Today’s News 6th February 2018

  • Pentagon Auditor Can't Account For $800 Million In Spending

    The Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has reportedly “lost track” of hundreds of millions of dollars it spent,  said Ernst & Young, the accounting firm conducting the first-ever Pentagon audit, according to Politico.

    E&Y discovered that DLA “failed to properly document more than $800 million in construction projects,” said Politico, which also reported this is just one of the many instances where millions of dollars went missing as the accountability system inside the Pentagon is broken. Worse, according to Politico, the first-ever audit, covering the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2016, signals complete incompetence about how the Pentagon handles its $700 billion annual budget.

    While these comments from Ernst & Young are mindnumbing, the Trump administration is set to ask Congress for $716 billion for defense spending for fiscal 2019, a 7% increase over the 2018 Budget. Budget analysts have sounded warnings this would be a significant surge in spending for the Pentagon at a time when the organization can barely keep track of its current expenditures.

    If you can’t follow the money, you aren’t going to be able to do an audit,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and senior member of the Budget and Finance committees, who has suggested to past administrations that hemorrhaging of wasteful spending at the Pentagon must stop.

    Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, the agency’s director, wrote in response to Ernst & Young’s bombshell findings that the audit has “provided us with a valuable independent view of our current financial operations.”

    “We are committed to resolving the material weaknesses and strengthening internal controls around DLA’s operations,” he said, according to Politico.

    The DLA is a $40 billion-a-year logistics agency within the Pentagon with some 25,000 employees and processes about 100,000 orders a day, said Politico.

    Ernst & Young’s auditors found significant accounting errors in DLA’s process of tracking expenditures. There are minimal accounting records of where the money is going said the report. This does not bode well for accountability at the Pentagon, which has combined assets of $2.2 trillion.The Politico describes one section of the audit where Ernst & Young’s auditors found misstatements for some $465 million in construction projects. Another section described that there was very little documentation for another $384 million worth of spending.

    In one part of the audit, completed in mid-December, Ernst & Young found that misstatements in the agency’s books totaled at least $465 million for construction projects it financed for the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies. For construction projects designated as still “in progress,” meanwhile, it didn’t have sufficient documentation — or any documentation at all — for another $384 million worth of spending. The agency also couldn’t produce supporting evidence for many items that are documented in some form — including records for $100 million worth of assets in the computer systems that conduct the agency’s day-to-day business. “The documentation, such as the evidence demonstrating that the asset was tested and accepted, is not retained or available,” it said. 

    The auditor also said that around $100 million worth of assets in computer systems had very little documentation.

    The report, which covers the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2016, also found that $46 million in computer assets were “inappropriately recorded” as belonging to the Defense Logistics Agency. It also warned that the agency cannot reconcile balances from its general ledger with the Treasury Department. 

    “The initial audit has provided us with a valuable independent view of our current financial operations,” Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams, the agency’s director, wrote in response to Ernst & Young’s findings. “We are committed to resolving the material weaknesses and strengthening internal controls around DLA’s operations.”

    In a statement to Politico, the DLA said it is the “first of its size and complexity in the Department of Defense to undergo an audit so we did not anticipate achieving a ‘clean’ audit opinion in the initial cycles.”

    “The key is to use auditor feedback to focus our remediation efforts and corrective action plans, and maximize the value from the audits. That’s what we’re doing now,” the statement said.

    Back in January, the team of 1,200 auditors found some $830 million in “missing” helicopters as the audit kicked off into 2018.

    And in a preview of what is to come, Norquist told the House Armed Services Committee that an initial Army audit found 39 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter ($830,700,000) were not adequately recorded in the property system. “The Air Force identified 478 structures and buildings at 12 installations that were not in its real property system,” he added. In other words these helicopters were simply “missing” on the books. 

    As the army of auditors penetrates deep inside the Pentagon’s financial records, we wonder what the 1,200 will find next as they descend further down the rabbit hole of decades of failed proxy wars, regime changes and dictator slush funds?

  • Will The Conspiracy Against Trump And American Democracy Go Unpunished?

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Dear Readers,

    This is one of the most important articles I have written, along with this one.

    If the Russiagate conspiracy against Trump and American democracy goes unpunished, accountable government in the United States will cease to exist. US security agencies have long been involved in coups against foreign governments. Now they are involved in one against America.

    There is great danger that Republicans are so worshipful of “national security” and so determined to protect the reputation of the US government that they will give a pass to the high officials who participated in a conspiracy against the United States.

    As for President Trump, he lacks a government that he can count on and is threatened by the military/security complex. The conspiracy could easily be whitewashed as merely a case of the FBI and DOJ not following proper procedures, with the media’s participation in the conspiracy being dismissed with mea culpas of “sloppy reporting.”

    Will The Conspiracy Against Trump and American Democracy Go Unpunished?

    “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”  –  Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

    The American people do not realize the seriousness of the Russiagate conspiracy against them and President Trump. Polls indicate that a large majority of the public do not believe that Trump conspired with Putin to steal the presidential election, and are tired of hearing the media prostitutes repeat the absurd story day after day. On its face the story makes no sense whatsoever. Moreover, the leaked emails are real, not fabricated. The emails show exactly what Hillary and the DNC did. The public knows that these transgressions were pushed out of news sight by the false story of a Trump/Putin conspiracy. The fact that the entirety of the US print and TV media served in a highly partisan political way to bury a true and disturbing story with a fake news story—Russiagate—is one reason some polls show that only 6% of Americans trust the mainstream media. All polls show that large majorities of independents, Republicans, and youth distrust the mainstream media. In some polls about half of Democrats trust the media, and that is because the media is servant to Democratic Party interests.

    Russiagate is a dagger aimed at the heart of American governmental institutions. A conspiracy involving top officials of the Obama Department of Justice, FBI, and other “security” agencies was formed together with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, the purpose of which was to defeat Trump in the presidential election and, failing that, to remove Trump from office or to discredit him to the point that he would be reduced to a mere figurehead. This conspiracy has the full backing of the entirely of the mainstream media.

    In other words, it was a coup not only against Donald Trump but also against American democracy and the outcome of a presidential election.

    There is no doubt whatsoever about this. The facts are publicly available in the declassified Top Secret Memorandum Opinion and Order of the FISA Court  and in the declassified report from the House Intelligence Committee—given by the presstitutes the misleading name of the “Nunes Memo,” as if it is Nunes’ personal opinion and not the findings of months of work by an oversight committee of Congress..

    All of this information has been posted on my website for some time. If you have difficulty following my explanation, former US Attorney Joe DiGenova explains the felony actions by the FBI and Obama Justice (sic) Department here.

    Briefly, the National Security Agency discovered that the FBI and DOJ were abusing the surveillance system. As a favor of one security agency to another, NSA Director Adm. Rogers permitted the FBI and DOJ to rush to the FISA Court and confess their transgressions before the NSA informed the Court. The FBI and DOJ pretended that their deception of the Court in order to obtain surveillance warrants for highly partisan political purposes was not due to their intent but to procedural mistakes. The FBI and DOJ told the Court that they were tightening up procedures so that this would not happen again. The FISA Court Memorandum and Order clearly states:

    “On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA’s minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices had not been previously disclosed to the Court.”

    What this legalese jargon is saying is the the FBI and DOJ confessed to obtaining warrants under false pretexts. These are felonies.

    The FISA Court Memorandum and Order is about resolving these deficiencies and returning the FBI and DOJ to legal practices. For example, the Court Memorandum and Order says:

    “On January 3, 2017, the government made a further submission describing its efforts to ascertain the scope and causes of those compliance problems and discussing potential solutions to them. See January 3, 2017, Supplemental Notice of Compliance Incidents Regarding the Querying of Section 701-Acquired Data (“January 3, 2017 Notice”). The Court was not satisfied that the government had sufficiently ascertained the scope of the compliance problems or developed and implemented adequate solutions for them and communicated a number of questions and concerns to the government.”

    In other words, the FBI and DOJ were attempting to make corrections to their “compliance problems” in ways that would allow them to continue to mislead the FISA Court, and the Court wasn’t letting them.

    The FISA Court Memorandum and Order was released prior to the House Intelligence Committee report and has been completely ignored by the utterly corrupt press prostitutes. The FISA Court Memorandum and Order, relying on the confessions of the FBI and DOJ, verifies the House Intelligence Committee report that the FBI and DOJ illegally obtained spy warrants for partisan political purposes.

    Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat who is a disgrace to the voters of his California district, to the Democratic Party, and to the House of Representatives, knows full well that the FBI and DOJ deceived the FISA Court. Schiff is so partisan that he lies to the hilt in the face of hard documented evidence from both the FISA Court and his own House committee. Schiff is so totally devoid of all honesty and integrity that he is the perfect leader for a shithole country, something that he and his ilk are turning the United States into.

    The honest left—not the Identity Politics left, which is a collection of deranged idiots—does not believe a word of the concocted Russiagate conspiracy against Trump. They object to the Russiagate conspiracy not because they like Trump, which they most certainly do not, but because they understand that it is a lie directed against truth. They understand that the American mainstream media has deserted factual, truthful reporting and serves as a propaganda ministry for the war/police state that American is becoming.

    For example, Eric Zuesse holds The Atlantic and its presstitute writer, David A. Graham, to account for lying about the House Intelligence Report.

    Andre Damon writes on the World Socialist Web Site:

    “The Democratic Party was thrown into disarray Friday after the publication of a classified memo exposing as a factionally-motivated witch hunt the investigation by leading intelligence agencies into the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with Russia. . . . The release of the memo once again underscores the fact that the US intelligence agencies have massively intervened in US politics.

    The real left, as opposed to the fake left, understands that the people have no chance when the highest officials of the Department of Justice and the security agencies join in a conspiracy against a democratic outcome. When the justice and police authorities have no respect for the truth, as the Russiagate conspiracy proves, the people are doomed. If the FBI-DOJ-DNC-presstitute conspiracy goes unpunished, The Lie will have prevailed over The Truth and all of us will be endangered.

    The important question before us is: will the treasonous criminals in the FBI, DOJ, and DNC be indicted and held responsible? Or do high government officials get a pass as do the police who rob and murder citizens and never face justice for their crimes?

    From the sound of things, it looks like they will get a pass. Rep. Nunes felt compelled to say on TV how much he likes Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is a party to the deception of the FISA Court. President Trump says he will not fire the conspirator against him, Robert Mueller, even though both Trump and Mueller know that the Russiagate investigation headed by Mueller is a concocted conspiracy against American democracy and the President of the United States. It seems that high government officials, like state and local police and executives of “banks too big to fail,” are above the law.

    What about the FISA Court, readers ask, why did the FISA Court let the FBI and DOJ get away with their illegal acquisition of spy warrants? Once the Court knew about it, the Court did not let them get away with it, as the Memorandum and Order makes clear. The FISA Court does not have prosecutorial power to indict and bring a case against the FBI and DOJ criminals. That has to be done by the DOJ, and the DOJ is not going to indict itself.

    Former US Attorney Joe DiGenova believes that continuing investigations will result in high officials being indicted, convicted, and sent to prison. If the US is to have any future as a country in which government is accountable to law, it is essential that DiGenova be correct. However, I will believe it when I see it.

  • Only 3.8% Of Americans Work More Than 60 Hours A Week

    For many people around the world, Friday doesn’t signal the end of the working week.

