hainan. Immediately after the conference, China’s PLA Navy began a 3-day combat war drill in waters to the south of Sanya, the southern tip of China’s Hainan Island, which is about 112-miles south from the economic forum.

    The Hainan Maritime Safety Administration has demarcated an area in the South China Sea that will be closed to all civilian and commercial vessels from April 10 through 13. The military exercise was made public earlier this week on the government’s website.

    The warning of yet another war drill by China comes after military jets from the People’s Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command conducted exercises over rugged terrain in western China to simulate an invasion of Taiwan, said the Daily Express.

    An editorial piece in the Global Times announced: “The mainland needs to continue to prepare for a possible military clash across the Straits.”

    “Beijing cannot be led by the nose. We have to figure out more fronts to showcase our strength and to be the venue for the battle with Taiwan.

    Meanwhile, the mainland needs to continue to prepare for a possible military clash across the Straits. A military showdown with Taiwan is becoming more probable and may take place sooner rather than later. Beijing needs to make clear its bottom line and inform Taiwan society of the dangerous acts which may lead to a military showdown, to avoid a war that could break out due to serious misjudgments by the US and Taiwan. Having got the upper hand strategically, the mainland won’t lose its head. Only the decisions of the mainland will count in deciding the future cross-Straits situation.”

    A Twitter war observer said, “A maritime area of 8 749 km², located south of the island of Haïnan, is closed from 11 to 13 April due to military maneuvers.”

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

    The observer added, “At least 7 Chinese nuclear submarines are currently at the Sanya Naval base on Haïnan Island, which borders the South China Sea. This is also the case for a few dozen surface ships of the Chinese navy. Some things are getting ready…” (not verified)

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

    Another Twitter user said, “On the heels of the #Boao2018 Forum and Xi Jinping’s keynote speech there- looks like large-scale exercises off Hainan.”

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

    On Tuesday, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, sailed through the heavily disputed waters in the South China Sea to the Philippines. As the trade war with China climaxed last week, we reported how the United States Navy deployed three carrier battle groups to face-off against China’s only aircraft carrier and 40 warships.

    ” Satellite images had captured China’s only aircraft carrier in deployment, the Liaoning, flanked by 40 other warships and submarines, conducting unprecedented live-fire drills in the South China Sea. This massive Chinese naval exercise was observed for the first time, with China watchers pointing out that such a forceful display of deterrence was highly unusual for the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Perhaps in light of recent events, it was merely a warning.”

    Now it seems with all the chess pieces positioned around the South China Sea, the epicenter of World War III could easily be Taiwan as tensions between both countries escalate even further. China has declared Taiwan a “rogue state” and has never ruled out military intervention, said the Daily Express.

    General Rolando Bautista from the Philippine army said, as quoted by the Daily Express: “It’s a showcase of the capability of the US armed forces not only by sea but also by air.”

    “The Americans are our friends.

    “In one way or another, they can help us to deter any threat.”

    Last month it was also revealed in aerial photos of the alarming rate of expansion of Chinese military installations in the South China Sea.

    The photos show the extent of Beijing’s construction in the disputed Spratly Islands, with its previously minor outposts now transformed into fortresses featuring air and naval bases.

    Diplomatic relations between the five nations which have laid claim to the islands are already extremely strained, and the recent construction of bunkers on some of the atols point to China preparing to “protection against air or missile strikes”, raising the prospect of a conflict which could spark World War 3.

    While we do not have a crystal ball of the precise epicenter of World War III, in recent weeks, geopolitical events/shifts have provided us with critical knowledge that a trigger point for the next global shooting war could be somewhere around the South China Sea and or Syria. War is coming, have you prepared?

  • The Top 5 Possible Paul Ryan Replacements

    Submitted by Jim E. of The Political Insider

    This morning we learned that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will soon be announcing his retirement from Congress. With Democrat fervor at an all-time high, and Republicans set to lose a massive number of seats in the November midterm elections, Ryan appears to be turning his tail just as his party is set to lose power. Whoever replaces Ryan isn’t guaranteed to be Speaker anymore.

    Axios initially reported that Ryan would make his retirement announcement tomorrow. But House Majority Whip Steve Scalise went on “Fox and Friends” this morning to confirm that Ryan will make his announcement later today:

    With Ryan’s retirement confirmed by the man himself, all talk in Washington is now focused on who will be the next Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

    Here are the top 5 possible replacements for Paul Ryan:

    1. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise – Rep. Scalise is the most likely heir apparent, and it has been rumored for the past few weeks that he is the lawmaker with the best chance of replacing Ryan. Scalise is liked and respected on both sides of the aisle. He’s also a heroic survivor of the shooting spree last spring where a crazed Bernie Sanders supporter attempted to mow down an entire baseball field full of Republicans. During President Trump’s last State of the Union speech, he specifically named Scalise “one of the toughest people ever to serve in this House” to raucous applause.

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

    2. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy – Currently the second in command, Rep. McCarthy is reportedly vying with Scalise for the coveted position of House Speaker. Politico reported earlier this week that McCarthy is quietly courting support from rank-and-file members. Back when John Boehner retired from the speakership, McCarthy was heavily favored to replace him, until rumors of an affair derailed his candidacy. Rep. McCarthy is also scheduled to have dinner with President Trump tonight:

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

    3. Rep. Daniel Webster – When John Boehner retired, Rep. Webster, a Florida Republican, was the conservative choice for Speaker. His short-lived campaign didn’t garner many votes, but it showed dissent from the more conservative members of the GOP caucus. Webster reportedly has no plans to run for Speaker of the House again in the near future.

    4. Rep. Mike Conaway – The Texas congressman was once seen as a “compromise choice” among the Republican caucus. Politico reported back in 2016 after speculation of Ryan’s departure had reached a fever pitch: “Several senior Republican lawmakers and aides speculate that Conaway, first elected in 2005, could jump into the speaker race if Ryan steps aside and McCarthy doesn’t have the votes to take the gavel or passes.” Conaway not only has the Texas delegation to back his candidacy, but he’s also an accountant, which gives him a reputation for even-handedness.

    5. Rep. Jim Jordan – Another conservative darling and former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Jordan has a lot of connections to outside conservative advocacy groups. If Scalise chooses not to run and Webster doesn’t take another stab at it, Jordan would have the instant backing of many influential groups. Jordan’s so outspoken and driven that Politico once referred to him as “the other Speaker of the House.”

  • RBC Warns Cracks "Starting To Show" In Canadian Credit

    One often wonders if the government will ever realize that, due to its policies, its “solutions” often wind up turning into bigger problems than the ones they set out to address initially? Not only that, but this has been the case for decades, and it will continue to be the case until we “engineer” ourselves into a crisis that is too big to fix or too overwhelming to print our way out of.

    Every day we discuss various aspects of a system that ends up far worse off due to a government apparatus that is convinced it knows best and that intervention and interfering are the solution to the problem. In essence, much of the financial crisis of 2008 was a result of the government interfering in the housing market in years prior, combined with the Fed not being able to forecast the crisis, despite widely ostracized skeptics such as Peter Schiff stating repeatedly that the housing market was heading into the abyss.

    Today, we face a new set of challenges as a result of the way governments and central banks dealt (or rather, didn’t) with the 2008 financial crisis. In the United States there are bubbles forming in student loans and subprime auto lending,  while mortgage debt and consumer credit both look to soon be out of control yet again.

    Meanwhile, the problem is spreading geographically and today we are presented with yet another “solution turned into problem”, and as Bloomberg reports, RBC now sees “cracks” in consumer credit becoming a problem yet again, this time in Canada. The combination of low interest rates and the cheap and easy access to capital has yet again gone from being a solution to a problem, as Canadian lenders are seeing delinquency rates “roll” out in time and duration.

    RBC analyst Vivek Selot wrote in a Monday note to clients that “cracks are starting to show in more and more places.”

    The quality of Canadian consumer credit is beginning to deteriorate, according to Royal Bank of Canada credit analyst Vivek Selot.

    The roll rate — the percentage of credit card users who “roll” from early stage delinquencies to 60-89 day delinquencies — reached the highest since 2008 for one credit card program, while delinquencies for another program were above the 10-year average, Selot said in a monthly analysis of credit securitization programs.

    As we have discussed previously, strong labor markets and historically low borrowing costs have allowed Canada’s households to amass one of the highest debt-to-income ratios in the developed world.

    However, amid rising interest rates and a cooling real estate market, there is growing speculation the debt burden poses a threat to the financial system even as Canadian housing prices remain one of the world’s true bubbles.

    As RBC adds, roll rates in National Bank of Canada’s Canadian Credit Card Trust program are at the highest since 2008, while for CIBC’s CARDS II program, early stage delinquencies, 60-89 day delinquencies and roll rates are all above the 10-year average, Selot said.

    Of course, this would not be a problem if supply and demand as it relates to credit and borrowing were simply allowed to operate freely, thus establishing a free market interest-rate versus a central bank mandated cost of money. Meanwhile, Bloomberg is quick to attempt to mitigate the adverse consequences of what the above implies and quotes none other than the RBC analyst, who – perhaps worried about keeping his job – notes that these trends are really quite benign and that the rolling out of delinquencies isn’t necessarily a problem yet because they haven’t “rolled’ all the way to becoming actual charge-offs:

    To be sure, Selot pointed out “consumer credit quality seems benign,” with charge-offs — or recognized losses — remaining near cyclical lows. The average payment rate in February fell about 600 basis points from January to 41.1 percent but was up 162 basis points from the same month a year earlier.

    Which reminds us of an analysis we put together in February 2018 ,detailing discrete trends within U.S. consumer credit, and identifying where the next major problem could be hiding. 

    Net Charge-Off Rate on Credit Card Loans, All Commercial Banks

    Why the very gradual increase in aggregated NCO, and thus why the lack of economist concerns about the state of the US consumer? Simple: the larger banks that dominate credit card issuance have focused on prime and super prime consumers post the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), and have enjoyed a prolonged period of low charge off rates concurrent with the Fed’s almost decade long ZIRP.  The problem here is that the vast majority of bank assets is held by a small minority of individuals as in most 80/20 distributions. Meanwhile, smaller banks – those where the bulk of the population holds its meager assets – starting to panic, as charge-off rates are back to financial crisis levels.

    Net Charge Off Rate on Credit Card Loans, (Banks Not in Top 100 by Assets)

    Canada is about to experience something very similar, and as Selot concedes “considering that fragile household balance sheets could be a precipitating factor for the credit cycle to turn, any signs of consumer credit quality deterioration seem worthy of attention.

    A few more rate hikes by the BOC should do it.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th April 2018

  • Iranians Panic – "Can't Find Dollars" After Government Enforces Currency Controls

    Yesterday saw the Iranian Rial crash to a record low 60,000 per USDollar on the unregulated markets, according to Tasnim News agency, having lost more than a third of its value in the last six months.

    This prompted an angry response from Iran’s First Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri who said in a statement recorded for state TV and published on its website that enemies of the Islamic Republic and of the government were behind the instability.

    As Bloomberg reports, Jahangiri said the sudden decline was “unnatural and unprecedented” because tens of billions of dollars worth of foreign currency had flowed into Iran in recent weeks from the country’s export revenues and this showed that a wider political plot sought to discredit the government of President Hassan Rouhani and foment instability.

    It’s natural that our enemies and opponents, especially the Americans, after the nuclear deal was agreed and after Trump took office, have made great efforts to try and present Iran’s economy as turbulent and try to discourage anyone from working with Iran,” Jahangiri said.

    And so Iran enforced a rate of 42,000 Rial per USD warning that anyone found selling the dollar at rates higher than 42,000 rials “will be dealt with severely” by judicial authorities and the police, Jahangiri said.

    “We do not officially recognize any other rate than this one,” he said.

    “From tomorrow, any other price that’s offered in the market will be considered contraband, in the same way that illegal drugs are contraband.”

    Still, things remain ugly for those holding Rials…

     

    “We will certainly use all of the state’s strengths and capabilities in order to, God-willing, steady the market,” government spokesman Mohammad Bagher Nobakht said in a statement shown on state TV. “We accept that this situation is not a good one and it’s against what we want.”

    As one would expect, this news prompted widespread concern among Iranians who flocked to exchange offices on Tuesday only to find there were none to buy.

    As GulfNews reports, on Ferdowsi Street in central Tehran, home to dozens of banks and currency exchanges, many had hoped to find much cheaper dollars than the day before.

    But all along Ferdowsi Street, exchangers were turning hundreds of people away or had signs up saying: “We have no dollars to sell”, while rate boards showed blank spaces for US and European currencies.

    “Last night on TV I heard it’s 42,000 so I came here to buy some for my son who is overseas. I’ve checked every exchanger but I couldn’t find any dollars,” said Tahmoores Faravahar, a 71-year-old retired oil sector worker.

    Many businesses were forced to halt work amid the uncertainty created over prices and the availability of imported materials.

    “After speaking to my usual printer, I’ve had to cancel a project because they weren’t selling anything,” said Payam, a 38-year-old in Tehran who owns a small advertising and publishing company. “I was also planning to advertise for new personnel on Saturday — I’ve also canceled that plan now.”

    Some said this had only created fear and confusion.

    “People don’t have hope in the political and economic situation in this country. People are confused and just want to keep their money safe by turning it into dollars.”

    One exchange office said it was never clear when the central bank would deliver dollars for them to sell.

    “I don’t know why they haven’t come yet today,” he said in the early afternoon. “But the new rate is good. The price was not normal these last few days.”

    But this seemed to sum things up well…

    “The truth is that the people can’t trust the word of the government that their money will be safe,” said a trader who sold currency on the street and asked to remain anonymous.

    One street trader said exchangers would find ways to fiddle the system to get round the new fixed rate, even though Vice-President Eshagh Jahangiri warned this would be considered smuggling.

  • The Future Of Europe Is Civil War

    Authored by Ash Sharp via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Europe is committing suicide – or at least it’s leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether European people decide to go along with this is, naturally, another matter. ~ Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

    Europe is my home. It is where I live. Everything I value is here – on this continent. Everything I love and will suffer to lose is here.