    Working hours are affected by many factors including necessity in the case of people working for the emergency services, company expectations, individual drive as well as cultural reasons in different nations. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, OECD research has shed light on the countries where workers are putting in 60 hours plus every week. Thankfully, the share is still low in most countries, though it does rise alarmingly in several places.

    Infographic: Where The Most Workers Put in A 60-Hour Week  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Nearly a quarter of Turkish employees worked 60 hours or more per week in their main job in 2015, the most recent year data is available, according to the OECD.

    Asian countries in particular have earned themselves bad reputations for poor work life balance. In South Korea, the share working very long working hours stands at 22.6 percent. In Japan, cases where people have literally died from work-related stress have made headlines and prompted the government to change attitudes towards work. There is even a word in Japanese for death from overwork – “karoshi”. Workers in Japan are known to stay late and avoid taking holiday but the share working 60 hours plus is still far less than in South Korea, 9.2 percent.

    The United States is also seen as a nation of workaholics with its reputation for good work life balance tarnished by a poor number of vacation days and no paid maternity leave for new mothers (though California is the first state to offer six weeks of partially paid paternity leave). Most Americans avoid late evenings in the office with the share working 60 hours or more coming to 3.8 percent.

  • The Increasing Likelihood Of Nuclear War Should Straighten Out All Our Priorities

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via CaitlinJohnstone.com,

    A Russian pilot has been killed by US-armed terrorists in Syria. The Ron Paul Institute‘s Daniel McAdams writes the following about this new development:

    “The scenario where a US-backed, US-supplied jihadist group in Syria uses US weapons to shoot down a Russian plane and then murders the pilot on the ground should be seen as a near-nightmare escalation, drawing the US and Russia terrifyingly closer to direct conflict.”

    McAdams is not fearmongering; he is stating a plainly obvious fact.

    The Trump administration has just announced that it is restructuring its nuclear weapons policy to take a more aggressive stance toward Russia than that which was held by the previous administration. This is coming after this administration’s decision to arm Ukraine against Russia, a move Obama refused to take for fear of escalating tensions with Moscow, as well as its decision to continue to occupy Syria in order to effect regime change, along with numerous other escalations. The Council on Foreign Relations, which is without exaggeration as close to the voice of the US establishment as you can possibly get, is now openly admitting that the “United States is currently in a second Cold War with Russia.”

    In a recent interview with The Real News, leading US-Russian relations expert Stephen Cohen repeated his ongoing warning that “this new Cold War is much more dangerous, much more likely to end in Hot War, than was the 40-year of Cold War, which we barely survived.” In a previous interview with the same outlet, Cohen elaborated more extensively:

    “We are in new cold war that is much more dangerous than the last cold war for various reasons. One is that the new cold war today, as we talk, includes three fronts. U.S.-Russian fronts, they’re fought with hot war. That’s Syria. That’s the reckless NATO military build-up on Russia’s western boarders, which has resulted in a situation today that ordinarily artillery, not missiles, ordinary artillery, can hit Russia’s second city of Saint Petersburg. Just think about that and the instability. And the third front is Ukraine.”

    Cohen explains how the political pressures placed on Trump by the ongoing fact-free allegation that he is a Kremlin puppet makes it far more difficult for him to negotiate on these multiple fronts agilely, thus making it much more likely that Trump will choose to advance when he should retreat, hold his ground when he should back down, and generally be locked into patterns of aggression and forward movement rather than the back-and-forth finesse required for safe cold war negotiations with a nuclear superpower

    We came within a hair’s breadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion during the last cold war, and the further things escalate in this new one the more likely we are to tempt fate again. The only reason we survived the extremely tense stand-offs in the last cold war ultimately boiled down to pure dumb luck in some cases, and there’s no legitimate reason to believe we’ll get lucky again.

    To be clear, I am not saying that the US or Russia actually want nuclear war. Two men with guns pointed at one another in a conventional standoff generally don’t want either weapon to discharge, either. What I am saying is that we learned in situations snatched from the brink of disaster by men like Stanislov Petrov and Vasili Arkhipov that there are too many small, unpredictable moving parts involved in a nuclear standoff for cold war escalations to unfold safely and predictably, and the more tense things get the more likely it becomes that a nuclear warhead gets discharged in the chaos and confusion. Once a single warhead goes off, Mutually Assured Destruction comes into play. Add into that the hot war dynamics and political pressures described by Stephen Cohen and we’re looking at some very uncomfortable odds as a species.

    In my view most of the political disagreements I have with people ultimately boil down to this. I see us as facing an immediate existential crisis as a species that needs to be dealt with right now, and people say I should be more worried about this or that conservative figure saying rude things on Twitter. We are facing the very real possibility of near-term human extinction; I don’t know how to care about the petty sectarian squabbles in America’s various political factions. It really is time for us to all get over ourselves and grow up.

    This unprecedented crisis should be drawing us together, yet we’re more politically divided than ever. It is evolve or die time, and we’re all still arguing over airplane peanuts while the plane is in a full nose dive.

    Thought experiment:

    Imagine if you wake up one morning and turn on the TV to an emergency broadcast alert that a nuclear weapon has been discharged by either the US or Russia in the chaos and confusion of this convoluted new cold war, and saying that you need to seek shelter immediately.

    What thoughts will go through your head as the realization dawns that this is really happening? Do you imagine that you will be spending much time thinking about how Trump said “shit hole countries”? Will you spend your last moments on earth mentally shaking your fist at Antifa and “libtards”? Or will you instead perhaps wish that you and your brothers and sisters around the world had more aggressively opposed these new cold war games your leaders have been playing?

    It is entirely possible that you will one day in the near future find yourself in this very situation and answering the questions I just asked you for yourself.

    Let’s skip that part of our story together, please. The reason they need to work so hard to manufacture consent for these escalations is because they require that consent. If we all loudly raise our voices and say “No. Enough. This ends now,” they will necessarily have to obey. The Russiagate psyop exists because the western power establishment is trying to cripple the Russia-China tandem in order to ensure US hegemony, and if they tried to thrust us all into a new cold war without our permission they’d shatter the illusion of freedom and democracy they depend on to rule you. If we all rise as one voice and withdraw that permission, they will be forced to obey.

    Can we do this, please? Can we make ensuring our survival into the future a priority right now and put bickering over identity politics and the president’s tweets on the back burner until then? We’ll have a whole future ahead of us to sort that stuff out if we survive the urgent crisis we are facing right now.

  • Tesla Threatens To Shutter Hong Kong Operations Unless City Revives EV Tax Waiver

    Tesla is deeply indebted to the US government, and the governments of many European nations, that have helped bolster sales of electric vehicles with attractive tax incentives. The importance of these handouts to Tesla’s bottom line cannot be understated, as investors reminded us back in November, when reports that the GOP tax plan would eliminate the US electric-car credit sent Tesla shares spiraling to their worst daily drop ever, a day after the company announced its worst quarterly performance history (Tesla will report results for the October through December period later this week).

    So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that, after Hong Kong last year decided to remove its full registration tax waiver on electric cars for private use, Tesla is threatening to shutter its operations in the city unless its administrator, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, revives the waiver.

    By reinstating registration taxes on electric vehicles, the city’s government forced buyers to pay as much as 80% more for high-end models like the Tesla, according to the South China Morning Post.

    Elon Musk reportedly sent the city’s administrator a strongly worded letter asking that the tax be reinstated.

     

    Tesla

    The decline in sales was staggering: After 2,078 new electric vehicles were registered between April and December 2016, that number dropped to 99 last year – though reports that the waiver could be reinstated helped sales rebound in March.

    With the tax waiver capped at HK$97,500 from April 1 last year, sales of electric cars nosedived. Only 99 new cars were registered from April to December last year, compared with 2,078 in the same period the year before.

    Sales at Tesla, which employs 200 people in the city, were hit hardest. It sold 32 cars from April to December, although 2,939 cars were snapped up in March, as buyers rushed to its showrooms after Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po’s announcement that the waiver was ending in last year’s budget.

    An average of 230 Teslas were sold each month from April 2016 to February 2017, mostly of the Model S, the top-selling sedan in the city in 2015. To the excitement of consumers, the car also featured on ride-sharing app Uber.

    “Scaling down Tesla’s operation in Hong Kong is a natural and logical consequence if the number of customers has dwindled prompted by a reduction of government incentives,” the source said. “Without government support, who is ­willing to invest in green technology?”

    Asked for its comments, Tesla told the Post on Sunday: “Our launch in Hong Kong in 2010 was one of Tesla’s earliest, and we remain committed to our customers here, affirming that commitment with the opening of our second Service Centre last year.

    “We remain hopeful that the government will continue to encourage more electric vehicles on the road and preserve Hong Kong’s lead in clean, sustainable living.”

    According to the SCMP, industry sources said that big manufacturers have urged Chan to remove the full tax waiver for electric cars because they were threatened by their rapid growth in the city, especially of Tesla, which dominated about 90% of the market. BMW, Nissan, Volkswagen and Renault also sell electric cars in the city.

    “The sale of Tesla cars in one month was equal to the annual sales figure of some petrol car brands,” the source said. “They all complained that the rapid growth of Tesla these few years had made their lives really difficult.”

    Tara Joseph, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, said the chamber was “puzzled” by the city’s policy change, reminding the government that green technology firms like Tesla require “policy transparency” to operate efficiently.

    “Chief Executive Carrie Lam has said she wants to attract leading global tech firms to Hong Kong, but green technology companies, like all companies, require policy transparency and assurance,” she said.

    Musk caught a break back in November when Norway – a crucial market for Tesla – announced it had abandoned plans to impose the so-called “Tesla tax” which would’ve tacked on a more than $100,000 levy to sales of electric vehicles weighing over 2 tons – a group that would pretty much only include Tesla.

    Circling back to Hong Kong, a spokesperson for the city’s government told the SCMP that in deciding on tax ­concessions for EVs last year, the government had considered the narrowing price difference ­between electric cars and fuel engine models, and “its public transport-oriented policy”.

    Electric car owners, as well as getting a tax break, “also enjoy lower annual car licence fees and fuel costs”, the spokesman said.

    is ­prepared to reduce its Hong Kong operations if the government fails to give residents incentives to buy battery-powered cars in its ­upcoming budget.

    Electric cars cost between HK$270,000 ($34,500) and HK$1.1 million ($140,646) before tax. A progressive tax is ­applied on motor vehicle registration, starting at 40% of the first HK$150,000 ($20,000) of the vehicle’s taxable value.

    This is only the latest setback for Musk and Tesla, which have staggered from one embarrassment to the next over the past six months as production of Tesla’s Model 3 Sedan has progressed much more slowly than Musk had promised his customers, some of whom submitted preorder payments for the Model 3 nearly 2 years ago.

    We’ll see how this dropoff impacts Tesla’s earnings, which are due out Wednesday. Investors will be watching to see if the company’s trend of burning through increasingly obscene amounts of cash continued through the end of 2017.

    Tesla

     

  • 1000s Of Jobs In Ohio Are Left Unfilled Because People Can't "Pass A Drug Test"

    Authored by Tim Pearce via The Daily Caller,

    The manufacturing industry in Ohio is expanding under the Trump administration, but growth is stunted because many potential employees are also addicted to drugs.

    Steve Staub, who runs Staub Manufacturing Solutions in Ohio, attended the State of the Union address Tuesday as a special guest to President Donald Trump. While there, aside from participating in the pageantry, Staub discussed problems in the manufacturing industry and business in general with the president.

    Staub mentioned to Trump the toll the opioid crisis has had on business’ ability to fill jobs. About two million Americans nationwide are addicted to the drug. The crisis has been particularly hard on Staub’s home state of Ohio, were thousands of job applicants are turned away because of substance abuse.

    “In Ohio alone, they have about 20,000 available jobs in manufacturing. In Dayton, Ohio, where I’m from, we have about 4,000 jobs available today in manufacturing that we can’t fill,” Staub told TheDCNF.

    “We can’t get people to pass a drug test.”

    Other area’s on Staub’s list of concerns are taxes, regulations, health care, and infrastructure.

    The Trump administration has made significant, direct strides in two of those areas. At the end of 2017, Trump signed into law the GOP tax plan and unleashed a torrent of investment in the form of raised wages and bonuses. The Trump administration has also reversed the expansion of the regulatory state, which increases the costs of doing business.

    Republicans punted on health care, however, as they could not build the support needed to reform or repeal the Affordable Care Act, known widely as Obamacare.

    The fate of Trump’s infrastructure plan remains to be seen. Trump championed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment plan during his address to Congress last week.

    “Together, we can reclaim our building heritage,” Trump said. “We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, and waterways all across our land. And we will do it with American heart, American hands, and American grit.”

    More than anything, Staub believes the Trump administration has had the greatest impact on the “overall optimism” of the manufacturing industry and business in general as companies adopt plans for growth and expansion. The National Association of Manufacturers, in their Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey taken every quarter for two decades, found optimism to be at an all-time high in the last quarter of 2017.

    Along with the financial boost from the GOP tax plan, companies began implementing their strategies  for growth almost immediately.

    “We’ve gave a much larger Christmas bonus than we were going to when [tax reform] passed,” Staub told TheDCNF of his own company.

    “We are giving raises to everybody, and we went ahead and expanded and bought the building next door to us that was for sale as part of our future growth.”

    Still, it appears achieving the optimistic goals comes back to hiring the right people and that seems to be tough to find in America today.. not because of “wrong skills” but because everyone’s loaded… all the time.

    Emergence of a crisis

    1861-1865 – During the Civil War, medics use morphine as a battlefield anesthetic. Many soldiers become dependent on morphine after the war.

    1898 – Heroin is first produced commercially by the Bayer Company. At the time, heroin is believed to be less habit-forming than morphine, so it is dispensed to individuals who are addicted to morphine.

    1914 – Congress passes the Harrison Narcotics Act, which requires that doctors write prescriptions for narcotic drugs like opioids and cocaine. Importers, manufacturers and distributors of narcotics must register with the Treasury Department and pay taxes on product.

    1924 – The Anti-Heroin Act bans the production and sale of heroin in the United States.

    1970 – The Controlled Substances Act becomes law. It creates groupings (or schedules) of drugs based on the potential for abuse. Heroin is a Schedule I drug while morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone (Percocet, OxyContin) and methadone are Schedule II. Vicodin – a hydrocodone-acetaminophen combination – was originally a Schedule III medication but wasn’t recategorized as a Schedule II drug until October 2014.

    January 10, 1980 – A letter titled “Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics” is published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was not a study and looked at incidences of addiction in a very specific population of hospitalized patients who were closely monitored. However, it would become widely cited as proof that narcotics were a safe treatment for chronic pain.

    1995 – OxyContin, a long acting version of oxycodone, which slowly releases the drug over 12 hours, is introduced and aggressively marketed as a safer pain pill by manufacturer, Purdue Pharma.

    May 10, 2007 – The federal government brings criminal charges against Purdue Pharma for misleadingly advertising OxyContin as safer and less addictive than other opioids. The company and three executives are charged with “misleading and defrauding physicians and consumers.”Purdue Pharma and the executives plead guilty, agreeing to pay a $634.5 million in criminal and civil fines. The three executives plead guilty on criminal misdemeanor charges and are later sentenced to probation.

    2010 – FDA approves an “abuse-deterrant” formulation of OxyContin, to help curb abuse. However, people still find ways to abuse it.

    May 20, 2015 – The DEA announces that it has arrested 280 people, including 22 doctors and pharmacists, after a 15-month sting operation centered on health care providers who dispense large amounts of opioids. The sting, dubbed Operation Pilluted, is the largest prescription drug bust in the history of the DEA.

    March 18, 2016 – The CDC publishes guidelines for prescribing opioids for patients with chronic pain. Recommendations include prescribing over-the-counter pain relievers like acetaminophen and ibuprofen in lieu of opioids. Doctors are encouraged to promote exercise and behavioral treatments to help patients cope with pain.

    March 29, 2017 – President Donald Trump signs an executive order calling for the establishment of the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is selected as the chairman of the group, with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as an adviser.

    July 31, 2017 – After a delay, the White House panel examining the nation’s opioid epidemic releases its interim report, asking President Trump to declare a national public health emergency to combat the ongoing crisis.

    August 8, 2017 – Trump holds a press briefing on opioids at his New Jersey golf club and says that a stronger law enforcement response is needed to combat the crisis. He stops short of declaring a national public health emergency.

    August 10, 2017 – The White House issues a press release stating that Trump is directing his “administration to use all appropriate authority to respond to the opioid emergency.” The administration does not, however, make a formal declaration of a national public health emergency, which would free up resources and funding to help opioid addicts and jumpstart prevention programs.

    September 22, 2017 – The pharmacy chain CVS announces that it will implement new restrictions on filling prescriptions for opioids, dispensing a limited seven-day supply to patients who are new to pain therapy.

    October 26, 2017 – President Trump declares a national public health emergency to combat the opioid crisis, telling an audience in the East Room of the White House that “we can be the generation that ends the opioid epidemic.”

     

  • Dow Futures -600Pts, Hong Kong Down 6%, Bitcoin Tests $6000

    Update 1100ET: As Asia resumes trading after the lunch break, things have gone from worst to worst-er.

    Dow Futures are down 600 points from the close…

    The Dow is now down 3600 points from its highs – Dow 22,687 is the next target to the downside (200DMA)

    With Nasdaq and S&P following…

    Asian equities are a bloodbath with Hang Seng China down 6.1% – its biggest drop since 2011…

    And Bitcoin’s bounce into the US equity close has evaporated…

    And may have further to fall…

    Rate-hike expectations are plummeting…

    Time for a rate-cut?

    *  *  *

    Playing catch-up, or worse, appears to be the opening scenario for Asian equities which are down from around 2% (Malaysia) to 5% (Japan) but perhaps more importantly, Treasury yields continue to tumble.

    US Equity futures are continuing to tumble in overnight trading – all entering the 10% technical correction…

    On the bright side, Japanese stocks are not down as much as Nikkei futures were in the US session…

     

    But the loss of faith in Fed rate hikes continues as 2Y yields tumble back below 2.00%…

     

    Asian FX is also extending its drop against the dollar…

    And while the dollar is stronger, gold is also bid…

  • FBI Warns Facebook Users Not To Share Viral VIdeo

    The FBI and local law enforcement officials across the country are warning Facebook users not to share a disturbing video that’s been making the rounds over the past week. The video depicts an adult sexually abusing a child, and is legally considered child pornography – which is illegal both to watch and to share.

    Strangely, people are sharing the video online purport to have good intentions: The video has been widely shared as part of an online crusade to hold the adult in the film accountable.

    But law enforcement officials are reminding them that – no matter their intentions – this behavior is still a crime.

    Facebook’s communications department has also issued a warning of its own.

    “The sharing of child exploitative images – regardless of intention – is harmful and illegal,” Facebook’s media team said in a statement.

    We have turned off KSAT-12’s ability to receive messages on Facebook due to the viral spread of the video and have instructed our news team to do the same with their own fan pages.

    Law enforcement officials across the country are reaching out to their local media stations to get the word out.

    “If you saved it, if you posted it to your page, if you sent it to someone else,” Tim Gann, Madison County Chief Trial Attorney explained told a local TV station. “you’re disseminating child porn and that’s a felony. If you are in possession of it, no matter your good intentions, that is also a felony. So, in this case, it’s very disturbing that people feel like it’s ok to post something awful happening to a child on social media.”

    In New York State, the Polk County Sheriff’s Office says people have been flooding their inboxes for weeks now with a video they say is too disturbing to even describe.

    “PLEASE DO NOT SHARE those images or video,” said the Polk County Sheriff’s Office said in a message posted to their Facebook page. “Images and video depicting the sexual abuse of a child are pornography. Sharing them, even if your intent is to help, is a crime and continues to victimize the child.”

    As Gann explains, every time the video is shared, the child depicted in it is victimized again.

     

    Polk

    But above all, law enforcement officials have been stunned by the video’s spread.

    “We can not have child pornography going viral,” said Jay Town, the US attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

    Unfortunately, it appears to be too late for that.

     

  • Trump, Davos, And Free Trade

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    After Trump announced the steep 30% U.S. tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines, the Chinese Commerce Ministry expressed “strong dissatisfaction” and said it “aggravates the global trade environment.”

    Trump is not done with tariffs. In the days and weeks ahead, we can expect further announcements with regard to steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. Again, such imports come largely from China, but the tariffs will likely affect all exporters to the U.S.

    Ironically these announcements came just as President Trump was preparing to go to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum.

    The Davos elites vehemently oppose both trade and capital controls, preferring instead a globalist “one-world” approach. The only problem with the Davos elite theory is that it is empirically, historically and analytically wrong.

    The theory of free trade is based on an idea called “comparative advantage.” This idea goes back to David Ricardo, an early 19th century British economist. Ricardo’s theory was that countries should not try to be self-sufficient in all manufacturing, mining and agriculture.

    Instead countries should specialize in what they do best, and let others also specialize in what they do best. Then countries could simply trade the goods they make for the goods made by others. All sides would be better off because prices would be lower as a result of specialization in those goods where you have a natural advantage.

    It’s a nice theory often summed up in the idea that Tom Brady should not mow his own lawn because it makes more sense to pay a landscaper while he practices football.

    But, the theory is flawed. For one thing, comparative advantage is not static. It changes over time. Importantly comparative advantage can be created from thin air. Taiwan had no comparative advantage in semiconductors in the 1980s, but the government made a political decision to create the state-sponsored Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

    Today Taiwan Semiconductor is the largest supplier of semiconductors in the world. The government nurtured Taiwan Semiconductor with tariffs and subsidies when it was most vulnerable to foreign competition. Today Taiwan Semiconductor is a publicly traded company that competes effectively around the world, but it would never have attained that status without government help in its early days.

    If the theory of comparative advantage were true, Japan would still be exporting tuna fish instead of cars, computers, TVs, steel and much more.

    The same can be said of the globalists’ view that capital should flow freely across borders. That might be advantageous in theory but market manipulation by central banks and rouge actors like Goldman Sachs and big hedge funds make it a treacherous proposition.

    In the depths of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir closed Malaysia’s capital account to preserve hard currency and defend his exchange rate. Mahathir was excoriated at the time by the likes of George Soros. Soros went so far as to call Mahathir a “menace to his country.”

    But scholars today agree that Mahathir made the right move. In recent years, even the IMF has said there are certain circumstances where capital controls are fully justified.