    My country, separate, slightly odd, provincial and uncool; Brexit Britain, land of bad food and uncharitable reputations on dental hygiene and house cleanliness, is a European country too.

    God knows it is a conflicted time to be an Englishman abroad.

    God knows it hurts to look at the goldfish bowl from outside. Yesterday brought the story of 78-year-old Richard Osborne-Brooks.

    A Scotland Yard spokesman said:

    ‘At 00:45hrs on Wednesday, 4 April, police were called by a homeowner to reports of a burglary in progress at an address in South Park Crescent, Hither Green SE6, and a man injured.

    ‘The 78-year-old resident found two males inside the address. A struggle ensued between one of the males and the homeowner. The man, aged 38, sustained a stab wound to the upper body.

    ‘London Ambulance Service took the injured male, who was found collapsed in Further Green Road, SE8, to a central London hospital. He was pronounced dead at 03:37hrs.’

    What happened next? Of course, this pensioner was arrested on suspicion of murder. Murder! A crime which requires premeditation and to be without lawful excuse, for stabbing an intruder to your home.

    With his disabled wife upstairs, Mr. Osborne-Brooks encountered and subsequently killed an armed man who was intruding in his home, the purported castle of the Englishman. No more a castle, you are a serf of the state and subject to prosecution for doing what any man ought to do in such circumstances. Are we to accept that criminals may just enter our homes, threaten our lives and take what they will?

    This is a travesty of justice at any time, let alone the crime nightmare we find ourselves in today. You are more likely to be raped in London than New York. Terrorism is impossible to control. Islam is appeased and treated as an exalted religion over our own and is in control of increasingly large territories across the country. The leader of the Christian faith in Britain has simply given up. White Britons are a minority in their own capital. Free speech died long ago in the land of my fathers. You’ve heard this song from me and others before. The rhetoric of terrorism will never win and strong and stable becomes a little more shrill with every passing assault on my people. The police investigate online hate speech but not muggings – as the unfairly maligned Katie Hopkins said, if this terrorism losing, I’d hate to see it win.

    Our enforcement officers are visiting mosques today to speak to residents about hate crime concerns. 
    If you face anti-Muslim hate, report it to @TellMamaUK and always dial 999 in an emergency. #WeStandTogether pic.twitter.com/j92uOU6UgC

    This is not a police officer. This is an enforcement officer, whose job is to collect information about crimes committed against the good name of Islam. He has no power to arrest, nor to issue any fines. This young man is employed by the state to sniff out hate. The kind of hate that obeys neo-Marxist ideas, the perceived hate for the minority projected into the heart of the White Briton, hate that is subjectively felt- on behalf of the minority! If you feel someone hates someone, then it is so and neither party need agree with you.

    I’m from a little place called Great Britain,

    But I dunno if I love or hate Britain,

    These words upon my page written,

    Are the things that make and break Britain. ~ Scroobius Pip

    Maybe your European country has similar problems that are being unreported. Maybe you are a Swede, lied to about your democratic socialist wonderland, or German and told that your generation must suffer the intolerable, for the indelible sins of the Reich. The Reich, the idea of which remains to this day the great weapon against the people of all Europe, against our national identity. It seems that wherever you turn, suggesting that perhaps our nations are ill-served by the Multi-Kulti experiment draws the accusation: “Nazi!”

    Is it the case that this fifty-something school teacher is a Nazi when she says with sadness of her majority immigrant students;

    “I believe the difference between their world at home and our world is so large they cannot reconcile them. The Sharia is, for many students, surely superior.”

    Only the fool or the ideologue can disagree with this assessment. Anyone who thinks for longer than ten-seconds about the nature of faith can see how obeying the laws of God is more important to the faithful than integrating with a sad shadow of a Western civilization that knows not for whom it stands. We know not why we exist. No longer allowed a national identity, Europeans are simply chattle. Though we are told that we are free, the truth is we have no freedom at all and no respite from the Orwellian demands of our masters that we ignore the obvious in favor of the fantastical.

    The sad reality is that, in all likelihood, war will come again to our continent. It will be unlike the war that nearly killed national identity, in that no more will a nation-state invade her neighbors for territory and conquest. This war will be continent-wide, but internal – and I believe firstly ideological. As the demographics slide further and further towards the annihilation of White Europeans in many countries, the powers that be – the globalist, rootless and self-serving elites that lead most European countries – will ramp up the programming. State news channels will increase the propaganda, of how values are all that matter. We will see enforcement officers like in Hackney rolling out across the land. The taxpayer will pay for their own imprisonment, fearing to leave their houses, and unable to defend their homes in any case.

    “There is a rise in knife crime because nothing is being done about it. Gang crime and gangland violence should be taken seriously as terrorism by the state. Statistical trends over the years show more fatalities of gangland activities than terrorist activities. There is no voice of reason from state officials and an absence of debate.”Dr. Mohammed Rahman

    What I contend we are seeing is the weaponization of minority groups by the state itself. One has to admit, using Islamophobia to repress verbal dissent and feral immigrant youth to make the streets so dangerous – or at least give that impression – that most civilians will simply stay at home would be a brilliant idea if your agenda is to create a submissive and servile nation of tax-cows. The neoliberal debt machine needs feeding; so for as long as the music plays the aim has to be to keep the majority dancing to the tune while they are robbed blind, and ultimately replaced by the migrants Israel is too proud to take.

    The state must encourage the Muslim community to tell stories of hate crimes, which suggests the hate crimes are few. Tell Mama, a Muslim run and state-funded collector of anti-Muslim sentiment is regularly pushed through the media as an authority on the matter, despite previously losing funding for misrepresenting statistics. Imagine if you were being persecuted – would you need enforcement officers and campaigners to encourage you speak out?

    Imagine, a state-funded NGO and enforcement officers on the streets of Telford, of Oxford, of Rotherham. Where was the state then? Looking away. Gathering evidence of anti-Muslim hate, I suppose. Imagine a constable patrolling Mr. Osborne-Brooks’ street in the wee hours of Wednesday morning. Where was the state then? Not protecting the law-abiding citizen, that is for sure.

    Imagine recognizing that for all the faults in our society that this society is British, not the dar al-Islam; and that British law -not Islamic- has to rule. Imagine that offense had to be taken and not given. Imagine that instead of stifling the legitimate questions many Britons have about Islam and immigration we could be trusted to discuss them and find peaceful grounds, and non-violent solutions. Instead, old men are arrested for defending their wives and homes from burglars; criticism of Islam is banned, and London itself has been turned over to criminal gangs – the vast majority of whom are non-British in ethnicity.

    I have been a vocal opponent of interventionalist foreign policy and war in general for most of my adult life – primarily from a leftist position. I abhor violence. I find no pleasure then in telling you that we are headed for civil war in the United Kingdom if we persist in treating the native population as little more than a tax farm. For far less insult the American Revolution began, and like almost all civil conflicts we will see bloodshed in England when the financial situation becomes untenable for a critical mass of citizens. For reasons best known to themselves, our leaders – and this I fear is true of most Western nations – have abdicated. Capitulated. Do they care about anything other than living out their lives in comfort, secure that their childless lineages end during times of relative prosperity?

    [Society] is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. ~ Edmund Burke

    For whatever reason, we believe that war is over in Europe, that it may never return. Seventy years of peace with forty years of paranoid cold war have resulted in a kleptocrat European Union and brainless, soulless political elites who know nothing of their own cultures; wishing only that all Europe becomes a federal state. Looking to a utopian future has always proven to be a recipe for disaster for mankind.

    It will not start out as a race war; first Britons will first turn on each other as the hard left demands more state support and the right refuses to pay for it. The socialist cries that the government has sold the family silver will carry some weight- enough to mobilize the anti-capitalists against the working class, who are already beginning to gather together in self-interest. The riots of the disenfranchised Black youths in London will again be played off in the media and by the liberals as a just and expected response to this austerity; and Islam will continue to be protected at all costs, despite further evidence of rape gangs, jihad, and terror plots. In such an environment, all it will take is a single flashpoint to turn economic strife into sectarian violence the likes of which we have not seen since The Troubles. The fight will be undesired by all, not that this will save us.

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” ~ John F. Kennedy

    In a time of chaos, human beings revert to tribal states. We seek solace and comfort in those that are like ourselves. Can we deny that on some cultural-wide subconscious level that this is happening at greater and greater levels? The desire for ingroup identity is rising, across all demographics. You can feel it in the air and water itself- this is why identitarians are looked at with fear by the state. The elites know what the rise of these groups portend for the future, that none of these events are happening in isolation, that they are all connected to the state’s failure to enforce the laws fairly. Is civil war inevitable? Maybe- I hope it can be avoided. I hope, as always, that I am wrong and the world can be a Coca-Cola advert of inclusivity, just plain old getting along, in the way that our governments have promised us we all would.

  • The Slippery Slope To A Constitution-Free America

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    The ease with which Americans are prepared to welcome boots on the ground, regional lockdowns, routine invasions of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses is beyond unnerving.

    I am referring at this particular moment in time to President Trump’s decision to deploy military forces to the border in a supposed bid to protect the country from invading bands of illegal immigrants.

    This latest attempt to bamboozle the citizenry into relinquishing even more of their rights is commonly referred to as letting the wolves guard the henhouse.

    We are long past the stage where the government—at any level—abides by restrictions on its powers.

    What we are dealing with is a run-away government hyped up on its own power, whose policies are dictated more by paranoia than need.

    It works the same in every country.

    Time and again, we keep sacrificing our liberties for phantom promises of safety.

    The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

    This is fast becoming a government that has no respect for the freedom or lives of its citizenry.

    Yet there are warning signs we cannot afford to ignore.

    First off, there is no such thing as a “border” in the eyes of these military patrols. The entire United States of America has become a Constitution-free zone.

    According to journalist Todd Miller, the “once thin borderline of the American past” is “an ever-thickening band, now extending 100 miles inland around the United States—along the 2,000-mile southern border, the 4,000-mile northern border and both coasts… This ‘border’ region now covers places where two-thirds of the US population (197.4 million people) live… The ‘border’ has by now devoured the full states of Maine and Florida and much of Michigan.”

    The U.S. government has also declared that ever-expanding border region a Constitution-free zone.

    Second, this de facto standing army that has been imposed on the American people is in clear violation of the spirit—if not the letter of the law—of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the government’s ability to use the U.S. military as a police force.

    America’s police forces—which look like, dress like, and act like the military—have undeniably become a “standing” or permanent army, one composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband, which is exactly what the Founders feared.

    Third, there’s the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security made up of more than 60,000 Customs and Border Protection employees, and supplemented by the National Guard and the U.S. military.

    A national police force imbued with all the brutality, ineptitude and corruption such a role implies, the DHS—aptly described as a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast”—has been ruthlessly efficient when it comes to establishing what the Founders feared most: a standing army on American soil.

    Finally, there’s this whole question of martial law.

    Technically, a good case can be made that the Constitution-free border regions within the United States are already under martial law carried out by a standing army comprised of militarized police and the U.S. military.

    Then again, for all intents and perhaps, the American police state is already governed by martial law, is it not? Battlefield tactics. Militarized police. Riot and camouflage gear. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Concussion grenades. Intimidation tactics. Brute force. Laws conveniently discarded when it suits the government’s purpose.

    This is what martial law looks like, when a government disregards constitutional freedoms and imposes its will through military force, only this is martial law without any government body having to declare it. This is martial law packaged as law and order and sold to the public as necessary for keeping the peace.

    It doesn’t matter whether the so-called threats to national security posed by terrorists, extremists or immigrant armies ever became a reality. Once the government acquires—and uses—additional powers, it does not voluntarily relinquish them.

    The damage has been done.

    Face it: we are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.

    We’ve been heading in this direction for some time now, but this downward trajectory has picked up speed since Donald Trump became president.

    All of the government’s ongoing assaults on the constitutional framework of the nation have been sold to the public as necessary for national security.

    Remember when George W. Bush claimed the country was being invaded by terrorists post-9/11 and insisted the only way to keep America safe was to give the government and its gun-toting agents greater powers to spy, search, detain and arrest?

    The terrorist invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly acquired police powers made possible by the USA Patriot Act.

    Remember when Barack Obama claimed the country was being invaded by domestic terrorists and insisted the only way to keep America safe was to give the military the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, label them extremists, and detain them indefinitely without trial?

    The invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly acquired detention powers made possible by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

    Now you have Donald Trump claiming the country is being invaded by immigrants and insisting that the only way to keep America safe is to empower the military to “assist” with border control.

    Mind you, Trump is not the first president to deploy military forces to the border.

    Nevertheless, you can rest assured that this latest call for boots on the ground (whether those boots belong to the National Guard or the armed forces is mere semantics) to police the American border is yet another Trojan Horse that will inflict all manner of nasty police state surprises on an unsuspecting populace.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the menace of a national police force—a.k.a. a standing army—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution, cannot be overstated, nor can its danger be ignored.

  • Massive Geomagnetic Storm Set To Hit Earth This Week

    Over the weekend, a middle latitude coronal hole (88) started to face earth. This is the same coronal hole that was responsible for a moderate (G2) geomagnetic storm last month. Now it seems like the same coronal hole is at it again, spewing high-speed solar wind – headed towards Earth this week.

    According to Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), a minor (G1) geomagnetic storm watch is now in effect for Tuesday and Wednesday. The storm watch was issued “due to the arrival of a negative polarity coronal hole high-speed stream,” SWPC detailed on its website.

    C. Alex Young, associate director for science in the heliophysics science division at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, published in a report Monday that “three substantial coronal holes” arrived on his radar last week. Young describes coronal holes as an “open magnetic field from which high-speed solar wind rushes out into space.” If the high-speed solar wind is earth facing, then “it interacts with Earth’s magnetosphere” and lead to all sorts of problems.