    If open trade, and open capital flows are flawed ideas, why do the Davos elite support them?

    The answer is that these theories, which have superficial appeal to everyday citizens, are the perfect smokescreen for the elites’ hidden agenda. That agenda is to diminish the power of the United States, and the U.S. dollar, in world affairs and to enhance the power of rising nations especially China.

    If several hundred million Chinese can be pulled from poverty by leaving the U.S. market open while China subsidies its companies, imposes its own tariffs, steals intellectual property, and limits U.S. foreign direct investment, then that’s fine. If U.S. workers lose their jobs in the process, that’s fine too. The elites don’t care about the U.S.; they only care about their “one world” vision.

    Trump is calling their bluff. When Trump says “America First” he means it. So does Trump’s top trade advisor Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer is a veteran of the Reagan administration who forced the Japanese to move their auto plants to the U.S. in the 1980s by imposing steep tariffs on Japanese imported cars.

    Thousands of high-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs were created as a result. Lighthizer plans to run the same playbook against the Chinese today.

    Lighthizer is part of a hawkish “Trade Troika” consisting of himself, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, Jr. and White House trade advisor Peter Navarro. All three are urging President Trump to impose a set of tariffs on China involving not only washing machines and solar panels, but steel, aluminum, and theft of intellectual property.

    Opposing the Trade Troika are trade doves including National Economic Advisor Gary Cohn, Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the CEOs of major global corporations such as Boeing, Apple and General Motors that all derive large profits from Chinese operations.

    The hawks and doves fought each other to a standstill in 2017 because of wishful thinking about Chinese help on North Korea and the importance of a united front to pass the tax bill. With hopes for China now dispelled and the tax bill passed into law, the trade agenda is front and center.

    This is not a “kick-the-can-down-the-road” situation. Trump is confronting hard deadlines on key decisions.

    America has always prospered with high tariffs to protect its industries. From Alexander Hamilton’s plan for infant manufacturing to Henry Clay’s American Plan, the U.S. has always known how to protect its industries and create American jobs. Trump is returning to that tradition.

    The problem is that this will not be a smooth ride. It will take years for U.S. solar panel manufacturers to get back on their feet. (One of the largest U.S. firms filed for bankruptcy protection last year, but it continues to operate in reorganization under court supervision.)

    A full-scale trade war will hurt world growth even as it helps U.S. growth. Given the trillions in dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets, a full-scale foreign sovereign debt crisis could be in the making if those emerging markets countries cannot earn dollars from exports to pay their debts.

    Trump did not impose these tariffs in 2017 because he needed Chinese help with the North Korean situation. But, China did not do all it could in North Korea, and there is good evidence that China is helping North Korea cheat on existing sanctions.

    As if to rub salt in the wound, China reported today that its 2017 trade surplus with the U.S. was $275 billion, the highest ever.

    Once China’s lack of cooperation on North Korea became clear, Trump saw no harm in confronting China on trade, something he’s been talking about since the summer of 2015 during the early days of his campaign.

    The Chinese may choose to retaliate not so much with their own tariffs, but with other forms of financial warfare including its threats to persify its reserves away from U.S. Treasuries.

    As China buys fewer U.S. Treasuries, the most likely substitute asset class is gold. This is one more reason to expect that the recent weak dollar and strong gold trends to continue for the remainder of this year and beyond.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 5th February 2018

  • Israel And Egypt Form Secret Alliance To Wipe Out Egyptian Jihadists

    Israel has been conducting bombing raids on jihadists within Egypt’s borders since at least late 2015 as part of a secret two-year alliance. For more than two years, unmarked Israeli drones, helicopters and jets have carried out a covert air campaign, conducting more than 100 airstrikes inside Egypt, frequently more than once a week — and all with the approval of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the NYT reported on Sunday.

    Once enemies in three wars, and having struggled to reach peace agreements for decades, Egypt and Israel are now (not so) secret allies against a common foe.

    a
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at a conference in December (Getty)

    In late 2015, jihadists in Egypt’s Northern Sinai moved in, killing hundreds of soldiers and police officers and briefly seizing a major town – setting up armed checkpoints as they established control over the area. On October 31, 2015, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s Sinai branch, formerly known as Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, brought down a Russian passenger flight with an explosive device – killing all 224 people aboard.

    a
    Russian passenger jet downed by Egyptian jihadists 

    With Egypt seemingly unable to stop the jihadists, Israel – alarmed by the threat just over the border, began taking action – sending a barrage of airstrikes into the neighboring Arab country whose officials and media continued to vilify the Jewish state in public. 

    In order to conceal their involvement, Israel’s drones, jets and helicopters have covered up their markings. “Some fly circuitous routes to create the impression that they are based in the Egyptian mainland,” according to American officials briefed on the operations.

    a

    It is unclear whether any Israeli troops have actually set foot inside Egyptian borders.

    Despite efforts by both Israel and Egypt to hide the origin of the strikes and censor public reports, Egypt and Israel’s two-year alliance has become somewhat of an open secret in intelligence circles: 

    Inside the American government, the strikes are widely known enough that diplomats and intelligence officials have discussed them in closed briefings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers in open committee hearings have alluded approvingly to the surprisingly close Egyptian and Israeli cooperation in the North Sinai.

    In a telephone interview, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declined to discuss specifics of Israel’s military actions in Egypt, but said Israel was not acting “out of goodness to a neighbor.”

    “Israel does not want the bad stuff that is happening in the Egyptian Sinai to get into Israel,” he said, adding that the Egyptian effort to hide Israel’s role from its citizens “is not a new phenomenon.” –NYT

    Moreover, despite Israeli military censors preventing reports of the strikes from becoming public, certain news outlets circumvented the censorship by citing a 2016 Bloomberg report in which a former Israeli official admitted to drone strikes inside of Egypt. 

    The two-year alliance between the two countries is thought to have begun after Egypt’s relatively new president Mohamed Morsi – a leader within the Muslim Brotherhood who came to power after the Arab Spring revolt, was outed in a military takeover by el-Sisi – then defense minister. 

    Israel welcomed the change in government, urging Washington to accept it. 

    And Egypt needed the help; following Mr. Sisi’s takeover, Islamist militants who had established a refuge in the North Sinai region between the Suez Canal and the Israeli border began a wave of deadly assaults against Egyptian security forces. 

    A few weeks after Mr. Sisi took power, in August 2013, two mysterious explosions killed five suspected militants in a district of the North Sinai not far from the Israeli border. The Associated Press reported that unnamed Egyptian officials had said Israeli drones fired missiles that killed the militants, possibly because of Egyptian warnings of a planned cross-border attack on an Israeli airport. (Israel had closed the airport the previous day.)

    At the time, both Israel and Egypt vehemently denied the reports – however after the Russian charter jet was brought down in October of 2015, Israel began its wave of airstrikes, killing a long list of militant leaders according to an American official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss classified operations. 

    After Israel wiped out much of the jihadist leadership in the region, less ambitious successors stepped in. No longer employing armed checkpoints, closing roads or claiming territory – the group began targeting “softer” targets like Christians in Sinai and Muslims they considered heretics. As an example, the militant group killed over 300 worshippers at a Sufi Mosque in North Sinai. 

    a
    Sufi Mosque in North Sinai, 311 worshippers killed by militants in Nov. 2017

    Since Israel has effectively been keeping jihadists at bay in a mutually beneficial arrangement, some American supporters of Israel have been complaining that given Egypt’s reliance on the Israeli military, “Egyptian officials, diplomats and state-controlled news media should stop publicly denouncing the Jewish state.” 

    “You speak with Sisi and he talks about security cooperation with Israel, and you speak with Israelis and they talk about security cooperation with Egypt, but then this duplicitous game continues,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee. “It is confusing to me.”

    Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has also pointedly reminded American diplomats of the Israeli military role in Sinai. In February 2016, for example, Secretary of State John Kerry convened a secret summit in Aqaba, Jordan, with Mr. Sisi, King Abdullah of Jordan and Mr. Netanyahu, according to three American officials involved in the talks or briefed about them.

    Mr. Kerry proposed a regional agreement in which Egypt and Jordan would guarantee Israel’s security as part of a deal for a Palestinian state. –NYT

    Netanyahu scoffed at the idea – arguing that if Egypt was unable to control the ground within its own borders, it was hardly in a position to guarantee Israel’s safety. 

  • The Grand Crowded Trade Of Financial Speculation

    Excerpted from Doug Noland’s Credit Bubble Bulletin,

    Even well into 2017, variations of the “secular stagnation” thesis remained popular within the economics community. Accelerating synchronized global growth notwithstanding, there’s been this enduring notion that economies are burdened by “insufficient aggregate demand.” The “natural rate” (R-Star) has sunk to a historical low. Conviction in the central bank community has held firm – as years have passed – that the only remedy for this backdrop is extraordinarily low rates and aggressive “money” printing. Over-liquefied financial markets have enjoyed quite a prolonged celebration.

    Going back to early CBBs, I’ve found it useful to caricature the analysis into two distinctly separate systems, the “Real Economy Sphere” and the “Financial Sphere.” It’s been my long-held view that financial and monetary policy innovations fueled momentous “Financial Sphere” inflation. This financial Bubble has created increasingly systemic maladjustment and structural impairment within both the Real Economy and Financial Spheres. I believe finance today is fundamentally unstable, though the associated acute fragility remains suppressed so long as securities prices are inflating.

    [ZH: This week’s sudden burst of volatility across all asset-classes highlights this Minskian fragility]

    The mortgage finance Bubble period engendered major U.S. structural economic impairment. This became immediately apparent with the collapse of the Bubble. As was the case with previous burst Bubble episodes, the solution to systemic problems was only cheaper “money” in only great quantities. Moreover, it had become a global phenomenon that demanded a coordinated central bank response.

    Where has all this led us? Global “Financial Sphere” inflation has been nothing short of spectacular. QE has added an astounding $14 TN to central bank balance sheets globally since the crisis. The Chinese banking system has inflated to an almost unbelievable $38 TN, surging from about $6.0 TN back in 2007. In the U.S., the value of total securities-to-GDP now easily exceeds previous Bubble peaks (1999 and 2007). And since 2008, U.S. non-financial debt has inflated from $35 TN to $49 TN. It has been referred to as a “beautiful deleveraging.” It may at this time appear an exquisite monetary inflation, but it’s no deleveraging. We’ll see how long this beauty endures.

    The end result has been way too much “money” slushing around global securities and asset markets – “hot money” of epic proportions. This has led to unprecedented price distortions across asset classes – unparalleled global Bubbles in sovereign debt, corporate Credit, equities and real estate – deeply systemic Bubbles in both (so-called) “risk free” and risk markets. And so long as securities prices are heading higher, it’s all widely perceived as a virtually sublime market environment. Yet this could not be further detached from the reality of a dysfunctional “Financial Sphere” of acutely speculative markets fueling precarious Bubbles – all dependent upon unyielding aggressive monetary stimulus.

    I have posited that aggressive tax cuts at this late stage of the cycle come replete with unappreciated risks. Global central bankers for far too long stuck with reckless stimulus measures. A powerful inflationary/speculative bias has enveloped asset markets globally. Meanwhile, various inflationary manifestations have taken hold in the global economy, largely masked by relatively contained consumer price aggregates. Meanwhile, global financial markets turned euphoric and speculative blow-off dynamics took hold. A confluence of developments has created extraordinary financial, market, economic, political and geopolitical uncertainties – held at bay by history’s greatest Bubble.

    Bloomberg: “U.S. Average Hourly Earnings Rose 2.9% Y/Y, Most Since 2009.” Average hourly earnings gains have been slowly trending higher for the past several years. Wage gains have now attained decent momentum, which creates uncertainty as to how the tax cuts and associated booming markets will impact compensation gains going forward.

    February 2 – Bloomberg (Rich Miller): “As Jerome Powell prepares to take over as chairman of the Federal Reserve on Feb. 5, some of his colleagues are publicly agitating for a radical rethink of the central bank’s playbook for guiding monetary policy. Behind the push for reconsideration of the Fed’s 2% inflation target: a fear of running out of monetary ammunition in the next recession. With interest rates near historically low levels—and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future—these officials worry the Fed will have little leeway to aid the economy when a downturn inevitably hits. They argue that revamping the inflation objective beforehand could help counteract that. ‘The most important issue on the table right now is that we need to consider the possibility of a new economic normal that forces us to reevaluate our targets,’ Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Patrick Harker said in a Jan. 5 speech.”

    “Is the Fed’s Inflation Target Kaput?”, was the headline from the above Bloomberg article. There is a contingent in the FOMC that would welcome an inflation overshoot above target, believing this would place the Fed in a better position to confront the next downturn. With yields now surging, these inflation doves could be a growing bond market concern.

    Interestingly, markets were said to have come under pressure Friday on hawkish headlines from neutral/dovish Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan: “If We Wait to See Actual Inflation, We’ll Be Too Late; We’ll Likely Overshoot Full Employment This Year; We Central Bankers Must Be Very Vigilant; Base Case Is For 3 Rate Hikes in 2018, Could Be More.”

    [ZH: something changed this week]

    Are Kaplan’s comments to be interpreted bullish or bearish for the struggling bond market? Are bonds under pressure because of heightened concerns for future inflation – or is it instead more because of a fear of tighter monetary policy? Confused by the spike in yields back in 1994, the Fed questioned whether the bond market preferred a slow approach with rate hikes or, instead, more aggressive tightening measures that would keep a lid on inflation.

    Just as a carefree Janet Yellen packs her bookcase for the Brookings Institute, the Powell Fed’s job has suddenly morphed from easy to challenging. With tax cut stimulus in the pipeline and signs of a backdrop supportive to higher inflation, a growing contingent within the FOMC may view more aggressive tightening measures as necessary support for an increasingly skittish bond market. At the minimum, the backdrop might have central bankers thinking twice before coming hastily to rescue vulnerable stock markets.

    The marketplace has begun to ponder risk again.

    February 1 – Bloomberg (Sarah Ponczek and Lu Wang): “Coordinated selling in stocks and bonds is making life miserable for investors in one of the most popular asset allocation strategies: those lumped together under the rubric of 60/40 mutual funds. Counter to their owners’ hope, that pain in one will be assuaged by the other, this week has seen both fixed-income and equities tumbling as concern has built about the pace of Federal Reserve interest rate increases. Funds that blend assets have borne the brunt, suffering their worst weekly performance since Feb 2009.

    Stock prices have been going up for a long time – and seemingly straight up for a while now. Bonds, well, they’ve been in a 30-year bull market. Myriad strategies melding stocks and fixed-income have done exceptionally well. And so long as bonds rally when stocks suffer their occasional (mild and temporary) pullbacks, one could cling to the view that diversified stock/bond holdings were a low risk portfolio strategy (even at inflated prices for both). And for some time now, leveraging a portfolio of stocks and bonds has been pure genius. The above Bloomberg story ran Thursday. By Friday’s close, scores of perceived low-risk strategies were probably questioning underlying premises. A day that saw heavy losses in equities, along with losses in Treasuries, corporate Credit and commodities, must have been particularly rough for leveraged “risk parity” strategies.

    It’s worth noting that the U.S. dollar caught a bid in Friday’s “Risk Off” market dynamic. Just when the speculator Crowd was comfortably positioned for dollar weakness (in currencies, commodities and elsewhere), the trade abruptly reverses. It’s my view that heightened currency market volatility and uncertainty had begun to impact the general risk-taking and liquidity backdrop. And this week we see the VIX surge to 17.31, the high since the election.

    The cost of market risk protection just jumped meaningfully. Past spikes in market volatility were rather brief affairs – mere opportunities to sell volatility (derivatives/options) for fun and hefty profit. I believe markets have now entered a period of heightened volatility. To go along with currency market volatility, there’s now significant bond market and policy uncertainty. The premise that Treasuries – and, only to a somewhat lesser extent, corporate Credit – will rally reliably on equity market weakness is now suspect. Indeed, faith that central bankers are right there to backstop the risk markets at the first indication of trouble may even be in some doubt with bond yields rising on inflation concerns. When push comes to shove, central bankers will foremost champion bond markets.

    While attention was fixed on U.S. bond yields and equities, it’s worth noting developments with another 2018 Theme:

    February 2 – Wall Street Journal (Shen Hong): “Chinese stocks had their worst week since 2016, with fresh concerns about Beijing’s campaign to cut financial risk and predictions of a slowing economy helping erase half of the market’s year-to-date gains in just a few days… Mr. Zhang [chief executive of CYAMLAN Investment] said the increasingly frequent market intervention by the ‘national team’ to prop up the major indexes could prove counterproductive. ‘It’s OK to bring in the national team when there’s a huge crisis but if it’s there everyday, it will create even more jitters,’ Mr. Zhang said. ‘If you see policemen everywhere, don’t you feel less safe?’”

    The Shanghai Composite dropped 2.7% this week. Losses would have been headline-making if not for a 2.1% rally off of Friday morning lows.

     

    The Shenzhen Exchange A index sank 6.6% this week, and China’s growth stock ChiNext Index was hit 6.3%. The small cap CSI 500 index fell 5.9%, and that was despite a 2.1% rally off Friday’s lows (attributed to “national team” buying). Financial stress has been quietly gaining momentum in China, with HNA and small bank liquidity issues the most prominent. As global liquidity tightens, I would expect Chinese Credit issues to be added to a suddenly lengthening list of global concerns.

    Unless risk markets can quickly regain upside momentum, I expect “Risk Off” dynamics to gather force. “Risk On” melt-up dynamics were surely fueled by myriad sources of speculative leverage, including derivative strategies (i.e. in-the-money call options). As confirmed this week, euphoric speculative blow-offs are prone to abrupt reversals. Derivative players that were aggressively buying S&P futures to dynamically hedge derivative exposures one day can turn aggressive sellers just a session or two later. And in the event of an unanticipated bout of self-reinforcing de-risking/de-leveraging, it might not take long for the most abundant market liquidity backdrop imaginable to morph into an inhospitable liquidity quandary.

    February 1 – Bloomberg (Sarah Ponczek): “When stocks fall, investors typically pull money out of the market. But when U.S. equities suffered their worst two-day slump since May, some traders didn’t blink an eye. Exchange-traded funds took in $78.5 billion in January, exceeding the previous monthly record by nearly 30%. ETFs saw close to $4 billion a day in inflows even on the stock market’s down days, according to Eric Balchunas, a Bloomberg Intelligence senior ETF analyst…”

    Adding January’s $79 billion ETF inflow to 2017’s record $476 billion puts the 13-month total easily over half a Trillion. If the ETF Complex is hit by significant outflows, it’s not clear who will take the other side of the trade. This is especially the case if the hedge funds move to hedge market risk and reduce net long exposures. And let there be no doubt, the leveraged speculators will be following ETF flows like hawks (“predators”).

     

    And I’m having difficulty clearing some earlier (Bloomberg) interview comments from my mind:

    January 24 – Bloomberg (Nishant Kumar and Erik Schatzker): “Billionaire hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio said that the bond market has slipped into a bear phase and warned that a rise in yields could spark the biggest crisis for fixed-income investors in almost 40 years. ‘A 1% rise in bond yields will produce the largest bear market in bonds that we have seen since 1980 to 1981,’ Bridgewater Associates founder Dalio said… in Davos…”

    Dalio: “’There is a lot of cash on the sidelines’. … We’re going to be inundated with cash, he said. “If you’re holding cash, you’re going to feel pretty stupid.’”

    Here I am, as usual, plugging away late into Friday night. So, who am I to take exception to insight from a billionaire hedge fund genius. But to discuss the possibility of the worst bond bear market since 1981 – and then suggest those holding cash “are going to feel pretty stupid”? Seems to be a disconnect there somewhere. Going forward, I expect stupid cash to outperform scores of brilliant strategies.

    The historic “Financial Sphere” Bubble has ensured that ungodly amounts of “money” and leverage have accumulated in The Grand Crowded Trade of Financial Speculation.

    And as we detailed earlier – it doesn’t get any more crowded that record long equities and record short bonds!

  • Who Let Dr. Strangelove Write The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review?

    Authored by Julia Conley via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The Pentagon’s official outline for its use of nuclear force was denounced as “radical” and “extreme” by prominent anti-nuclear weapons groups when it was released Friday afternoon—confirming peace advocates’ worst fears that the Trump administration would seek to expand the use of nuclear force.

    “Who in their right mind thinks we should expand the list of scenarios in which we might launch nuclear weapons?” asked Peace Action in a statement. 

    “Who let Dr. Strangelove write the Nuclear Posture Review?”

     

    The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for the development of smaller warheads that the military believes would be seen as more “usable” against other nations.

    “In support of a strong and credible nuclear deterrent, the United States must…maintain a nuclear force with a diverse, flexible range of nuclear yield and delivery modes that are ready, capable, and credible,” reads the report, which serves as the first updated document the U.S. has released regarding its perceived nuclear threats since 2010.

    In addition to “diversifying” its nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon notes that it will seek to “expand the range of credible U.S. options for responding to nuclear or non-nuclear strategic attack,” raising concerns that President Donald Trump will argue for the use of nuclear force as a deterrent—a significant departure from previous administrations which saw nuclear weapons as an option only for retaliation.

    “The risk of use for nuclear weapons has always been unacceptably high,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

    “The new Trump Nuclear Doctrine is to deliberately increase that risk. It is an all-out attempt to take nuclear weapons out of the silos and onto the battlefield. This policy is a shift from one where the use of nuclear weapons is possible to one where the use of nuclear weapons is likely.”

    Derek Johnson, head of Global Zero, called the NPR “a radical plan written by extreme elements and nuclear ideologues in Trump’s inner circle who believe nuclear weapons are a wonder drug that can solve our national security challenges.”

    “Trump’s insistence that we need more and better weapons is already spurring countries to follow in his footsteps,” he added. “Nuclear arms-racing is a steep and slippery slope; we’d do well to learn the lessons of the former Soviet Union, whose collapse was accelerated by its unsustainable nuclear ambitions.”

    As Paul Craig Roberts summed up so eloquently, the new US nuclear posture is a reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing departure from the previous attitude toward nuclear weapons. The use of even a small part of the existing arsenal of the United States would be sufficient to destroy life on earth. Yet, the posture review calls for more weapons, speaks of nuclear weapons as “usable,” and justifies their use in First Strikes even against countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

    This is an insane escalation. It tells every country that the US government believes in the first use of nuclear weapons against any and every country. Nuclear powers such as Russia and China must see this to be a massive increase in the threat level from the United States. Those responsible for this document should be committed to insane aslyums, not left in policy positions where they can put it into action.