    “For much of this week the sun featured three substantial coronal holes (Apr. 3-6, 2018). Coronal holes appear as large dark areas which are identified with arrows in the still image. These are areas of open magnetic field from which high speed solar wind rushes out into space. This wind, if it interacts with Earth’s magnetosphere, can cause aurora to appear near the poles. They are not at all uncommon. Credit: Solar Dynamics Observatory, NASA.”

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

    As of Tuesday morning, there are radio blacks across the world. During moderate geomagnetic storms, “intense ionization within the D-layer propagation region is observed on the sunlit side of Earth, and affects a wide range of frequencies within the HF Spectrum (3 – 30 MHz),” said Solarham. In other words, solar storms can degrade HF radio communications (radio blackouts).

    Real-Time Solar Wind (RTSW) data shows an uptick in solar wind activity hitting Earth’s shields starting on Monday and increasing into Tuesday.

    The Estimated Planetary K index (Kp) charts below are “one of the most common indices used to indicate the severity of the global magnetic disturbances in near-Earth space,” said Solarham. A Kp index of five or more shows a geomagnetic storm is in progress.

    K-indices of five or greater indicates storm-level geomagnetic activity around the Earth.

    Below is a one-week K-indices view from four magnetometer reporting stations.

    Below is a one week A-indices view from four magnetometer reporting stations.

    We have stated before, U.S. power grid failures are possible due to strong geomagnetic storms; in today’s case, it looks like a G1 (Minor) geomagnetic storm could produce auroras for much of Canada, over the next few nights.

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

    The Daily Star quotes Brian Gaensler, an astrophysicist at the University of Toronto, who gave a speech earlier this month — warning of the “carnage solar flares can cause.”

    “The concern here is that if the radiation from a solar flare hits the earth, it can knock out satellites, disrupt mobile phones, and other forms of communication,” he said.

    The effects of a solar storm could last months – or even years – as authorities would have to repair all the damaged infrastructure.

    Specialist insurance firm Lloyd’s of London estimates the repair bill could cost up to £1.8 trillion.

    Experts have warned it is just a matter of time before we suffer another direct hit.

    Pete Riley, senior scientist at Predictive Science in San Diego, California, previously predicted there was a 12% chance that Earth will be hit by a storm by 2020.

    He said: “Even if it’s off by a factor of two, that’s a much larger number than I thought.

    “Initially, I was quite surprised that the odds were so high, but the statistics appear to be correct.

    “It is a sobering figure.”

    In 2015, the British Government published a report into the risks to the UK of severe space weather.

    It said an event such as a coronal mass ejection could wreak havoc across the world.

    Video: Geomagnetic Unrest, Storms, Predictions | S0 News Apr.10.2018

  • On The Threshold Of War – Paul Craig Roberts

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    UPDATE: There is no longer any doubt that the criminally insane government in Washington is driving the world to the last war.

    https://www.rt.com/news/423634-unsc-security-threats-syria-chemical/

    https://www.rt.com/news/423627-russian-military-checks-chemical-douma/

    UPDATE: As Americans we must face the possibility that we have a criminally insane government in Washington that is leading the world to destruction.

    A Russian Government Press Release:

    False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US.

    We recently warned of the possibility of such dangerous provocations. The goal of these absolutely unsubstantiated lies is to protect the terrorists and the irreconcilable radical opposition that has rejected a political settlement, as well as to justify the possible use of force by external actors.

    We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.

    This is John Helmer’s interpretation of the warning:

    “WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA [the high command of the Russian armed forces] MET IN MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY “THE GRAVEST CONSEQUENCES”.

    THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.”

    I hope that the situation is not this severe.

    On The Threshold of War

    “The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified.” — The Saker

    “The US generals, unlike the US politicians and media and US administration, are risk-averse if the outcome may be catastrophic.” — Gilbert Doctorow

    Above are two of the three most intelligent and reliable Russian experts. The third is Professor Stephen Cohen, who worries, as I do, that an arrogant Washington drowning in hubris is provoking Russia to war.

    The Saker has concluded that the Russians have concluded that it has been a mistake to put up with Washington’s lies, insults, and orchestrated events and have decided that if the dumbshit Americans attack Syria, Russia is going to take out the US forces involved.

    Doctorow has concluded that as dumbshit as Washington is, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have more sense and will not go along with an attack on a Russian ally.

    I hope that Doctorow is correct. However, with that crazed demented warmonger John Bolton sitting in the White House next to Trump, who enjoys the role of tough guy, I am more scared by The Saker’s reading than I am reassured by Doctorow’s.

    There are reports, the validity of which I cannot confirm at this time, that the entirety of the Russian military has been put on high alert, not merely the Russian forces in Syria. See here for example.

    Nikki Haley’s threats against Russia in the UN do not support Doctorow’s hopes that reason will prevail in Washington. The crazed bitch said that the US will act against the “monster” Assad with or without the UN.

    Tough man Trump, sitting next to the crazed warmonger Bolton, declared that the alleged chemical attack in Syria “will be met and it will be met forcefully. We can’t let atrocities like we all witnessed… we can’t let that happen in our world, especially because of the power of the US, we are able to stop it.”

    There was NO chemical attack by Syria. I know that for an absolute 100% fact. I would bet my life on it. Yet here is the US president declaring a total non-fact to be something “we all witnessed.” Little wonder that the Russians have concluded that the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been hopelessly zombified.

    If Doctorow is not correct that a sane US Joint Chiefs of Staff will prevail over the crazed President and his National Security Adviser, we are headed for war.

    It is a war that the US will not win.

    Notice, dear readers, that there is no mention of this pending crisis in the Western media. Instead the media whether CNN or the BBC has as the lead news story the FBI’s raid on Trump’s lawyer.

    Insouciant Americans is too mild, isn’t it. Clueless is the correct word.

  • Ride-Hailing Apps Surpass Regular Taxis In NYC

    It has been six years since Uber drivers started roaming the streets of New York. From that day on, drivers of the notorious yellow cabs, an icon of Manhattan and the rest of the Big Apple for the past century, lived in constant fear of becoming obsolete.

    And, as Statista’s Patrick Wagner reports, Uber and other Ride-Hailing apps such as Lyft, Juno or Via are in the fast lane when it comes to the total number of pickups whilst the city’s green and yellow cabs’ share on the streets is steadily declining.

    Infographic: Ride-Hailing Apps Surpass Regular Taxis in NYC | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    By February 2017 app-based mobility providers outstripped classic cabs in New York and by November of the same year Uber alone managed to pick up more passengers than Taxis.

    In the future, the New York landscape might lack the famous yellow cabs coloring its streets.

  • Clinton, Comey, Uranium One: Who Is John W. Huber?

    Authored by Micah Morrison via Judicial Watch,

    Widespread head-scratching has followed Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recent disclosure that U.S. Attorney John W. Huber is leading an investigation into 2016 election controversies.

    In a March 29 letter to Republican committee chairmen, Mr. Sessions said that Mr. Huber, the U. S. Attorney for Utah, had been appointed to “evaluate certain issues” raised by the GOP. He did not say which issues, but there are plenty.

    In a July 27, 2017 letter, GOP leaders had called on Mr. Sessions to “appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath.” These included actions by Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch and others, email controversies, mishandling of classified information, Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier, FISA warrants, wire taps, leaks, grand juries, the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal.

    Mr. Sessions instead appointed Mr. Huber, “an experienced federal prosecutor,” and left the door open to a special counsel. Mr. Sessions noted that Mr. Huber “will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

    Translation: Mr. Huber is investigating the investigations, not the underlying allegations.

    Mr. Huber was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney in Utah in 2002. He was named U.S. Attorney in 2015 by Barack Obama. Mr. Huber has an important backer in Utah’s senior senator, Orrin Hatch.

    After President Trump requested the resignations of all sitting U.S. Attorneys, Mr. Sessions kept Mr. Huber alive with an interim appointment under the Federal Vacancies Act, until the president could be persuaded to re-nominate him. He was confirmed a second time for the post in August.

    It’s a truism of law enforcement that if you want to pursue high-level political corruption, get yourself a junkyard dog – a strong prosecutor, good in a fight. Hickman Ewing Jr. – the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee and later the Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel – comes to mind. Mr. Ewing had a long track record of pursuing political corruption before Kenneth Starr tapped him for the Whitewater probe. The Office of U.S. Attorney in Utah, by contrast, has been toothless. Mr. Huber has not been implicated in any wrongdoing, but for the last three years it has been his shop and his responsibility. Before that, it was his training ground.

    In November, for example, a federal judge dismissed the last charges against Terry Diehl, a powerful Utah developer and former Utah Transit Authority board member. The government was widely seen as bungling the case. The Salt Lake Tribune noted that Diehl, “a well-known developer with friends in high places — including [Utah] House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper — once stood charged with 14 felony counts that stemmed from allegations that he lied about or hid assets as part of a 2012 bankruptcy. Prosecutors had whittled the case down three times since early October, dropping counts of concealment and tax evasion.” Prosecutors acknowledged “missteps” to the newspaper, including getting wrong the amount of taxes Diehl allegedly did not pay.

    Mr. Huber’s office also lost a 2017 case against real-estate mogul Rick Koerber, charged with running a multi-million-dollar Ponzi scheme. The case – the government’s second try – ended in a mistrial. A judge threw out an earlier case. The government will try again in September.

    But the Rosetta Stone for understanding Utah’s corruption problems may be the sprawling saga of John Swallow and Mark Shurtleff, two former Utah attorneys general charged with a multitude of corruption charges. The case gripped the state for years. Mr. Huber’s office recused itself in 2013 from the investigations, transferring the case to Colorado. Later, the Justice Department declined to charge either man and Utah state prosecutors took over. Swallow was acquitted on all counts last year and the charges against Shurtleff were dropped in 2016 by Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings, who bitterly complained about FBI and Justice Department conduct in the case.

    That’s how the game is played in Utah, locals say. Power brokers have the state wired. Mr. Huber seems like a decent man, but his tenure at the top of Utah law enforcement has been short and undistinguished. Why appoint him to such a sensitive position in Washington?

    One explanation is that Mr. Sessions knows precisely who Mr. Huber is and what he wants from him. Mr. Sessions went to bat for Mr. Huber in his re-appointment as U.S. Attorney and named him vice-chair of the prestigious Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. Mr. Huber, a political survivor, knows precisely who Mr. Sessions is and what the attorney general wants from him.

    Another more intriguing explanation is that Mr. Sessions needs someone who knows Utah. One part of Mr. Huber’s mandate, as outlined in the GOP letter, is the “purchase of Uranium One by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of the sale.

    Uranium One’s assets included significant holdings in Utah and nearby states.

    Prosecutors – and the media, so transfixed by the Mueller probe that they decline to look elsewhere – should follow the Uranium One money in Utah and the rest of the West. And if Mr. Huber does recommend additional investigations or a second special counsel, Mr. Sessions should get himself a junkyard dog.

  • China Producer Price Inflation Tumbles As Global Reflation Cycle Ends

    It appears, thanks to the collapse in China’s credit impulse, that China’s commodity boom is over…

    China’s factory inflation slowed for a fifth month while the consumer price index retreated from a four-year high.

    Producer prices rose at their slowest YoY rate since October 2016… with Consumer Durables prices contracting YoY for the 4th straight month.

    And Consumer Price inflation slowed notably to +2.1% YoY (versus expectations of a 2.6% gain), dropping 1.1% MoM, with Consumer goods and food seeing the biggest slowdown.

    And as goes Coal, so goes China PPI…

    Prices for commodities such as iron ore and coal fell on “global oversupply and government policy to stem overcapacity,” Katrina Ell, an economist at Moody’s Analytics in Sydney, wrote in a recent note.

    “The government’s clampdown on financial risks is also slowing credit growth,” she said, which is a drag on investment and demand for industrial inputs.

    As Bloomberg notes, moderating factory inflation may offer limited support to the world reflation cycle, amid rising trade tensions that may weigh on the broadest synchronized global growth in years.

  • Google's File On You Is 10 Times Bigger Than Facebook's – Here's How To View It

    Authored by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.com,

    With all the attention paid to Facebook in recent weeks over ‘data breaches’ and privacy violations, even though what happened with Cambridge Analytica is part of their standard business model, it’s easy to forget that there are four other Big Tech corporations collecting just as much – if not more – of our personal info.

    Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are all central players in “surveillance capitalism” and prey on our data. New reports actually suggest that Google may actually harvest ten times as much as Facebook.

    Curious about just how much of his data Google had, web developer Dylan Curran says he downloaded his Google data file, which is offered by the company in a hub called “My Account.”

    This hub was created in 2015, along with a tool called “My Activity.” The report issued is similar to the one Facebook delivers to its users upon request. Whether or not these reports are comprehensive is still up in the air, but Curran says his was 5.5 GB, which is almost ten times larger than the one Facebook offered him. The amount and type of data in his file, Mr. Curran says, suggests Google is not only constantly tracking our online movements but may also be monitoring our physical locations.

    Curran’s Google report contained an incredible amount documentation on his web activity, going back over a decade. But perhaps more importantly, Google had also been tracking his real-life movements via his smartphone device or tablet. This included fairly random places he’d frequented, many of the foreign countries and cities he visited, the bars and restaurants he went to while in these countries, the amount of time he spent there, and even the path he took to get there and back.

    This, of course, is not new. It has been well-known for some time that Google silently tracks you everywhere you go and creates a map of your physical movements through its Location History feature. You can deactivate it by going to your timeline and adjusting the preferences.

    Another Google user downloaded his file and discovered the company had been archiving his data even when he browsed in Incognito mode, a setting that advertises itself as one that does not save browsing history.

    Like Facebook, Google gathers your info for sale to 3rd-party advertisers, including your name, email address, telephone number, credit card, specific ways you use Google’s services, your mode of interaction with any website that uses Google technology (such as AdWords), your device, and your search queries. And if you don’t enter your account and make adjustments, pretty much anything you do online while deploying a Google tool is tracked. Google’s policy states:

    If other users already have your email, or other information that identifies you, we may show them your publicly visible Google Profile information, such as your name and photo.