  • Watch As Drone 'Dive-Bombs' US Passenger Jet Landing In Vegas Airport

    Drone racing is a high-tech sport sweeping across the United States. Millennials are rushing to become the next drone pilot building these fast and agile multi-rotor crafts in their parents’ basements.

    All of these drones are controlled through FPV (First Person View) systems. FPV is a type of flying system where pilots use cameras to fly drones as if they were sitting in the cockpit. Some pilots fly using FPV monitors, whereas others use specialized goggles to give them a more immersive experience.

    According to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Michael Huerta said back in March 2017 that more than 777,000 drone registrations have been filed with the agency.

    With that being said, the Federal Aviation Administration has created a list of rules called the Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107), which outlines what not to do while piloting a drone in U.S. airspace.

    Granted, in the latest installment of absolute foolishness, the Federal Aviation Administration is investigating an incident in which someone piloted a racing drone feet from a jetliner on approach to land at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas.

    Ian Gregor, public affairs for the FAA Western-Pacific Region said, “We became aware of this incident this afternoon and we are investigating.”

    A person who goes by the name, ‘James Jayo Older’ posted the video online to a Facebook group called “1% FPV.” In the post, he said, “Found the SD card.. 1%ers only.” The video shows the racing drone hovering in the flight path and then dive bombing the jetliner in a swoop maneuver.

    By using landmarks in the video, the incident occurred approximately 3.14 miles away from McCarran International Airport, which could be a violation of FAA rules if the operator failed to the call air traffic control tower.

    Nevertheless, dive bombing a jetliner is an unsafe practice, and the operator “could face fines from of up to $1,437 per violation, while businesses that fly unsafely can face fines of up to $32,666 per violation.,” said Las Vegas Now.

    To make matters worse, the operator could also “face federal criminal penalties including fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years,” added Las Vegas Now.

    Drone organizations have already condemned the incident.

    “This pilot’s actions not only endangered the flying public but has the potential to discredit an entire sUAS industry,” Drone U said. “It is the opinion of Drone U and its members that the pilot receives swift and just punishment for this example of irresponsible and reckless flight. There is no excuse for this type of criminal behavior.”

    “All drone and model aircraft pilots must stay well clear of manned aircraft. We condemn the type of operation depicted in this video,” said Chad Budreau, director of government affairs for the Academy of Model Aeronautics, in a statement.

    “Anyone who violates aviation regulations or endangers public safety must be held accountable for their actions. We urge the FAA to take strong enforcement action against this drone pilot, and against any future violators,” he added.

  • Korybko: The US Deep State And The Democrats Are The Problem, Not The Solution

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The latest policy recommendations by the influential Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), one of the most well-respected and listened-to experts in Russia – to say nothing of the entire former Soviet space – is causing quite a stir by waxing nostalgically about the Obama years and even suggesting that Moscow should embrace the American “deep state”.

    Mr. Kortunov’s Case For Russia’s “Deep State”-Democrat Partnership

    Mr. Andrey Kortunov is one of the most brilliant minds in Russia and earned his place as the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), and his words accordingly carry much weight for the fact that they set the tone for countless other analysts in the country and even an untold number of policymakers who look to him for guidance.

    That’s why it caused quite a stir when he published his latest recommendation earlier this week at the famous Valdai Club titled “Russian Approaches to the United States: Algorithm Change Is Overdue”, in which he waxed nostalgically about the Obama years and even suggested that Moscow should embrace the American “deep state”.

     

    Director of the Russian International Affairs Council Andrey Kortunov

    So as not to put words in his mouth, the relevant passages are republished in their entirety below:

    “First, it is better to avoid demonizing the Deep State, which is perceived by many in Moscow as the center of world evil and the stronghold of the pathological haters of Russia. Of course, most of the State Department or the CIA officials, the Congress staff, experts from the main think tanks are not Vladimir Putin’s fans. But these people, at least, have considerable experience of interaction with Moscow and can hardly be considered stubborn paranoids, exalted conspiracy theorists or genetic Russophobes. Deep State consists of rationally thinking professionals, who are always easier to deal with than romantic amateurs are. With all its shortcomings, it is the Deep State that limits Donald Trump’s most exotic and potentially most dangerous foreign policy oddities.

     Second, it’s time to change the attitude toward the Democratic Party leadership. For some reason (probably because of inertia) the Barack Obama administration is constantly remembered in Russia in the worst possible way, with the two latest presidents constantly juxtaposed. How is Obama bad, and Trump is good? The stubborn facts show otherwise. For example, Obama pursued a consistent policy of rapprochement with Iran, and Trump returned to the most severe pressure on Tehran. Obama followed the international consensus on the status of Jerusalem, and Trump destroyed this consensus. Obama did not resort to direct military action against Bashar Assad, and Trump did not hesitate to give an order to launch missiles against the Syrian Al- Shayrat airbase. Well, who after all created more problems for Russia — Democrats or Republicans?”

    Mr. Kortunov did indeed talk about other aspects of US-Russian relations, including the need for a bottom-up approach to improving his country’s soft power in America, but none of those proposals are controversial, at least not when compared to what he wrote about above.

    A diversity of respectful views in any discourse is symptomatic of a healthy democracy, and Russian society is no different in this respect, which is why the dialogue on this topic would be greatly enriched by presenting some counterpoints to Mr. Kortunov’s article.

    Deciphering The “Deep State”

    The first is that the US’ military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are experienced and rational like Mr. Kortunov describes them as, but that they nevertheless bear primary responsibility for the deterioration in US-Russian relations under both the Obama and Trump Presidencies because the bulk of these professional bureaucrats always retain their jobs between leadership transitions in the country.

    The President is supposed to determine the broad trajectory of their work in consultation with his closest advisors, some of whom are handpicked by him and approved by Congress to lead the relevant institutions of the “deep state” while others are more informal, but the rank-and-file members of the “deep state” are still largely more responsible for the execution of policy in practice than anyone else.

    Unprecedentedly, many of them oppose President Trump’s stated desire to improve relations with Russia and have worked to unconstitutionally offset his plans, and the pressure that they’ve put on him to this end explains why he’s undertaken decisively anti-Russian policies during his first year in office despite his campaign pledge to do the opposite.

    Seeing as how most of these “deep state” individuals naturally remained in the same positions that they had during the Obama Administration and would have probably still retained their jobs under Hillary’s Presidency, it’s inaccurate to attribute the deterioration of Russian-American ties to President Trump personally while overlooking the actions of the “deep state” that he’s still trying to reform to the best of his ability.

    The “deep state” is rational – too rational, it can be argued – because it embraces a Neo-Realist paradigm of International Relations that sometimes correlates with Trump’s own views on certain topics but other times contradicts them like in the case of Russia, and the internal power struggle between Trump and the “deep state” is what’s really to blame for the worsening of bilateral relations, not the “amateur” President’s “romanticism” like Mr. Kortunov insists.

    For these reasons, it can be argued that Mr. Kortunov’s belief that the “deep state” “can hardly be considered stubborn paranoids, exalted conspiracy theorists or genetic Russophobes” isn’t exactly accurate, since it’s indeed full of “stubborn paranoids” under the dual influence of the neoconservatives’ Neo-Realism and the Obama-Clinton worldview of “militant liberalism”.

    That said, the “conspiracy theories” that he references are just a “deep state” infowar distraction to deceive the voting masses while the assertion that such a thing as a “genetic Russophobe” exists wrongly implies that an individual’s political views are irreversibly predetermined by their DNA.

    To flip around Mr. Kortunov’s last comment on the matter, it’s more realistic to assert that “with all his shortcomings, it is Donald Trump that limits the Deep State’s most exotic and potentially most dangerous foreign policy oddities.”

    Debunking The Dreams Of Democrat Rule

    Relatedly, Mr. Kortunov’s views on the “deep state” clearly influence his attitude towards the Democrats and specifically the Obama Administration, which he thinks is unfairly “remembered in Russia in the worst possible way” because “the stubborn facts show otherwise” and apparently disprove the prevailing notion that “Obama (is) bad, and Trump is good.”

    Mr. Kortunov thinks that Obama had pure intentions in signing the nuclear agreement with Iran, though it can cynically be argued that his “deep state” was in fact trying to co-opt the Islamic Republic’s “moderate/reformist” ruling elite in a bid to tip the scales to their favor in the country’s own “deep state” competition for influence with the “conservative/principalist” military-security faction, the failure of which would explain why Trump was tasked with “returning to the most severe pressure on Tehran.”

    The enduring presence of most of the “deep state’s” personnel between presidential administrations doesn’t preclude the US from pivoting between policies but actually allows such moves to be more smoothly executed, as can be seen from the example of Nixon’s rapprochement with China in spite of Johnson’s antagonism towards it; Bush Sr. “betraying” Iraq even though Reagan aligned with it; Obama signing the nuclear deal against the former Bush Jr. Administration’s wishes; and Trump dismantling his predecessor’s plans.

    Although the President might set the tone for the overall direction that each respective policy should go in and this sometimes reverses what the previous administration did, it’s ultimately the “deep state” that puts these ideas into practice and is able to maintain a degree of strategic continuity that advances America’s national interests regardless, though the case of Trump’s vision for US-Russia relations also shows that this same “deep state” can also conspire to obstruct the President’s will.

    Another “stubborn fact” at variance with Mr. Kortunov’s nostalgia for Democrat rule is the practical significance of Obama “following the international consensus on the status of Jerusalem” and Trump “destroying” it since it inaccurately hints that the former was somehow ‘pro-Palestinian’ and that the latter’s announcement tangibly changed something on the ground, neither of which are true because Obama was actually very pro-Israel and Trump’s decision only stands to affect foreign aid recipients who voted against the US and the UN.

    Looking beyond Obama’s highly publicized personal rivalry with Netanyahu and his populist rhetoric on the Palestinian issue, nothing that he did during his two terms had any influence on Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and unilateral claim to the entirety of the city being its capital; likewise, Trump’s words didn’t change any of this reality either and only resulted in word games being played at the UN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, neither of which did anything other than attempt to comfort the Palestinians.

    As for Mr. Kortunov’s juxtaposition of Obama’s refusal to “resort to direct military action against Bashar Assad” with Trump “not hesitating to give an order to launch missiles against the Syrian Al- Shayrat airbase”, he’s totally overlooking the 44th President’s responsibility for the theater-wide “Arab Spring” Color Revolutions and the resultant Hybrid War of Terror on Syria which dealt incomparably more damage to Syria and its democratically elected President’s standing that Trump’s handful of one-off missiles.

    In addition, Trump only ordered the attack because he was under intense “deep state” pressure to do so after having been caught in a Catch-22 trap where he was forced to “put his money where his mouth is” and respond to the false-flag chemical weapons attack that violated his “red line”, but truthfully speaking, what Mr. Kortunov might really resent is that it only took a few million dollars’ worth of missiles to call President Putin’s bluff in hinting at a military response to the exact same scenario in 2013 that got Obama to back down at the time.

    To respond to Mr.Kortunov’s rhetorical question of “who after all created more problems for Russia — Democrats or Republicans?”, the reader should be reminded that the Obama Administration presided over or was outright responsible for the “Arab Spring” and its attendant regime changes, the War on Syria, the 2011-12 anti-government unrest in Moscow, EuroMaidan and the Ukrainian Civil War, the anti-Russian sanctions, and the fake news scheme of “Kremlin interference” in order to suppress Russia’s publicly funded international media outlets and harass their employees, among many other examples.