    But much of the location data stems from the use of Google apps like Maps or Now, which broadcast your location. If you want to stop this information from being shared, you have to go into your account settings and make adjustments.

    The ostensible purpose of this data-sharing is to fine-tune your user experience, but who is benefitting more is arguable. The same year it released its new activity hub, Google also unveiled a new program that shares your email with high-value advertisers. Called Customer Match, this system streamlines consumer info so that an advertiser’s “brand is right there, with the right message, at the moment your customer is most receptive.”

    Google’s policy also lists the three major categories of data collection: Things you do; Things you create; and Things that make you “you.”

    But you do have the ability to limit this info from getting out. You can turn off location tracking, voice searches, and other features; you can view and edit your preferences; you can adjust your public profile, and you can download Google’s data hoard to see what they see.

    You’re also welcome to go a bit further and delete all of your data from not only Google but also a variety of other online services.

    1. Go to Deseat.me and sign in with a Gmail address.
    2. Look down the list of synced accounts and decide which you want to delete and which you want to keep.
    3. Click the button

    Will deleting a select amount of your data from the innards of the Big 5 stop predatory data mining? Certainly not. But while Facebook testifies before Congress, we have an opportunity to draw attention to some of the consequences of a technocracy that privatizes surveillance. As the control grid tightens, our reaction indicates our level of complacency.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th April 2018

  • UK's Top Doctor Demands Ban For "Killer" Kitchen Knives

    Hot on the heels of London Mayor Sadiq Kahn’s city-wide ban on knives, The Express reports that one of Scotland’s leading doctors has called for a ban on “killer” kitchen knives.

    Dr John Crichton, the new chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, wants the sale of pointed kitchen knives to be banned to help reduce the number of fatal stabbings.

    Dr Crichton, who took on the role of chairman in June this year, is championing a switch to so-called “R”-bladed knives, which have rounded points and are far less effective as weapons.

    As The Express details, he said that research shows many attacks, particularly in households where there has been a history of violence, involve kitchen knives because they are so easily accessible. Dr Crichton believes a switch from sharp-pointed, long-bladed knives to the new design could save lives.

     “This is a public health measure and public health measures are always about society deciding on a self-imposed restriction for the public good.”

    Maybe – to be safer – all knives should be blunted to a government-mandated level of kill-a-bility… oh and while we are banning dangerous kitchen implements – what about rolling-pins? Perhaps they should be licensed to only those who pass a government-mandated baking sanity test?

  • America Hasn't Learned A Thing: Racism, Materialism, & Militarism Still Reign Supreme

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    As a nation, we have a tendency to sentimentalize cultural icons in death in a way that renders them non-threatening, antiseptic and easily digested by a society with an acute intolerance for anything controversial, politically incorrect or marred by imperfection.

    This revisionist history has proven to be a far more effective means of neutralizing radicals such as Martin Luther King Jr. than anything the NSA, CIA or FBI could dream up.

    This was a man who went to jail over racial segregation laws, encouraged young children to face down police dogs and water hoses, and who urged people to turn their anger loose on the government through civil disobedience. King called for Americans to rise up against a government that was not only treating blacks unfairly but was also killing innocent civilians, impoverishing millions, and prioritizing the profits of war over human rights and dignity.

    King actually insisted that people have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

    This is not a message that the government wants us to heed.

    No, the government wants us distracted, divided, warring against each other and helpless to free ourselves from a lifetime of bondage and servitude to the powers-that-be.

    It’s working.

    In life, King was fiery, passionate, single-minded in his pursuit of justice, unwilling to remain silent in the face of wrongdoing, and unafraid of offending those who might disagree with him.

    In death, King has been reduced to a lifeless face on a stone monument: mute, immobile and powerless to do anything about the injustices that continue to plague the nation.

    America hasn’t learned a thing.

    The “giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism“ that King railed so passionately against have yet to be conquered.

    In fact, the evils of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism have got us in a death grip.

    America is still waging endless wars abroad, prioritizing profit margins over principle, and adopting institutionalized racist policies that result in a disproportionate number of people of color being stopped, searched, raided, arrested, thrown in jail, and shot and killed by government agents.

    Fifty years later, we have compounded the evils of racism, materialism and militarism with ignorance, intolerance and fear.

    Callousness, cruelty, meanness, immorality, ignorance, hatred, intolerance and injustice have become hallmarks of our modern age, magnified by an echo chamber of nasty tweets, government-sanctioned brutality, and “the politics of exclusion.”

    “We the people” have become “we the police state.”

    By failing to actively take a stand for good, we have become agents of evil.

    None of us who remain silent and impassive in the face of evil, racism, extreme materialism, meanness, intolerance, cruelty, injustice and ignorance get a free pass.

    Those among us who follow figureheads without question, who turn a blind eye to injustice and turn their backs on need, who march in lockstep with tyrants and bigots, who allow politics to trump principle, who give in to meanness and greed, and who fail to be outraged by the many wrongs being perpetrated in our midst, it is these individuals who must shoulder the blame when the darkness wins.

    Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that,” King sermonized.

    The darkness is winning.

    It’s winning in our communities. It’s winning in our homes, our neighborhoods, our churches and synagogues, and our government bodies.

    It’s winning in every new generation that is being raised to care only for themselves, without any sense of moral or civic duty to stand for freedom.

    We are on the wrong side of the revolution.

    “If we are to get on to the right side of the world revolution,” advised King, “we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.

    Freedom demands that we stop thinking as Democrats and Republicans and start thinking like human beings, or at the very least, Americans.

    Freedom demands that we not remain silent in the face of evil or wrongdoing but actively stand against injustice.

    Freedom demands that we treat others as we would have them treat us. That is the law of reciprocity, also referred to as the Golden Rule, and it is found in nearly every world religion, including Judaism and Christianity.

    In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to grow up in a world without freedom—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how tempting the reason or how fervently you believe in your cause.

    As long as we continue to allow ignorance, intolerance, racism, militarism, materialism and meanness to trump justice, fairness and equality, there can be no hope of prevailing against the police state.

    Martin Luther King Jr. dared to dream of a world in which all Americans “would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    He didn’t live to see that dream become a reality.

    It’s still not a reality. We haven’t dared to dream that dream in such a long time.

    But imagine…

    Imagine what this country would be like if Americans put aside their differences and dared to stand up—united—for freedom…

    Imagine what this country would be like if Americans put aside their differences and dared to speak out—with one voice—against injustice…

    Imagine what this country would be like if Americans put aside their differences and dared to push back—with the full force of our collective numbers—against the evils of the police state…

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, tyranny wouldn’t stand a chance.

  • Russia's Richest Billionaires Lost Over $16 Billion Today

    It was not a great day to be a Russian billionaire…

    After Washington unleashed yet another round of sanctions, this time targeting the Oligarch class, Russian stocks plunged the most since 2014, Russian bond spreads blew out the most since 2000, and the Ruble plunged most since Jan 2015

    But it was the richest Russians that suffered the most as Bloomberg reports the combined net worth of the country’s wealthiest people fell by $16 billion Monday — erasing all of their year-to-year gains — following last week’s U.S.-imposed sanctions.

    Not all the Russian billionaires were hit equally though.

    All but one of the 27 Russian tycoons listed on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index lost money, led by Siberian nickel miner Vladimir Potanin, whose fortune declined $2.25 billion.

    As RusLetter.com reports,  the condition of the billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who fell under personal US sanctions, is rapidly declining. Based on the rating of the richest people of the planet according to Forbes (real time) version at 18:00 Moscow time, it decreased by $ 957 million and in real time is $ 5.3 billion. This was due to a sharp drop on the background of En + London stock exchange by 20% – to $ 9.6 per share.

    In addition to Deripaska, six more participants of the Forbes list were also hit: they themselves were included in the new list of sanctions, as well as 12 of their companies. Suleiman Kerimov’s fortunes decreased (by $ 244 million to $ 6.6 billion) and Viktor Vekselberg’s F 10 (by $ 41 million to $ 14.6 billion). The condition of Igor Rotenberg and Kirill Shamalov did not change, and Vladimir Bogdanov and Andrei Skoch even grew by $ 1 million and $ 8 million, respectively.

    Before the publication of the “Kremlin report” in which the US authorities promised to name the main friends of Vladimir Putin, against whom restrictions must be imposed, the richest people in Russia were visibly nervous. When the “Kremlin report” was made public, it turned out that it fully coincides with the Russian part of the world ranking Forbes. The Russian billionaires were confused: “Will the sanctions be imposed for the entire Forbes list?” For some time everyone was waiting for new personal sanctions, but problems, as it turned out, do not threaten everyone.

    On Friday, April 6, Washington said that now “Russian oligarchs will not have a chance to profit from the Russian corrupt system, they will not be isolated from the consequences of the destabilizing activity of their government.” All assets of their assets in the US are frozen. Citizens of the United States are forbidden to enter into any business relations with them. More details about the seven billionaires who are under sanctions, via Forbes:

    Viktor Vekselberg

    Assessment of the state: $ 14.4 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 89

    Source of income: is the founder and chairman of the board of directors of the group “Renova”. Now Vekselberg’s main asset is investment in the Swiss company Sulzer, the manufacturer of pumping equipment. Previously owned assets in the “Sual Holding”, the company Deripaska “Rusal” and “Rosneft”

    For which he got on the sanctions list: “for bribing officials associated with the project for the production of electricity in Russia.”

    Andrey Skoch

    Assessment of the state: $ 4.9 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 404

    Source of income: a share in USM Holdings (30%) owned by OOO Metalloinvest Managing Company is a large Russian mining and metals company specializing in steel production, as well as a share of Vnukovo airport shares (formally the shares of Skoca are held by his father, pensioner Vladimir Skoch).

    For which I got on the sanctions list: “for being a State Duma deputy and having links with Russian organized criminal groups.”

    Suleiman Kerimov

    State estimation: $ 6.4 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 265

    Source of income: the Kerimov family owns 83% of the shares in the largest Russian gold mining company Polyus, the international airport of Makhachkala

    For which he got on the sanctions list: “for being associated with the Russian government, for money laundering and non-payment of taxes in the amount of 400 million euros for the purchase of villas in Cap d’Antibes”.

    Oleg Deripaska

    Assessment of the state: $ 6.7 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 248

    Source of income: holding company En +, which owns blocks of shares of aluminum producer US Rusal and electricity company Eurosibenergo. En + Group is an energy company that is valued at $ 9.8 billion and is managed through the NG “Basic Element”, which also fell under sanctions. Deripaska also controls the GAZ Group, Ingosstrakh, Basel Aero (airports in the Krasnodar Territory), and the Kuban agroholding

    For which I got on the sanctions list: “for representing the interests of the Russian government, for money laundering, bribing officials and links with criminal groups.”

    Vladimir Bogdanov

    Assessment of the state: $ 1.8 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 1339

    Source of income: a stake in Surgutneftegaz

    For which he got on the sanctions list: “for being the general director and deputy chairman of the board of directors of Surgutneftegaz, the company contributed by the US sanctions service to the appropriate list.”

    Kirill Shamalov

    Condition assessment: $ 1.4 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 1650

    Source of income: 3.88% stake in Sibur (17%, which he bought from Gennady Timchenko in 2014, in the spring of 2017 he sold Leonid Mikhelson)

    For which he got on the sanctions list: “for working in the energy sector of the Russian economy and for marrying Katerina Tikhonova, who is considered Vladimir Putin’s daughter (Bloomberg reported divorce in January), and for a loan from Gazprombank, which was sanctioned.”

    Igor Rothenberg

    State estimation: $ 1.1 billion

    Place in the world ranking: 1999

    Source of income: 50% of the shares of RT-Invest Transportation Systems, operator of the Platon system for collection of heavy-duty vehicles, as well as 46.2% of the shares of the Tula Cartridge Plant and 79% of the shares of Gazprom Drilling, which he acquired from his father, Arkady Rothenberg

    For which he got on the sanctions list: for his work “in the energy sector of the economy of the Russian Federation”.

     

  • The True Origins Of The US-Chinese Trade War

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    China responded to Trump’s tariffs with economic restrictions of its own, though its market has always been notoriously difficult to enter due to Beijing’s own ironically “protectionist” policies designed to safeguard its domestic producers, but the government has been easing its prior regulations in recent years in order to facilitate the country’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity. The developing trade war between the US and China threatens to formalize the long-running economic competition between these two Great Powers as they vie with one another over control of the world order, with Washington wanting to retain its erstwhile but fading unipolar dominance while Beijing wants to pioneer the emergence of a multipolar system marked by a diversity of theoretically equal stakeholders.

    The friction between these contradictory forces is the basis of the ongoing New Cold War, though there’s a bit more of a backstory to this global struggle than just that.

    The US thought that “winning back Beijing” through its late Cold War-era alliance with China against the USSR would allow Washington to do as it pleases to what its decision makers had convinced themselves was their largest proxy state to date, but the US’ betrayal of China through the failed Tiananmen Square Color Revolution attempt of 1989 forever changed how the East Asian country’s communist leaders viewed America. Nevertheless, the naïve liberal-globalists of the Clinton era thought that they could bribe China to remain “loyal” to the US-led global world order that emerged after the Cold War by relying on “win-win” investments that would enrich the American elite while helping China rapidly modernize.

    Suffice to say, this presumption proved to be totally false.

    The so-called “Washington Consensus” and attendant “rules of the game” are rigged in order to benefit the US and indefinitely perpetuate its global hegemony, which is why China continuously broke the rules to its advantage but was allowed to get away with it for so long because of the aforementioned relationship that it had with naïve liberal-globalist American elites who profited from this system at the expense of average Americans.

    The Obama Administration tried to preemptively “balance” the inevitable geopolitical consequences of this trend by proposing the so-called “Group of Two” or “Chimerica” global partnership with China, but Beijing rejected this outreach.

    By 2013, China felt confident enough with its newfound strength to announce the world-changing OBOR megaproject that’s designed to bring a definitive end to America’s economic dominance and related unipolar “leadership”, but then the US and China suddenly “switched” global economic roles following Trump’s election.

    President Xi’s January 2017 speech at Davos saw him proclaim China as the champion of a reformed version of the globalization model that America once led, while President Trump has made no secret of his preference for the type of protectionist-nationalist policies that the People’s Republic itself embraced in the past.

    The rest of the world is now compelled to choose between these competing systems.

    Just like during the Old Cold War, however, the new one is seeing the reemergence of another Non-Aligned Movement (Neo-NAM) that’s attempting to strike a “middle ground” by “hybridizing” the best policies of both but in a more complicated and comprehensive way than before because of the inextricable geopolitical and economic dimensions that transcend the former dogmatic adherence to a single ideology. If there’s any “ideology” at all nowadays, then it’s the pure self-interest of Neo-Realism, and it’s here where Russia can play a pivotal role during this transitional period of global systemic change by assisting the Neo-NAM in “balancing” between both “blocs” and reaping the resultant advantages.

  • White House Hoping To Trim At Least $120BN From $1.3TN "Omnibus" Spending Bill

    Larry Kudlow took viewers by surprise during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday” this week when – after offering the usual boilerplate about the White House’s trade beef with China – he mentioned that the White House was considering a “rescission bill” to strip some spending from the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill that President Trump signed into law last month.

    Congressional and West Wing sources have apparently confirmed as much with Bloomberg, which reported that the rescission bill – which could ultimately strip $120 billion from nondefense discretionary spending – was under serious consideration.

    With the CBO now projecting a $1 trillion budget deficit by 2020 – two years sooner than previously estimated – the urgency for the government to roll back some of its deficit-fueled spending has intensified. And bear in mind, the CBO is now estimating that there won’t be a recession within the next ten years, which would make this the longest economic cycle without a contraction in US history.

    CBO

    As we noted earlier, according to the latest estimates, spending will exceed revenue by $804 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, compared with a projected $563 billion shortfall from June, the non-partisan arm of Congress said in a report Monday. In fiscal 2019, the deficit will reach $981 billion, compared with an earlier projection of $689 billion.

    Given the threat that swelling debts pose to the US financial system (not to mention the stock market), Bloomberg reported that the US is planning to ask Congress to pare back some of the domestic spending authorized by the bill.

    Meanwhile, the White House is hoping to leave military funding, funding for the opioid crisis and border security untouched.

    House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has been working with the administration on a rescission maneuver, though any attempts to roll back spending will likely be opposed by Democrats.

    For those who are unfamiliar with the obscure provision, here’s an explanation of “rescission” courtesy of Bloomberg.

    The rescissions request makes use of an obscure provision in the 1974 Budget Act that allows the president to request the cancellation of some spending and gives Congress 45 days to approve the measure. Under a 1992 precedent in the Senate that limits debate, Republicans likely could pass the bill without any Democratic support.

    “The administration is working to identify potential rescissions and at this point, there is no completed list or dollar amount,” White House budget office spokeswoman Meghan Burris said.

    The 2,232-page omnibus bill was roundly criticized by 25 House conservatives, including House Freedom Caucus member Mark Meadows, who almost sunk the bill by turning against it and threatening what would’ve been a third government shutdown this year. 

    Trump also flirted with opposing the bill after it passed the House, and it wasn’t until Speaker Paul Ryan journeyed to the White House for a lunch meeting where he secured the president’s support.

    Trump

    Still, the president made clear that he was signing the bill because of a national security imperative – and that he opposed the domestic spending concessions Congressional Republicans had permitted. It also, crucially, lacked funding for Trump’s southern border wall. The White House had initially sought nearly $20 billion.

    The bill increased military spending by $80 billion this year above previous spending limits and non-defense spending by $63 billion. Trump’s 2018 budget had sought a $54 billion cut to non-defense spending.

    Despite having the ability to circumvent the Democrats, both Democratic and Republican aides told Bloomberg the package would face difficulty in the Senate as Republicans – particularly members of the appropriations committee – likely wouldn’t support breaking a good-faith agreement and doing an end-run around their Democratic peers.

    “Advancing a rescission package like the one described would lay waste to the notion that Republican leadership negotiated the omnibus in good faith and poison the well for future responsible, bipartisan legislating,” said Matthew Dennis, a spokesman for House Appropriations Committee Democrats on Friday.

    Steve Bell, a former Senate Republican budget aide of the Bipartisan Policy Center predicted that because of this, the package will face difficulties in the Senate and may not even be introduced.

    Republicans could try to pare back domestic spending by $120 billion to put it in line with the Trump 2018 budget. But the larger the request, the more difficult it will be for moderate Republicans to swallow. 

    Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a spending watchdog group, said the larger the request from Trump, the more difficult it will be.

    “Unless its a really targeted package that just focuses on some egregious waste, it is going to get enough people ticked off that it won’t go through” he said.

    Budget watchdogs say they would welcome the chance to reduce the roughly $150 billion spending increase in the omnibus bill.

    “I don’t have a view yet on this particular process, but certainly we overspent for FY 2018 and if we can pare the funds backs a bit – both on the defense and non-defense side – that would be an improvement,” Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said.

    While it’s reasonable to assume that paring back domestic spending might be unpopular with both Democrats and moderate Republicans, the CBO report cited above is just the latest sign that the White House has dramatically overspent. And at the end of the day, stopping the US from transforming into Greece might be a higher political priority than preserving domestic programs.

     

  • Petro-Yuan Is The Newest Weapon For The China-Russia-Iran Anti-USD Alliance

    Authored by Jeff Brown via The Saker blog,

    Pictured above, the currency symbols for the old Spanish peseta and the Chinese yuan. Maybe Baba Beijing can synthesize the two of them into a cooling looking petro-yuan logo.

    After 25 years of dreams, planning, rumors and testing, the Chinese petro-yuan is now official. Right now, almost all global oil trade is conducted in US dollars, using two benchmark varieties of crude, West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent, as the industry standards. It is no accident that these two benchmarks are based on imperial crude, American and British, and the irony of this is surely not lost on Baba Beijing (China’s leadership).

    China is not selling oil, so the petro-yuan is a futures purchase contract denominated in renminbi for the country to import the stuff. As the world’s biggest importer of hydrocarbons, Baba Beijing has long felt that pricing all its millions of tons of imports should be in its national currency. Why should China pay for Russian natural gas or Venezuelan crude in Western empire’s currency of global financial control, Uncle Sam’s greenback?

    Opinions outside China range from being non-plussed, to claiming it is the most important news in modern financial history, but you would have to search far and wide in Eurangloland (NATO, EU, Israel, Australia and New Zealand) and its heavily censored and suppressed media, to see for yourself. Outside the obligatory statement of fact in financial outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Reuters and Bloomberg, silence from the West’s mainstream media is deafening, as this screenshot below shows, when searching the topic. Only one mainstream article showed up on page #1 of the web search and that was CNBC from 2017. Even just looking for “petro-yuan” gives identical results. It’s a Western media black hole.

    The West’s censorship and suppression of news that reports the truth about China, Russia and Iran is lethally effective. Hitler called it the Big Lie. Eurangloland learned from a master.

    Both end points on the above range of ideas are probably exaggerated. But, the fact that any global oil seller can now buy non-US dollar oil contracts is momentous, for sure. In 1971, Richard Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard and got OPEC to restrict global hydrocarbon sales to greenbacks. Thus, overnight, the world’s reserve currency was pure fiat money, which is still being kept propped up by the need for the world economy to buy dollars, in order to purchase the most strategic commodity on earth. Here are two ranges of opinion on Nixon’s decision (from this to this).

    Many people don’t want to acknowledge that their decision to switch from the US dollar to the euro, by Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, had a lot to do with their countries being invaded, plundered, destroyed, and then they being killed in a highly humiliating and public fashion. In both cases, once they made the switch, it was just months before they were sacked.

    Other, more powerful oil producers have already ditched the greenback, but Western empire only knows how to prey on weaker states, like Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Africa and the like. Iran has already stopped using the US dollar, as has Russia with China, which helps explain the West’s vociferous, self-defeating illegal sanctions and embargos on them.

    Both Iran and Russia make Uncle Sam brown the backside of his red-white-and-blue bloomers, as well as for the Zionist state of Israel. I don’t even have to mention Eurangloland’s white knuckle fear of China. The China-Russia-Iran anti-dollar alliance versus the West is causing the latter’s elites to suffer from extreme geopolitical dysentery. Vulnerable, and it has to be said gullible Iraq and Libya, yes – but this towering trio not so much, as they are two of the world’s biggest petro-exporters next door to the biggest importer, and all are armed to the teeth with high-tech military hardware. When you look at the map below, it graphically shows how ridiculous it is for these three players to do business in dollars. New York and Washington are so far, far away.

    Whatcha gonna do about it, Eurangloland? There’s not a damn this you can do, short of destroying humanity and the world. Sadly, there are many psychopaths in Washington, Brussels, London and Paris who would prefer that, than accept imperial collapse.

    As usual, you have to go outside the Great Western Firewall and its propaganda Big Lie, to see the real world. For those who want to delve deeper, RT has done an informative series of articles and the South China Morning Post (SCMP) has done a couple of good ones.

    RT:

    https://www.rt.com/business/422314-petro-yuan-futures-dollar-death/
    https://www.rt.com/business/422448-china-oil-futures-outstrips-brent/
    https://www.rt.com/business/422472-russia-china-petro-yuan/
    https://www.rt.com/business/422776-trade-war-petro-yuan/
    https://www.rt.com/business/422838-petro-yuan-dollar-gaddafi/
    https://www.rt.com/business/423461-petro-yuan-us-dollar-oil/

    SCMP:

    http://www.scmp.com/business/global-economy/article/2139646/chinas-yuan-denominated-oil-futures-what-took-you-so-long
    http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2139781/yuan-denominated-oil-futures-mark-significant-move

  • US Futures Spike As Xi Pushes Globalization Agenda, Vows To Open China To The World

    It seems the machines never sleep.

    Before China’s Xi had even uttered a word – in war or peace – Nasdaq futures were ramping up 1% from the cash close and the S&P and Dow following… And once it was clear that Xi was not going to drop another trade war tape bomb, futures extended gains to the highs of the day session.

    What futures loved was the series of traditionally hollow promises from Xi including:

    • promise to open up China to the world and expand imports
    • “work hard” to import more products that are needed by China’s people
    • implement major opening up steps,
    • lower auto and auto product import tariff later this year, open sector to higher foreign ownership
    • release a measures to broaden market access
    • expand the opening of China’s economy
    • push forward economic globalization
    • relax market threshold, widen access to market; take major measures in opening and sharply widen market access
    • implement financial and insurance market opening measures
    • strengthen IP protection for foreign firms (to restructure IP bureau

    Then there were the ideological vows:

    • China reform and opening will definitely succeed, world should push for free trade
    • Cold war mentality is out of place, its a zero sum game, isolationism will hit walls
    • Urges dialog as only way to resolve disputes
    • Says states must refrain from seeking dominance
    • Need to uphold multilateral trading system

    Incidentally, many if not all of these promises had been made previously, most extensively during last year’s Party Congress. In the meantime, the only real change was Xi upgrading himself from mere president and crowning himself emperor for life.

    Never one to dig too deep between the lines, algos loved the speech and the result has been a vertical lift in risk-assets:

    Now where have we seen that kind of vertical ramp before.. and what happened next?

    Xi’s speech is being interpreted as somewhat globalist in nature as he plays down tensions and calls for ‘free trade’…

    • *CHINA’S XI SAYS COLD WAR MENTALITY IS OUT OF PLACE
    • *CHINA’S XI SAYS DIALOGUE IS THE WAY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
    • *CHINA’S XI SAYS SHOULD PUSH FOR FREE TRADE
    • *CHINA’S XI CALLS FOR UPHOLDING MULTILATERAL TRADING SYSTEM
    • *XI SAYS GLOBALIZATION MUST BE MORE OPEN, INCLUSIVE
    • *XI SAYS TO EXPLORE SETTING UP FREE TRADE PORTS
    • *CHINA TO REDUCE TARIFF ON AUTO-RELATED PRODUCTS: XI
    • *XI SAYS HOPES COUNTRIES WILL LOWER CURBS ON HIGH-TECH TRADE

    And a direct jab at Washington:

    • *CHINA’S XI SAYS STATES MUST REFRAIN FROM SEEKING DOMINANCE
    • *XI SAYS CHINA WON’T BE THREAT TO WORLD, EXISTING GLOBAL SYSTEM

    Then Xi heads down the comedy road:

    • *XI SAYS CHINA WON’T SEEK SPHERES OF INFLUENCE (apart from building islands in the Pacific)

    Many on the sellside agreed with the algos and said Xi’s speech marked de-escalation of trade war risks:

    According to Trinh Nguyen, economist at Natixis, Xi’s speech suggests a conciliatory tone with some concession towards market access. Question remains as to how much of the proposals will take place, and whether that’s enough to appease U.S. President Donald Trump. Still, markets will see Xi’s remarks as positive which will help to lower the risks. “Clearly this is positive for EM Asian FX, especially those closest to the China-U.S. trade spat.”

    An almost identical take from First Shanghai Securities strategist Linus Yip, who said that “Xi’s speech sends a positive signal to the market since he backs globalization and the opening up of China market,” although concern over trade disputes remains, as Xi is talking about the long-term picture.

    Alan Richardson, a fund manager at Samsung Asset Management said that Xi’s comments are positive for globalization but they don’t address Donald Trump’s immediate task of reducing the trade deficit with China.

    Some were downright skeptical, and echoed our own perspective, noting that Xi was not at all as conciliatory as the markets made him out to be:

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

    For now, and at least until the next Trump tweet, outburst, or Mueller raid, it’s risk is on in US markets (but China’s tech heavy Chinext is down over 1%) as it seems no news is good news in trade wars.