    In comparison, Trump merely continued most of the policy trajectories that Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first initiated, and even then he’s tried to resist some of the “deep state’s” pressure when it comes to Russia, so as bad as he’s been for Moscow’s interests, one should wonder how much worse Hillary would have been she entered into the Presidency and allowed the “deep state” to do as it pleases.

    Concluding Thoughts

    Mr. Kortunov seems to have wanted to spark a serious conversation about how Russia’s “deep state” should respond to the disappointment that it experienced throughout Trump’s first year in office, and if that was his intention, then he remarkably succeeded by controversially reinterpreting the Obama years as something to apparently be nostalgic about and boldly suggesting that his government reconsider its negative attitude to Trump’s “deep state” foes.

    In the spirit of dialogue that Mr. Kortunov implicitly encouraged by publishing such a provocative piece, it’s only fitting that a rebuttal be presented to challenge his premise that the Democrats and their “deep state” handlers are supposedly more preferable to Russia than Trump is, especially seeing as how he selectively pointed to a few decontextualized examples that were presumably cherry-picked in order to promote his argument.

    With all due respect to this prestigious gentleman, his entire notion is flat-out wrong and shows that he doesn’t at all understand Trump’s “Kraken”-like leadership and his never-ending struggle to survive the “deep state’s” permanent Clintonian Counter-Revolution that’s being waged in trying to undermine the Second American Revolution that the President is trying to carry out in America’s domestic and foreign affairs.

    Instead of ignoring the plethora of evidence proving the Obama Administration’s hostility to Russia and its international interests, Mr. Kortunov should have at least made a superficial reference to it because this glaring omission implies a deliberate partiality towards that political faction and the “deep state” in general, which is fine to have in principle but nevertheless casts doubt on how effective his proposals would be in the overall sense of things if they were ever put into practice.

    Mr. Kortunov is evidently unaware that the same “deep state” that he finds attractive in contrast to Trump had a controlling influence in determining the Obama Administration’s anti-Russian policies that the 44th President’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended up implementing with ruinous consequences for Moscow’s grand strategic interests, and that she would have given the “deep state” free rein to do whatever it wanted had she won unlike Trump’s willingness to challenge its most extreme tendencies (though with mixed results).

    Having said that, pragmatic working relations between Russia and the US’ “deep states” are inevitable because there isn’t any alternative to interacting with any national counterpart’s collection of military, intelligence, and diplomatic figures no matter how much one may disagree with their policies unless ties between the two sides are formally suspended, which isn’t foreseeable but would in any case still allow for the existence of communication backchannels.

    What Mr. Kortunov is lobbying for is something altogether different because he wants Russian decision makers to reconceptualize the American “deep state” as a ‘positive’, ‘moderating’, and ‘responsible’ force against what he characterizes as Trump’s ”romantic”, “amateurish”, “most exotic and potentially most dangerous foreign policy oddities”, which is ironically a very “romantic” and “exotic” view to have of the US’ most dangerous anti-Russian institutional forces.

    In all actuality, however, the “deep state” and its Democrat allies are the real reason why Trump hasn’t been able to succeed in his pledge to improve Russian-American relations, and these two problems shouldn’t ever be confused as part of the solution that’s needed to reverse this downward spiral, nor should a tactical partnership with these two actors ever be considered if Moscow hopes to maintain the upper hand in the New Cold War.

  • Super Bowl Security Has Turned Minneapolis Into A Military Police State

    Authored by Aaron Nelson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The Department of Homeland Security has designated Super Bowl LII a National Special Security Event (an event deemed a potential target for terrorism or criminal activity) with a SEAR-I classification. The National Guard, federal agencies, and law enforcement from across the country have been patrolling Minneapolis and Saint Paul since January 26th.

    While security around the Super Bowl has been openly militarized every year since the 9/11 attacks, only three have been labeled National Special Security Events, including this year’s. Since 2001, every city except Houston (which had over 5,000 police officers) has called in the National Guard to provide additional security on the streets.

    SEAR-I is an event “of such magnitude and significant national and/or international importance that may require the full support of the United States Government (USG). The scale and scope of these events requires significant coordination among federal, state, and local authorities and warrants pre-deployment of federal assets as well as consultation, technical advice, and support to specific functional areas in which the state and local agencies may lack expertise or key resources.”

    In its 52-year history, there has never been an attack at the site of the Super Bowl, which raises questions about the need for SEAR-I classification.

    More than a dozen streets have been shut down at three major points within downtown Minneapolis: the Minneapolis Convention Center (NFL Super Bowl Experience), Nicollet Mall (Super Bowl LIVE), and the site of the game, U.S. Bank Stadium. These areas are guarded and patrolled by militarized forces.

     

     

    Though the Minneapolis Police Department is the agency in charge of security operations during Super Bowl LII, more than 60 additional police departments from across the state of Minnesota have sent officers. There are also over 400 National Guard members, United States Secret Service, ICE and FBI agents, several hundred security contractors, county Sheriff’s Reserves, and over 10,000 civilian volunteers. Representatives from Minnesota police departments, FBI, DHS, and the Secret Service, have been stationed at multiple command centers around Minneapolis to watch hundreds of surveillance cameras, track social media, and monitor communications on the ground during Super Bowl events.

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

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

    Mobile phone signal boosters, surveillance gear, and other unknown electronics began popping up throughout the Twin Cities in preparation for the Super Bowl. Some of the surveillance technology, as well as the general culture of surveillance, will remain in Minneapolis long after the Super Bowl leaves.

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

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

    Locals have taken note of a twin-engine Bell 412 helicopter flying 300 feet above downtown Minneapolis conducting radiation level tests, as well as other security aircraft, including black hawk helicopters enforcing the no-fly zone around the event, some of which have been flying dark.

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

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

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

    A contracted helicopter previously observed flying low over water protectors at Standing Rock was also spotted in Minneapolis.

     

    Some are worried that the intense security for large sporting events like the Super Bowl is normalizing the use of military forces and surveillance in the everyday life of Americans. With numerous event attendees stopping to take photos next to military humvees and with Minnesota National Guard, Hennepin County Sheriff’s Deputies, and military police outfitted in camouflage military gear, it isn’t hard to see why people are concerned.

    Here are 11 photos that show how the Super Bowl has turned Minneapolis into a police state:

    Is the presence of military personnel and militarized police at Super Bowl LII keeping Minneapolis safe, or is it simply an excuse for a police state and the installation of citywide surveillance?

    *  *  *

    Independent media is under attack — and we need your help to save it! Click here to become an Anti-Media patron.

  • Watch As Students Hate 'Trump SOTU Quotes'… Until They Find Out They're Obama's

    President Trump delivered his first State of the Union address this week. While the speech was received favorably by 75 percent of those who watched, according to a CBS poll, there were still those who disapproved.

    Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips went to John Jay College in NYC to talk to students who disapproved of the speech by asking them to react to a few select quotations.

    Almost unanimously, the students found each of the quotes to be “warmongering”, “aggressive,” and “immature.”

    What the students didn’t know was that all the quotes given to them were taken from President Obama’s State of the Union addresses.

    How would they react when they found out it was President Obama, not Trump, who had spoken each of the quotes they disapproved of?

    However, if there is any silver-lining from this disgusting display of cognitive dissonance, it is one of the students’ honest reflection that:

    “While I’m actually not a huge fan of him… but i think being closed-minded is more dangerous than anything he could do…”

    Now if only the media could see things that way…

  • Deutsche Bank: "Here Is The Bad News"… And How To Trade It

    In the aftermath of last week’s market rout, it now appears that risk-parity is about to become a household word within financial circles, for obvious reasons discussed already on several prior occasions.

    Confirming this sentiment, is a note published late on Sunday London time (yes, there is a distinct urgency here) by Deutsche Bank’s chief macro strategist, Alan Ruskin, focusing precisely on the threat of a sharp Risk Parity unwind, and what it means for FX.

    As Ruskin writes in “Risk Parity, FX & the end of financial repression” two or more consecutive weeks of higher US bond yields and lower equity prices, have become progressively less common since the 1980s/1990s, and especially since the 2008 financial crisis. “Three weeks of equities down, 10y yields up, has not happened for more than a decade.” This is shown in the charts below.

    Which brings us to what Ruskin calls “The bad news”, namely that “the markets may be contending with a shift in two big macro factors that point to a change in the post-2008 world: i) reduced financial repression, and, ii) some inflation creep.”

    Some more details:

    Bond and equity prices falling sharply on the week may feel like an unusual environment, because in the last decade, it has become unusual. However, especially as we go back to the 1980s and 1990s it was a more frequent occurrence to see the following causal chain develop: Equities go up, supporting growth with a lag, pushing bond yields up, to the point where higher bond yields eventually pull equities down. In this way the equity – bond causality and correlation shifts, from a positive correlation where equities drive up yields, to a negative correlation as bond yields take the causal lead in pushing equities down.

    From a macro perspective what is intriguing about this dynamic is two old school factors could be back in play: i) At least in the US there is a confluence of inflationary factors – lagged demand, tight labor markets, the tax reforms impact on wages/bonuses and growth, higher oil prices, latent protectionism, and the weak USD. All these factors are apt to have a cumulative effect, chipping away at global disinflation and inflation inertia. ii) the Fed and other Central Bank’s balance sheet adjustments, may signal the end of financial repression, and this repression likely helped risk parity trades.

    Risky assets are understandably worried because these are indeed important changes.

    How does risk-parity get involved? Well, as Ruskin noted, consecutive week after week of both bond and equity price declines is unusual, and very painful for risk-parity funds. This is likely to prove true in current circumstances, where the US bond market is such a stand-out relative to other G10 bond markets.

    Still, according to the DB strategist, risk parity – and the broader market will likely be spared a broader rout, as 10y TSY yields will likely not easily soar much above 3% without finding some real support, most obviously near the 3.03% January 2014 yield peak.

    Ruskin then makes a very good observation: “were bond yields to keep on going higher, it would do enough damage to stocks to start hurting growth expectations, in turn supporting bonds. Bond bears would in this way create the source of their own demise, which is not an unusual self correcting mechanism.”

    In that sense we do not want to exaggerate the prospect of weeks like we have gone through that threaten risk parity trades consistently. At the same time, if inflation pressures and quantitative tightening are not about to change, then the weeks where both equities and bonds sell-off will become a good deal more frequent than we have seen since the Great Financial crisis.

    This, again, is a way of summarizing the “bad news.”

    * * *

    So what does this all mean for currencies, and how should one trade said bad news?

    The table below shows how currencies have traded under different bond (10y yield) and equity (S&P) scenarios.

    Here Deutsche first demarcate each week as falling into one of 4 scenarios: S&P up, 10y yield up; S&P up 10y yield down; S&P down and 10y yield down, and S&P down, 10y yields down. We then looked at how currencies traded,  taking medians and averages of the weekly performances for ach scenario.