    Offshore Yuan strengthened

    Live feed below:

  • Goldman Dodges MiFID Regulation By Recreating Dark Pools Under A New Name

    It wouldn’t be the investment banking industry if large investment banks weren’t constantly thinking of new schemes to skirt regulation for monetary benefit. Which is why it should come as no surprise to anyone that Goldman Sachs has already created, and is likely working on fine-tuning, a method for skirting dark pool trading rules that have been established in Europe.

    That’s right, folks. Forget about “dark pools“ and say hello to “stock auctions”. What is the point of “stock auctions”? Basically to be able to place dark pool trades – where orders are kept “off the market” and quiet, almost the exact same way dark pool trades happen. But by giving these transactions a new name, Goldman Sachs thinks it has found a “work around” for MiFID II rules. Bloomberg reported on the emergence of these new auctions this morning, stating:

    Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is taking on the exchanges to win the business of fund managers eager to keep their stock trades hidden in the era of MiFID II price transparency.

    The bank has set up a so-called periodic auction service that matched its first trades on March 21, allowing investors to buy and sell shares without tipping their hand to the rest of the market. Exchanges began offering the service earlier. Europe’s largest dark pool, run by Cboe Global Markets Inc., is now doing more business through periodic auctions than it is through its dark markets.

    For those who are really looking to have a laugh today, Goldman states that these auctions actually make trading more transparent.

    “The launch represents the first bank-led periodic-auction book,” David Shrimpton, a managing director at Goldman Sachs, said by email. “The product will enable our clients to trade in a fair, multilateral and transparent environment.

    Only in the world of Goldman Sachs would brokering orders off of major exchanges for the purpose of keeping them confidential be more transparent.

    The article continued, likely rightfully suggesting that these “auctions” will grow in size and frequency as demand for dark pool trades continues, despite the regulation:

    Periodic auctions are increasingly seen as a way of sidestepping MiFID II’s curbs on dark trading. UBS Group AG will follow Goldman Sachs with its own service later this month, a spokeswoman said. Both firms are reacting to demand from their biggest customers. Fund managers need to complete their trades without moving share prices against themselves.

    The auctions are coming to the fore because 755 European stocks are already banned from trading in dark pools, which hide orders until they have been matched. More names are likely to join that list when the European Union’s markets regulator updates it after the close of trading on Monday.

    “Periodic-auction volumes will continue to increase,” said Mark Hemsley, chief executive officer of Cboe’s European arm. “The flipside is that our competitors are trying to get their own offerings out.”

    MiFID II was introduced in Europe because regulators found “under intense lobbying from stock exchanges — that dark trading reduced the efficiency of stock markets as a whole. Fund managers, however, still need ways of trading that keep all the best bits of dark pools, so trading venues and banks alike have reacted by coming up with new ways to trade. Rather than driving trading volumes to the stock exchanges, MiFID II may have forced the exchanges’ rivals to become more innovative.”

    We’ve already offered our prediction that MiFID would sever off independent research in this article out earlier this year. Now it looks like its being skirted as easily as it was implemented. 

    Once again we are faced with several follies of government regulation. First off, investment banks and those with the resources usually always find methods around them. Second off, they are obviously suppressing supply of a method for trading and transacting securities that is still in demand. Third, the government has to put its resources directly up against those of investment banks in order to regulate effectively, and this costs everybody, but especially taxpayers, money.

    Though difficult to say if the regulators will have a next move in this game of “dark pool regulation chess” they are playing, one thing is for sure – we’re witnessing obvious blow-back to government overreach and regulation where demand is present. 

    We will keep our eyes open to see if European regulators volley back against these “auctions”. 

  • Name That 'Bank' – Cheap Debt, High Leverage, & The Largest Margin Loan Ever

    Via Grant’s Almost Daily,

    The Son also rises

    This bull-market avatar is doubling down: Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp. (9984 on the Tokyo Exchange and SFTBY on the U.S. Pink Sheets) announced on Friday that it has secured an $8 billion margin loan from a consortium of investment banks backed by its stake in China’s Alibaba Group Holding, Inc. (BABA on the NYSE).

    This was one for the record books. Bethany Knight of Riverside Risk Advisors LLC told Bloomberg that: “To my knowledge, I would agree that $8 billion is the largest margin loan ever.” Bloomberg notes that the loan helps SoftBank move closer to an initial public offering of its domestic telecom business Softbank Corp., which had already been utilized as collateral for prior loans. “A successful IPO – possible only after the division proves its independence by canceling debt guarantees – could help the parent raise capital and relieve some of its debt burden.”

    On March 9, SoftBank launched a debt exchange offer, presenting its creditors the opportunity to swap existing bonds for new notes due in 2028 for a 100 basis point consent fee.  Covenant Review, an independent credit research firm, observed that this was no act of corporate generosity. Holders of existing notes are protected by a covenant stating that if SoftBank loses its investment grade status its telecom subsidiary, Softbank Corp., will guarantee the debt. That protection is set to be eliminated.

    So when investors purchased the Existing Notes, they knew that at worst either the Existing Notes would be rated investment grade or the Softbank Corp. guarantee would remain in place. If the Proposed Amendments are successful, then holders would have swapped that protection for the consent fee – and the Existing Notes could well be left with neither an investment grade rating nor a continuing guarantee from Softbank Corp. (or any other subsidiaries for that matter).

    Longtime observers of SoftBank’s charismatic and brilliant CEO Masayoshi Son (who is often compared to Warren Buffett) could hardly have been surprised by this latest bold corporate maneuver. 

    Son, who weathered a 99% loss in Softbank shares following the bursting of the late-1990’s tech bubble, has taken full advantage of the easy money and tech-happy market conditions which have pervaded in the post-2009 era. Softbank shares have advanced by 442% over the past nine years in yen terms (20.7% annualized) outpacing the Nikkei’s 142% gain (11% annualized) over that period.

    That impressive rebound, burnished by timely investments in Yahoo! Japan, and the aforementioned Alibaba, has coincided with a flurry of deals, some under the umbrella of SoftBank’s buyout arm, the $100 billion Vision Fund. Last February, SoftBank bought the Fortress Investment Group for $3.3 billion, a hefty 38.6% premium. On Aug. 24, the fund paid $4.4 billion for a minority stake in private concern WeWork Companies, Inc. (founded in 2010 and now the second largest private office tenant in Manhattan). Softbank has also made substantial investments in ride-sharing unicorns Uber Technologies, Inc.  and its Chinese peer, Didi Chuxing Technology Co. (which is preparing to commence operations in Mexico, according to Caixin, directly challenging its fellow SoftBank portfolio company).

    #1 conglomerate. Source: Softbank presentation PowerPoint slide from Feb. 7

    Masa Son’s spendthrift ways haven’t always gone over so smoothly in the company C-suite. On Feb. 26, the Wall Street Journal shed light on the friction between Son and SoftBank directors who don’t always share his deal-making enthusiasm.

    Shigenobu Nagamori says he objected when Mr. Son told his board in 2016 that he wanted to pay $32 billion from Arm Holdings PLC. The U.K. chip-design firm was worth a 10th of that, Mr. Nagamori, then a Softbank outside director, says he told Mr. Son. Mr. Son paid it anyway.

    To strike quickly, [Son] sometimes commits to investments before getting approval from his fund’s investment committee, some of these people say. And he often spars with his executives and board members over his proposals until they are convinced or acquiesce.

    “I’ve opposed almost all of Mr. Son’s proposed investments,” says SoftBank director Tadashi Yanai, president of Fast Retailing Co., operator of Uniqlo clothing stores. Instead of acting like a speculative investor, he says, Mr. Son should focus on “real business.”

    A month later, the Journal reported that the dynamics among SoftBank insiders have escalated beyond straightforward strategy disagreements. Specifically intriguing was the mysterious origins of a shareholder campaign to discredit a pair of senior executives at the company, including one (Nikesh Arora), whom the WSJ described as a one-time heir apparent to Son.

    At the time, SoftBank couldn’t figure out who was behind the campaign, which the company said was based on false allegations of impropriety and which a board member later called “sabotage.” Both men denied wrongdoing and said they were victims.

    People with knowledge of the matter said Alessandro Benedetti, an Italian private-equity investor, was a central figure in that campaign. They said he told associates he was working, in part, for the benefits of a SoftBank insider.

    Excessive leverage and value-destructive deals, not palace intrigue, was the crux of a Dec. 15, 2017 bearish assessment of Softbank found in the pages of Grant’s. Total debt reached $154 billion as of Dec. 31, 2017 on a consolidated basis, up from $42 billion on Dec. 31, 2013. Son’s 2013 purchase of U.S. telecom operator Sprint Corp. (SoftBank paid $22 billion for an 83% stake. Sprint’s current market cap is less than $21 billion) is one potential source of trouble, an interruption of Alibaba’s charmed existence is another.  The conclusion drawn by Grant’s was evident in the piece’s headline, “Epitome of the cycle:”

    Mix the CEO’s exuberance with cheap debt, high leverage and record asset values. Add the excitement of today’s startling advances in robotics and artificial intelligence. Combine with the karmic report that [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman], the Vision Fund’s No. 1 limited partner, is also the rumored buyer of that $450 million road-show da Vinci. Totting them all up, what do you have? Perhaps a corporation destined to read about itself on page one of The New York Times – and not in a flattering way. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th April 2018

  • The Richest 1% Will Own Two-Thirds Of Global Wealth By 2030, Report Finds

    Back in November, Credit Suisse highlighted an alarming – yet altogether unsurprising – milestone in the increasing concentration of global wealth that has been perhaps the most influential force behind the populist revolts that rocked the US in 2016 and have continued to unfurl across Europe. According to the Swiss bank’s annual “global wealth pyramid,” for the first time, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population had accumulated more than half of its aggregate household wealth.

    Credit Suisse’s researchers describe in stark terms how global wealth inequality had actually improved somewhat in the years between the start of the new millennium and the financial crisis – but in the years after, the gap between the world’s richest and poorest individuals widened dramatically, one of the most pernicious aspects of the Fed and the global cabal of central banks pumping easy money into the global financial system.

    Pyramid

    The researchers said that “our calculations show that the top 1% of global wealth holders started the millennium with 45.5% of all household wealth. This share was about the same until 2006, then fell to 42.5% two years later. The downward trend reversed after 2008 and the share of the top one percent has been on an upward path ever since, passing the 2000 level in 2013 and achieving new peaks every year thereafter. According to our latest estimates, the top one percent own 50.1 percent of all household wealth in the world.”

    But while CS’s report was unequivocally dire, a recent report published by the UK Parliament is even more harrowing.

    According to the Guardian, projections produced by the House of Commons library suggest that the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest individuals will own roughly 64% of the planet’s wealth by 2030.

    An alarming projection produced by the House of Commons library suggests that if trends seen since the 2008 financial crash were to continue, then the top 1% will hold 64% of the world’s wealth by 2030. Even taking the financial crash into account, and measuring their assets over a longer period, they would still hold more than half of all wealth.

    Since 2008, the wealth of the richest 1% has been growing at an average of 6% a year – much faster than the 3% growth in wealth of the remaining 99% of the world’s population. Should that continue, the top 1% would hold wealth equating to $305tn (£216.5tn) – up from $140tn today.

    Analysts suggest wealth has become concentrated at the top because of recent income inequality, higher rates of saving among the wealthy, and the accumulation of assets. The wealthy also invested a large amount of equity in businesses, stocks and other financial assets, which have handed them disproportionate benefits.

    The study was the brainchild of Liam Byrne, a former Labour cabinet minister, who hopes it will factor into the discussion when the financial chiefs of the world’s largest countries meet in Buenos Aires late this year for a G-20 summit.

    “If we don’t take steps to rewrite the rules of how our economies work, then we condemn ourselves to a future that remains unequal for good,” he said. “That’s morally bad, and economically disastrous, risking a new explosion in instability, corruption and poverty.”

    Unfortunately, the public is extremely sensitive to growing wealth disparity, and polls show most people in the UK are growing increasingly cynical about the prospects for change. Already a plurality of Britons believe the superrich have more influence and power than national governments.

    New polling by Opinium suggests that voters perceive a major problem with the influence exerted by the very wealthy. Asked to select a group that would have the most power in 2030, most (34%) said the super-rich, while 28% opted for national governments. In a sign of falling levels of trust, those surveyed said they feared the consequences of wealth inequality would be rising levels of corruption (41%) or the “super-rich enjoying unfair influence on government policy” (43%).

    Indeed, even if the incomes of the wealthiest individuals were frozen at 2017 levels, their share of the world’s wealth would still expand thanks to returns on their investments, according to Danny Dorling, a professor at Oxford.

    “Even if the income of the wealthiest people in the world stops rising dramatically in the future, their wealth will still grow for some time,” he said. “The last peak of income inequality was in 1913. We are near that again, but even if we reduce inequality now it will continue to grow for one to two more decades.”

    One Tory MP quoted by the Guardian pointed out that while wealth inequality remains a problem, liberal capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system of government. Though this overlooks the fact that, while this holds true in most of the biggest developing countries, in the developed world, the working and middle class are at risk of seeing their standard of living decline vs. that of their parents’ generation.

    George Freeman, the Tory MP and former head of the prime minister’s policy board, said: “While mankind has never seen such income inequality, it is also true that mankind has never experienced such rapid increases in living standards. Around the world billions of people are being lifted out of poverty at a pace never seen before. But the extraordinary concentration of global wealth today – fuelled by the pace of technological innovation and globalisation – poses serious challenges.

    “If the system of capitalist liberal democracy which has triumphed in the west is to pass the big test of globalisation – and the assault from radical Islam as well as its own internal pressures from post-crash austerity – we need some new thinking on ways to widen opportunity, share ownership and philanthropy. Fast.”

    Demands for action from the group include improving productivity to ensure wages rise and reform of capital markets to promote greater equality.

    While this sounds like a plausible plan, the obstacles to it being put into practice are myriad – including opposition from corporations and the wealthy, who might prove reluctant to part with what they’ve gained. And even once central banks retract their stimulus and securities valuations inevitably fall, it remains unclear whether this trend can ever be reversed.

    One thing’s for sure: While pundits have been eager to call the end of the populist wave, as long as the wealth divide continues to widen, anger toward the status quo will continue to metastasize.

  • UK: Funding Textbooks That Teach Children To Blow Themselves Up

    Authored by Douglas Murray via The Gatestone Institute,

    In 2016, a study carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) found that for literacy in the developed world, England ranks dead last. The same study also stated that for numeracy in the developed world, England ranks second-to-last. Even among graduates from English universities, the OECD study found, one in ten had literacy or numeracy skills that were classified as “low”.

    These results are astonishing, not to mention shaming. They reflect decades of misdirection in British education, including the misdirection of resources. Understandably, successive governments complain about a lack of resources. But all of those laments only serve to highlight the strangeness of Britain’s latest priorities in funding education.

    This past weekend it emerged that last year the British government funnelled £20 million to Palestinian schools. A review by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) found that these revenues go towards funding a curriculum which omits teaching peace, promotes the use of violence — specifically jihad — and encourages martyrdom. An analysis of the textbooks used in Palestinian schools funded by the UK government — using UK taxpayers’ money — found that these textbooks, which come from the Palestinian Authority (PA), “exerts pressure over young Palestinians to acts of violence.”

    A science textbook intended for 12-year-olds, for example, claims to teach them Newton’s second law of motion in the following way:

    “During the first Palestinian uprising, Palestinian youths used slingshots to confront the soldiers of the Zionist Occupation and defend themselves from their treacherous bullets. What is the relationship between the elongation of the slingshot’s rubber and the tensile strength affecting it?”

    Another textbook, which is meant to be used for teaching arithmetic to 9-year-olds takes a highly local approach to the matter. Math lessons as provided by the PA — courtesy of the UK government — teach Palestinian children addition by asking them to calculate the number of “martyrs” in various Palestinian uprisings.

    Elsewhere, the study found that social studies books included images of children in their school rooms with an empty desk fitted with a sign reading “martyr”. Repeatedly the textbooks refer to the “Occupation”, to “Zionist Occupation”, “Zionists” and much more, all of which perpetuates the notion that Israelis are “invaders” and “oppressors”. In other words, these textbooks are clearly and consistently intended to indoctrinate a new generation of Palestinian children to hatred of their neighbours. Any government genuinely interested in promoting peace would withdraw funding from any entity — wherever in the world it was — which taught violence as such a core part of its curriculum.

    The British government, however, has long been strangely shameless when it comes to funding the Palestinian Authority. The British government, for instance, hides behind the claim that the PA’s authorised textbooks for use in Palestinian schools have got better in recent years. In fact, this IMPACT-se report find precisely the opposite. Last year, the PA launched a much-vaunted new school curriculum for children in grades 5-11. Just last week the Minister of State for International Development, Alistair Burt, stated that “all of their [the PA’s] schools in the West Bank are using the revised 2017 PA curriculum.”

    The IMPACT-se investigation revealed, however, that “radicalization is pervasive across this new curriculum.” And not just pervasive, but pervasive “to a greater extent than before.” The study found that in textbooks which pretend to be teaching “equal rights'”, girls are encouraged to sacrifice their lives. A textbook aimed at 5th grade children (that is, children aged 10) teaches that “drinking the cup of bitterness with glory is much sweeter than a pleasant long life accompanied by humiliation.” Another textbook urges that “Giving one’s life, sacrifice, fight, jihad and struggle are the most important meanings of life.”

    In a statement, in response to the Sunday Times (UK), which broke the story, Alistair Burt, MP, and Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Minister of State at the Department for International Development, revealed that the UK taxpayer continues to support this radical curriculum of incitement. He admitted that the UK taxpayer funds the wages of 33,000 teachers in the West Bank, who use these curriculums. “UK-funded public servants and teachers… are therefore involved” he said. Instead of investigating these findings or announcing the immediate cessation of funding to the Palestinian Authority until such a time as it stops preaching incitement to another generation of Palestinian children, the UK’s Department for International Development responded to the findings with a typical form of bureaucratese:

    “Our support is helping around 25,000 young Palestinians go to school each year. The UK government strongly condemns all forms of violence and incitement to violence.”

    Well, the UK government clearly is not so opposed to “all forms of violence and incitement to violence” that it isn’t happy to continue to use millions of pounds of UK taxpayer money to assist the PA in radicalising and inciting Palestinian children.

    Pictured: A screenshot from the Sunday Times article exposing the British government’s funding of a Palestinian curriculum which promotes the use of violence — specifically jihad — and encourages martyrdom.

    The Department for International Development also announced that it was now “planning to conduct a thorough assessment of the Palestinian curriculum and evidence”. It added that “if we find evidence of material which incites violence, we will take action.” Evidence has been given to it in abundance, not just now but for years.

    This is the true scandal for Britain: that while the UK government fails to pump the resources needed into helping young British children to grow up literate and numerate in Britain, it pumps millions of pounds into the Palestinian Authority to make sure that young Palestinian children think that a career of violence is a career worth pursuing. While failing to help British children grow up, the UK government helps Palestinian children to blow themselves up. It is a horrible legacy for any country, but for Britain, a shameful one.

  • Lobbying For Slavery In Brazil

    Some 10 percent of Brazil’s top politicians received donations by companies entangled in scandals involving modern day slavery. As Statista’s Patrick Wagner notes, even though donations to politicians are not illegal in Brazil, the money received is of questionable origin.

    Donators include JBS – the world’s biggest meat producer – and other enterprises that can be found on Brazil’s ‘dirty list’ for slave labor. Over 41 percent of all recipients are part of the influential ruralist caucus, a congressional faction keen on revoking land rights of indigenous communities and limiting efforts to combat slavery.

    The following chart shows the top beneficiaries and their party affiliation.

    Infographic: Lobbying for Slavery in Brazil | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    A total of 16 percent of all parliamentary deputies of the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB), the party of President Michel Temerand impeached president Dilma Roussef received said donations. The leftist Workers’ Party (PT) of former president Lula da Silva, who is currently facing imprisonment due to corruption, even has received a stunning 20 percent of donations from companies on the ‘dirty list’.

  • How Gun Control Laws For "Mentally Ill" Could Disarm Those Who Question Authority

    Authored by John Vibes via The Free Thought Project,

    In the growing debate surrounding the natural right to self-defense, one of the most popular proposed methods of gun control has been restrictions on gun-ownership for those who are deemed to be mentally ill.

    This is a measure that is often suggested by liberals and conservatives alike, but it is important to stop and consider what something like this might entail.

    When any collective group is banned from owning a gun, they are effectively turned into second-class citizens. In the case of mental illness, that classification is so vague and open to interpretation that it could possibly be applied to over half of the population, depending on which criteria you use.

    Mental illness can be very hard to identify since there is no kind of official test for most conditions, most people are diagnosed according to the subjective opinions of the doctors that observe them. Even the most severe conditions, like schizophrenia, can be very difficult to identify and is often misdiagnosed.

    Psychiatric drugs are another possible factor that could get someone marked by the government as mentally unstable, but a classification like this would allow for large portions of the US population to be disarmed.

    According to a 2016 study by JAMA Internal Medicine, more than 1 in 6 Americans are on some type of psychiatric drug. This is not to mention the large number of people who report symptoms of depression or anxiety and don’t take medication.

    A policy like this could also allow the government to disarm dissidents and political enemies. As psychiatry became more influential towards the middle of the 20th century, rulers around the world began using “mental illness” as an excuse to lock away anyone who might disagree with them. The Soviet regime became notorious for this practice by labeling all political dissidents as “mentally ill” so they could be locked away in institutions where they were no threat to the establishment.

    The United States government also has a long history of slapping unruly citizens with the mark of mental illness. President Franklin Roosevelt famously called his detractors “the lunatic fringe,” and this type of attitude towards activists has carried on in the halls of government to this day.

    In the dictionary of mental illnesses, known as DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, there is actually a condition listed for people who have a problem with authority. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a name that psychiatrists made up to identify children who won’t do what they are told, and now even adults are being diagnosed with this condition as well.

    Meanwhile, politicians and mainstream media are quick to label anyone who questions the official narrative as a “conspiracy theorist,” a term that has been falsely associated with mental illness in pop culture.

    A study in 2017 set out to determine whether or not believing in conspiracy theories was a form of mental illness. As expected they found the exact answer that they were looking for, people who don’t trust the government and mainstream media are crazy, and suffering from something called illusory pattern perception.

    There is another dilemma that arises in the discussion of disarming people who are accused of having a mental illness, and that is the fact mentally ill people are 10 times more likely to be victims of violence than the rest of society because they are often seen as easy targets.

    Complicating matters further is the fact that these people can’t depend on the police to help them in these situations, as studies have shown that the mentally ill are 16 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than the average person.

    According to the Virginia-based Treatment Advocacy Center, a minimum of 1 in 4 fatal police encounters ends the life of an individual with severe mental illness.

    To prevent mentally ill people from owning firearms is a severe form of “ableist” discrimination, and also opens the door for nearly anyone to be classified as mentally ill.

    There are sometimes extreme cases where a person’s mental instability is creating a dangerous situation for the community, like the recent Parkland shooting, for example. In this case, the shooter had a known history of violence, regularly made threats and was visited by police on numerous occasions because of his threatening behavior. In cases like this, it is reasonable to keep an eye on someone, restrict their access to firearms, or possibly quarantine them from society in the most extreme situations.

    There are many laws on the books currently would have allowed the FBI or local police to intervene in their initial encounters with the shooter, but they decided that a student known for violent outbursts and talking about carrying out school shootings was not worth looking into.

    As TFTP reported earlier this month, there is a law on the books known as the Extreme Risk Protection Order or ERPO, which went into effect in June of 2017. This law is used when a person is considered an “extreme” threat as reported by police and family members. An ERPO must be approved by a judge and only after this person is proven to be a danger to themselves or others can police move in to confiscate their weapons.

    These types of targeted approaches specifically aimed at individuals who are a known source of violence in the community would do far more to prevent tragedies from happening, than a wide-reaching law that could threaten the rights and safety of millions of innocent gun owners.

  • Maryland House Passes $5BN Incentive Package Meant To Lure Amazon's HQ2

    In one of the most aggressive attempts to cajole Amazon into selecting their state as the location for the e-commerce giant’s second headquarters, the Maryland General Assembly just passed a bill offering the company a $5 billion incentive package should Amazon choose to settle in Maryland’s Montgomery County.

    Montgomery County is competing with Washington DC, Northern Virginia and 17 other areas that made Amazon’s HQ2 “short list”, which was released earlier this year. Specifically, Amazon is eyeing the site of the former White Flint Mall.

    Bezos

    The “Promoting ext-Raordinary Innovation in Maryland’s Economy,” or PRIME (yes that misplaced capitalization was intentional) would require Amazon to create at least 40,000 qualified jobs (with an average comp of at least $100,000). The company would also need to spend $4.5 billion on “eligible costs” like capital projects, the Baltimore Business Journal reported. 

    After passing the House, the bill now passes to the desk of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.

    As lawmakers see it, if Amazon chooses Montgomery County, the incentives will be worth the 50,000 jobs the company could bring to the county. If Amazon doesn’t, the state loses nothing.

    Montgomery County, specifically a site encompassing the former White Flint Mall, is the only Maryland site on Amazon’s HQ2 short list. Maryland is competing with Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia and 17 other areas across the country for the 50,000 jobs and $5 billion investment the online retail and web services giant has promised with its second headquarters. Seattle-based Amazon is expected to fill at least 8 million square feet as it phases in HQ2 over the next two decades.

    However, while the bill found broad support among Democratic state legislators, Republicans vehemently opposed it on the grounds that it amounted to a corporate giveaway. A legislative study found the bill would cost the state $5.5 billion in total revenue through 2054 – while the county would lose nearly $1 billion. However, that analysis doesn’t factor in any revenue generated by Amazon.

    Opposition to the bill, largely from Republicans, was intense. They described the incentive — to include roughly $3 billion in property, income and sales tax credits and $2 billion in transportation improvements — as a “bribery package,” an “expensive pig in a poke,” as “craziness,” as “corporate welfare,” and as a “gold mine” for one of the wealthiest companies, led by one of the wealthiest people, in the world.

    “They need economic stimulus like a fish needs a bicycle,” said Del. Herb McMillan, R-Anne Arundel.

    However, a private study produced by the Sage Policy Group at the state’s request found that Amazon’s headquarters could pump $7.7 billion in wages into the state while producing $17 billion in increased economic activity.

    Amazon is expected to announce its HQ2 later this year, but there have been hints that the headquarters could wind up either in Montgomery or somewhere else in the broader Washington, DC area.

    A surge in web traffic to an article about an environmental award won by Arlington County from an internal Amazon intranet led to speculation that Maryland could be the company’s pick – or at least it would be a strong contender.

    And another study found that the Washington DC area would be the most sensible pick for Amazon.

  • Celente: "Murderers & Thieves Sold Out America"

    Via Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog blog,

    Renowned trends researcher Gerald Celente says the trade war President Trump is starting against China must be fought for America to survive. Celente explains,

    “We have lost 3.5 million jobs (to China).  Some 70,000 manufacturing plants have closed.  Why would anybody be fighting Trump to do a reversal of us being in a merchandise trade deficit of $365 billion?  Tell me any two people that would do business with each other and one side takes a huge loss and keeps taking it…

    So, why would people argue and fight and bring down the markets because Trump wants to bring back jobs and readjust a trade deficit that, by any standard, is destroying the nation?” 

    Who’s to blame for the lopsided trade deficits destroying the middle class of America? Look no further than the politicians and corporations buying them off.  Celente charges,

    They sold us out.  The European companies and the American companies sold us out, and the people fighting Trump are also the big retailers because they’ve got their slave labor making their stuff over there.  They bring it back here and mark up the price, and they make more money.  If they have to pay our people to do that work, they have to pay them a living wage and they can’t make enough profit.  That’s who is fighting us…

    You go back to our top trend in 2017, and it was China was going to be the leader in AI (artificial intelligence) now and beyond, and that is exactly what happened.  All the corporations have sold us out. . . .The murderers and the thieves sold out America.”

    Celente thinks the odds are there will not be a financial crash in 2018 “because they are repatriating all that dough from overseas at a very low tax rate and because of the tax cuts from 35% to 21%. These are the facts.  In the first three months of this year, there have been more stock buybacks and mergers and acquisitions activity than ever before in this short period of time because of all that cheap money going back into the corporations.  That’s what’s keeping the markets up.”

    Just because the stock market is near all-time highs doesn’t mean there is no risk from a black swan. Celente says,

    “I want to tell everyone what our major signal that we are watching closely that is going to determine where the markets are going.  It’s the signal.  It’s a signal that you will know whether to bail out or stay in, and that’s gold prices.  With all of this volatility going on, gold prices have not moved much.  They are still stuck in the $1,300 to $1,350 (per ounce) range.  Even on Friday, with all the volatility, gold only moved up a couple of bucks.  That is the indicator to watch, and here is our forecast.  Gold has to break above $1,385 per ounce.  It has been unable to get near there

    The next big number will be $1,450.  When it solidifies over that, we forecast a jump to the $2,000 range.  Gold is the ultimate safe haven asset.  It has not been acting like that during this market shift.

    On the recent poll where 77% of people thought the MSM was putting out so-called “Fake News,” Celente says, “It’s not only “Fake News, it’s junk news, and that is why people are tuning out.” Expect the trend to continue.

    Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Gerald Celente, Publisher of “The Trends Journal.”

  • U.S. Air Force's Clandestine X-37B Military Space Plane Marks 200 Days In Orbit

    The U.S. Air Force’s unmanned X-37B space plane has marked its 200th day in orbit on a clandestine mission. 

    Known as Orbital Test Vehicle-5 (OTV-5), the latest mission began September 7, 2017 after it was launched into space atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 booster from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

    According to Air Force officials, one payload flying on OTV-5 is the Advanced Structurally Embedded Thermal Spreader, or ASETS-11, of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). This cargo is testing experimental electronics and oscillating heat pipes for long durations in the space environment. –space.com

    The Air Force has not disclosed how long the unpiloted, reusable craft will remain in orbit, however experts have said it’s likely to land at the Kennedy Space Center’s Shuttle Landing Facility, where the OTV-4 mission landed on May 7, 2007 – a first for the program, as previous missions all ended with a tarmac touchdown at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

    The X-37B has been and remains a technology demonstrator,” said Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor in the National Security Affairs Department at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. 

    “Given that most space technology is dual-use, with the ever-increasing sway toward warfare in space, it’s likely that the more militaristic uses of the space plane will be pursued more vigorously, and likely openly given the [presidential] administration’s proclivity toward chest thumping,” Johnson-Freese told Space.com. 

    Milestone Missions via Space.com

    • Each X-37B mission has set a new flight-duration record for the program.
    • OTV-1 began April 22, 2010, and concluded on Dec. 3, 2010, after 224 days in orbit. 
    • The second OTV mission began March 5, 2011, and concluded on June 16, 2012, after 468 days on orbit.
    • OTV-3 chalked up nearly 675 days in orbit before finally coming down on Oct. 17, 2014.
    • And OTV-4 conducted on-orbit experiments for 718 days during its mission, extending the total number of days spent in space for the OTV program to 2,085 days.

    The Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office manages the X-37 project. According to Space.com it is used to perform “risk-reduction experimentation and concept-of-operations development for reusable space-vehicle technologies.” 

    The space drone has a payload bay about the size of a pickup-truck bed, which can be outfitted with a robotic arm. X-37B has a launch weight of 11,000 lbs. (4,990 kilograms) and is powered on orbit by gallium-arsenide solar cells with lithium-ion batteries.

    The classified X-37B program “fleet” consists of two known reusable vehicles, both of which were built by Boeing. Looking like a miniature version of NASA’s now-retired space shuttle orbiter, the military space plane is 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 9.6 feet (2.9 m) tall, with a wingspan of nearly 15 feet (4.6 m).Space.com

    The orbital path of the OTV-5 mission has puzzled experts, according to Toronto-based satellite analyst Ted Molczan. 

    “There were indications that OTV-5 went to a significantly higher-inclination orbit than previous OTV missions,” he told Space.com. “There was too little information to narrowly constrain a search.” 

    Molczan said he assisted in one fruitless search, but it was of the roughly 44-degree-inclination orbit implied by the OTV-5 launch’s “Notice to Airmen,” the routine report put out to warn any aircraft pilots who may be near the flight path.

    “The final orbit may be more like 60 degrees,” he said. “If an object is not found within days or a few weeks of launch, then the trail goes cold and discovery depends on a chance sighting.”

  • After Doubling US Debt In 8 Years, Yellen & Furman Fearmonger "A Debt Crisis Is Coming"

    After doubling America’s national debt in the eight short years of President Obama’s reign – expanding benefits for all, and relying on a Federal Reserve with its knee-high jack boot firmly on the throat of interest-rates, thus supressing any derogatory signal among the every day noise – five former chairs of The White House Council of Economic Affairs turned up their hypocrisy dial to ’11’ in a stunning op-ed in The Washington Post tonight, warning of a debt crisis looming due to President Trump’s deficits

    A debt crisis is coming. But don’t blame entitlements.

    Martin Neil Baily, Jason Furman, Alan B. Krueger, Laura D’Andrea Tyson and Janet L. Yellen are all former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

    The U.S. unemployment rate is down to 4.1 percent, and economic growth could well increase in 2018. Consumer and business confidence is high. What could go wrong?

    A group of distinguished economists from the Hoover Institution, a public-policy think tank at Stanford University, identifies a serious problem. The federal budget deficit is on track to exceed $1 trillion next year and get worse over time. Eventually, ever-rising debt and deficits will cause interest rates to rise, and the portion of tax revenue needed to service the growing debt will take an increasing toll on the ability of government to provide for its citizens and to respond to recessions and emergencies.

    None of that is in dispute. But the Hoover economists then go wrong by arguing that entitlements are the sole cause of the problem, while the budget-busting tax bill that was passed last year is described as a “good first step.”

    Entitlement programs support older Americans and those with low incomes or disabilities. Program costs are growing largely because of the aging of the population. This demographic problem is faced by almost all advanced economies and cannot be solved by a vague call to cut “entitlements” – terminology that dehumanizes the value of these programs to millions of Americans.

    The deficit, of course, reflects the gap between spending and revenue. It is dishonest to single out entitlements for blame. The federal budget was in surplus from 1998 through 2001, but large tax cuts and unfunded wars have been huge contributors to our current deficit problem. The primary reason the deficit in coming years will now be higher than had been expected is the reduction in tax revenue from last year’s tax cuts, not an increase in spending. This year, revenue is expected to fall below 17 percent of gross domestic product – the lowest it has been in the past 50 years with the exception of the aftermath of the past two recessions.

    All of us have supported corporate tax reform. The statutory tax rate was too high, much higher than in other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development economies. However, because of deductions and breaks in the tax code, the effective marginal tax rate was similar to the average among competitor economies. The right way to do reform was to follow the model of the bipartisan tax reform of 1986, when rates were lowered while deductions were eliminated.

    Instead, the tax cuts passed last year actually added an amount to America’s long-run fiscal challenge that is roughly the same size as the preexisting shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. The tax cuts are reducing revenue by an average of 1.1 percent of GDP over the next four years. The Hoover authors minimized the cost of the tax cuts by noting that if major provisions are allowed to expire on schedule — certainly an open question, given political realities — they would amount to “only” 0.4 percent of GDP. Even this magnitude exceeds the Medicare Trustees’ projections of a 0.3 percent of GDP shortfall in Medicare hospital insurance over the next 75 years.

    Just as entitlements are not the primary cause of the recent jump in the deficit, they also should not be the sole solution. It is important to use the right wording: The main entitlement programs are Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and Medicaid. These widely popular programs are indeed large and projected to grow as a share of the economy, not because of increased generosity of benefits but because of the aging of the population and the increase in economywide health costs.

    There is some room for additional spending reductions in these programs, but not to an extent large enough to solve the long-run debt problem. The Social Security program needs only modest reforms to restore its 75-year solvency, and these should include adjustments in both spending and revenue. Additional revenue is critical because Social Security has become even more vital as fewer and fewer people have defined-benefit pensions. Medicare has been a leader in bending the health-care cost curve. Reforms to payments and reformed benefit structures in Medicare could do more to hold down its future costs.

    As we focus on the long-run fiscal situation, our goal should be to put the debt on a declining path as a share of the economy. That will require running smaller deficits in strong economic periods — such as the present — to offset the larger deficits that are needed in recessions to restore demand and avoid deeper crises. Last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act turned that economic logic on its head. The economy was already at or close to full employment and did not need a boost. This year’s bipartisan spending agreement contributed further to the ill-timed stimulus. The Federal Reserve will have to act to make sure the economy does not overheat.

    Several years ago, there was broad agreement that responding to the looming fiscal challenge required a balanced approach that combined increased revenue with reduced spending. Two bipartisan commissions, Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin, proposed such approaches that called for tax reform to raise revenue as a percent of GDP and judicious spending cuts. Without necessarily agreeing with these specific plans, we believe a balanced approach is the correct one. Start with spending goals based on the priorities of the American people and then set tax policy to realize adequate revenue. The Hoover economists’ advocacy of paying for large tax cuts with entitlement reductions would take the United States in the wrong direction. 

    *  *  *
    So to sum up – everything was awesome before Trump got here, with unemployment low, interest rates low, inflation low, stocks high, and having added more debt to the serfdom-bearing shoulders of future Americans in the last eight years than since the existence of the nation over 200 years ago… But now that The Fed is blindly hiking rates, normalizing its balance sheet and Washington is continuing down its spend-as-if-there’s-no-tomorrow path, suddenly these five disgustingly hypocritical ‘economists’ decide to cry foul over fiscal largesse… and, of course, right before CBO will dump a bucket of ice cold water over Trump’s budget.

    Speechless.

  • Rockefellers Join Soros & Rothschilds In Cryptocurrency Investment Plans

    Despite the collapse in cryptocurrency prices since the beginning of the year (bitcoin is down more than 60% and ethereum down more than 70% from their ATHs), more marquee investors have decided that now is the time to buy in.

    Last week, we noted that George Soros had taken some time out from his battle of wills with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to grant one of his underlings approval to begin trading in crypto. Adam Fisher – who oversees macro investing at New York-based Soros Fund Management – has reportedly received internal approval to trade virtual coins in the last few months, “though he has yet to make a wager.”

    Soros’s involvement followed reports last year that the Rothschild family had waded into the space – first by purchasing bitcoin exposure via the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust.

    Their involvement is a sign that regulators around the world might be relaxing their stance toward crypto, as one prominent crypto entrepreneur and investors pointed out

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

    Now, the latest bold-faced investor to unveil plans to invest in the space is the Rockefeller family (the descendants of Standard Oil founder John Rockefeller). CoinTelegraph reports that the family’s venture capital fund has partnered with CoinFund to invest in “cryptocurrency and Blockchain business innovation”.

    The news triggered a jump in crypto prices…

    Chart

    Sending bitcoin back above $7,000….

    * * *

    Here’s more, courtesy of CoinTelegraph.

    Venrock, the official venture capital arm of the Rockefeller family, has partnered with crypto investment group Coinfund to support cryptocurrency and Blockchain business innovation, Fortune reported April 6.

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph.

    Coinfund has recently added token-based financial services platform Coinlist, a spinoff of startup connection website AngelList, to the number of projects that it backs. Coinfund is also known for backing chat messenger app Kik, which raised almost $100 mln in the Initial Coin Offering (ICO) of its Kin token last fall. Fortune notes that Venrock and Coinfund met through their mutual investment in the live video streaming app maker YouNow.

    When asked about Bitcoin’s (BTC) recent failure to strongly stay above $7,000, Venrock partner David Pakman told Fortune that the price of “a single currency over the next day, week, month, year” is not what they thought about when deciding to partner with a crypto investment group:

    “We’re really patient long term investors […] we’re wondering what happens over the next five to ten years. Can we have fundamental change to a number of different markets because of a disturbed ledger, a token economy that all participants can take part in?”

    According to an April 6 blog post by Pakman, cryptocurrency and Blockchain’s most important innovation is their creation of “the possibility of building sustainable decentralized computing platforms, services and apps”, writing:

    “It may finally be possible to build widely-distributed networks without centralized trust or control, and to allow user consensus to govern their future […] In this scenario, ‘commodity’ applications like messaging, social media and application infrastructure like file storage and compute become very much like public utilities — and they are owned and governed by their participants. For many of us, this is the mission behind crypto.”

    When asked by Fortune about the potential for scams running ICOs, specifically mentioning the recent news of the Centra-related arrests, Pakman referred to the crypto ecosystem as a “wild space up and down the whole stack,” with ICOs as “certainly one of the most wild spaces of it all.”

    Pakman added that he supports regulations of the crypto sphere in order to clear out the “bad actors,” but that one needs to be careful not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater here”.

    Pakman also noted that decentralized systems could eventually be a competitor to traditional venture capital fundraising, which he referred to as “effectively a gatekeeper industry” that he would “actually like to see undone”, adding:

    “I don’t believe that a small group of people should make the decisions about which projects can raise some money and get off the ground.”

    Coinfund co-founder Jake Brukhman told Fortune that Coinfund will be “working closely with [Venrock] to help mentor, advise, and support teams in the space.”

    Major traditional investor George Soros, who had previously referred to Bitcoin as a “bubble,” will also reportedly be investing in cryptocurrencies, through the Soros Fund Management. In mid-February, Soros’s investment fund become the number three shareholder in Overstock, a retail company that accepts Bitcoin as payment and whose CEO Patrick Byrne is widely known for his pro-crypto stance.

Digest powered by RSS Digest