    According to Ruskin, the table below shows the following:

    • The percent of time when S&P is down and 10y yields are up is roughly 1 in 6 trading weeks, so not all that unusual, but certainly less common than the other scenarios.
    • In the environment where 10y yields go up and equities go down, the USD tends to go up sharply versus the AUD at least in the past decade. The USD also goes up substantially versus the JPY. The USD is mixed to near flat versus the EUR (or before the EUR the DEM). This leaves the USD up moderately on a Trade weighted basis. Since 1999, the USD also appreciates (somewhat less than we might expect) versus EM carry – using the Bloomberg EM-8 carry index of cumulative total returns. The USD’s positive response versus EM looks much more substantial when using average weekly gains as distinct from median weekly gains. This suggests that every now and then there are some very large negative EM moves, when US bond prices and stock prices go down, which is not a huge surprise.

    To summarize the “worst case” trade, one which sees stocks tumbling and yields continuing to surge, “history supports the thesis that when it feels like there is nowhere to hide between poor simultaneous trading conditions in the equity and fixed income markets, the USD and more recently the EUR have been the currencies to shelter in”, Rusking concludes. .

    “With bond and equity prices tumbling in the last week, the FX markets price action conformed remarkably closely to  how the USD and other currencies have traded in tough risk parity environments of the past 30 years.”

    Of course, with a gigantic $10 trillion global synthetic dollar short – according to the BIS  – one which has so far avoided a squeeze thanks to the record surge in risk assets, it is hardly rocket surgery then if the carpet is pulled from under the market, it is the US Dollar that will surge; after all that is precisely what has happened during every previous crisis.

    The real question is what happens if stocks and bond tumble, and the dollar does not go up. That would be the real crisis, and one which would explain not only the record recent cryptocurrency bid, but also confirm the fact that the dollar’s day as the world’s primary reserve are numbered.

     

  • North Korea Used Berlin Embassy To Smuggle Nuclear Tech, German Spy Chief Claims

    North Korea obtained ballistic missile equipment and technology using its embassy in Berlin, says the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen in an interview with public broadcaster NDR. 

    “We determined that procurement activities were taking place there, from our perspective with an eye on the missile program, as well as the nuclear program to some extent” -Hans-Georg Maassen

    a
    Hans-Georg Maassen

    On Saturday, NDR released portions of the Maassen interview – with the full program airing Monday.

    a
    North Korea embassy, Berlin

    Maassen did not divulge the exact technology and equipment North Korea procured through the Berlin embassy, aside from that they were so-called “dual-use” goods that can be used for military oir civilian purposes – making it difficult in some cases to identify technology to be used in the ballistic missile program.

    We found out that there were procurement activities from there, from our point of view with regard to the rocket program, and partly also to the nuclear program,” Massen told NDR. “If we find such things, we prevent it. But we cannot guarantee that this can be detected and prevented by us in all cases.”

    Pyongyang also used a variety of other methods to procure the parts, which “were acquired via other markets, or that shadow firms had acquired them in Germany,” before reaching North Korea, says Maassen. 

    The BfV obtained information on North Korea’s procurements in 2016 and 2017, according to an investigation by NDR. These items were allegedly used for the country’s missile program.

    In 2014, a North Korean diplomat reportedly tried to obtain a “multi-gas monitor” that is used in the development of chemical weapons. –DW

    According to NDR, a longtime UN investigator has raised complaints that the trade embargo against North Korea is a joke, and has “more loopholes than stuffed holes,” (translated). The NDR report comes on the heels of a UN report that north Korea has been ignoring sanctions – having earned $200 million from banned exports in 2017. 

    Meanwhile – as we reported in January the Chinese military has been amassing assets near their shared border with North Korea around the Tumen River in Yanji city, Jilin province. 

    One source told the Daily NK, “there were so many soldiers in the car that there was a lot of traffic. I have not seen so many soldiers trucking to Yanji so far.”

    Another source said, “Chinese troops are gathering around the Yalu and Tumen rivers. It is also heard that the tanks are moving to the North and the Chinese border.”

    a

    And according to the Daily Star: Chinese military officials have recently conducted the so-called “war ceremony” – urging their troops to be ready to fight.

    If the media report is accurate, it would suggest that China – fearing the worst – is preparing for war on the Korean Peninsula. Previously, internal documents leaked from China’s main state-owned telecommunications company shows three villages and cities in the northeastern border province of Jilin, have been designated for refugee camps-if war breaks out. China is afraid a swarm of refugees from North Korea could cross the Tumen River into China.

    In early January, Kim Jong Un warned that North Korea would soon begin mass producing nuclear weapons – urging South Korea to join it for a much-needed dialogue ahead of the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 4th February 2018

  • Paul Craig Roberts Rages At Washington's Nuclear Posture Review

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The World Will Not Survive the American Neoconservatives’ Doctrine of US World Hegemony

    The government of the United States is clearly in demonic hands. We are overflowing with proof. Take Friday (2-2-18) for example.

    A report from the House Intelligence Committee was released that is proof that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice (sic), and the Democratic National Committee are engaged in a conspiracy against American democracy and the President of the United States with the full support of the presstitute media.

    As if that is not enough, also released today is the Pentagon’s new Nuclear Posture Review. A nuclear posture review specifies a country’s attitude toward nuclear weapons and their use. In past posture reviews, nuclear weapons were regarded as unusable except in retaliation for a nuclear attack. The assumption was that no one would use them. There was always the possibility that false warnings of incoming ICBMs would result in the nuclear button being pushed, thus setting off Armageddon. There were many false warnings during the Cold War. President Ronald Reagan was very concerned about a false warning resulting in mass death and destruction. This is why his principal goal was to end the Cold War, which he succeeded in doing. It did not take successor governments long to resurrect the Cold War.

    The new US nuclear posture is a reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing departure from the previous attitude toward nuclear weapons. The use of even a small part of the existing arsenal of the United States would be sufficient to destroy life on earth. Yet, the posture review calls for more weapons, speaks of nuclear weapons as “usable,” and justifies their use in First Strikes even against countries that do not have nuclear weapons.

    This is an insane escalation. It tells every country that the US government believes in the first use of nuclear weapons against any and every country. Nuclear powers such as Russia and China must see this to be a massive increase in the threat level from the United States. Those responsible for this document should be committed to insane aslyums, not left in policy positions where they can put it into action.

    President Trump is being blamed for the aggressive US nuclear posture announced today. However, the document is a neoconservative product. Trump, perhaps, could have prevented the document’s release, but under pressure as he is by the accusation that he conspired with Putin to steal the US presidential election from Hillary, Trump cannot afford to antagonize the neoconized Pentagon.

    The neoconservatives are a small group of conspirators. Most are Zionists allied with Israel. Some are dual-citizens. They created an ideology of American world hegemony, specifying that the chief goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any other power that could serve as a constraint on US unilateralism. As neoconservatives control US foreign policy, this explains US hostility toward Russia and China and also the neoconservatives’ use of the US military to remove governments in the Middle East regarded by Israel as obstacles to Israeli expansion. For two decades the US has been fighting wars for Israel in the Middle East.

    This fact proves the power and influence of the insane neoconservatives. It is certain that people as insane as the neoconservatives would launch a nuclear attack on Russia and China. The Russian and Chinese governments seem to be completely unaware of the threat that the neoconservatives pose to them. I have never experienced in my interviews with Russians and Chinese any awareness of the neoconservative ideology. Possibly, it is too insane for them to grasp.

    Ideologues such as the neoconservatives are not fact-based. They are chasing their dream of world hegemony. Russia and China are in the way of this hegemony. Having learned the limits of US conventional military power—after 16 years the US “superpower” has been unable to defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban in Afghanistan—the neoconservatives know that conventional invasions of Russia or China would lead to the total defeat of US forces. Therefore, the neoconservatives have elevated nuclear weapons to a First Strike, usable, arsenal that in the neoconservative dream of world hegemony can be used to destroy Russia and China.

    Ideologues who divorce themselves from the facts create a virtual world for themselves. Their belief in their ideology blinds them to the risks for themselves and others that they impose on the world.

    It is clear enough that without the utterly corrupt Obama Department of Justice (sic) and FBI, the utterly corrupt Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, and the utterly corrupt American and European presstitute media working to destroy Trump’s presidency by framing him up as “a Russian agent,” President Trump, understanding that the Pentagon’s posture review would worsen, not normalize, relations with Russia, would have deep-sixed the demonic document that threatens all life on earth.

    Thanks to the American liberal/progressive/left, the entirely of the world is faced with a far more likely nuclear demise than ever threatened us during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

     

    By its collaboration with the military/security complex and the corrupt Hillary DNC, the liberal/progressive/left has forever discredited itself. It is now seen by every thinking person worldwide as an insane propaganda ministry for the neoconservatives’ plan to use nuclear weapons to eliminate constraints on US unilateralism. The liberal/progressive/left has endorsed “hegemony or death.”

    They will get death. For all of us.

  • Super Bowl LII: Most Rooting For The Eagles

    The Eagles and the Patriots will be going head to head tomorrow to compete for Super Bowl LII.

    Historically, the Patriots have pedigree, with five wins in total.

    The Eagles, very much playing up to their underdog tag, are looking to win their first, having been beaten in 1981 and 2005 – the latter a narrow loss at the hands of the Patriots.

    The American public seems to be rooting for them, too.

    Infographic: Super Bowl LII: Most Rooting for the Eagles | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    As Statista’s Martin Armstrong points out, in total, 45 percent of Morning Consult survey respondents said that they’d like to see the Eagles triumph, to the 26 percent backing the Patriots.

    When Super Bowl LII is kicked off on Sunday, February 4, more than a hundred million Americans will be watching.

    Can Tom Brady carry his Patriots to yet another victory or will the Philadelphia Eagles finally get their hands on the Vince Lombardi Trophy?

    As the following infographic nicely illustrates, it is not only the biggest game of the year, but also a, albeit unofficial, national holiday.

    Infographic: Super Bowl LII | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

  • Match.com Dating Site Is Reporting Fake Active-User Numbers

    Yesterday, we highlighted a story that pulled back the curtain on the shady world of media sites paying for traffic – a practice that countless social-media influencers and AdSense scammers have employed for years to help monetize their respective platforms.

    As it turns out, IBT Media, the publisher of Newsweek and the International Business Times, reportedly schemed to buy fraudulent traffic in order to help secure a major ad contract from a US government agency. A group that investigates fraudulent web traffic initially published the findings, which comport with a story from Buzzfeed news about IBT India.

     

    Match

     

    Now, Thinknum, a FinTech company that analyzes web traffic, has published a report on its blog alleging that SpeedDate.com, one of the 45 web properties owned by Match.com, misleads users by publishing fake engagement data on its homepage.

     

    Random

     

    When the company’s analysts tried to verify the high level of activity (after all, the site regular advertises more than 2,500 singles “online now” – a huge number in many parts of the US) they discovered something disturbing in the website’s header files: A random number generator (highlighted in purple in the image above).

    So we looked deeper – why wasn’t SpeedDate.com registering on our active users counts? Perhaps it’s because they don’t use Facebook login like their other properties, making it difficult for us to track activity? Perhaps it’s because they’re under the radar?

    Or perhaps it’s because they lie?

    When our engineers took a deeper look at SpeedDate.com to figure out how we could track activity – after all, 3,297 Singles Online Now is a lot, and we should be tracking this rising star of digital dating – we found something curious in their header files.

    A random-number generator.

    What’s perhaps even more galling is how the site is “monetized” – instead of relying solely on advertising traffic, real human users must pay for the service.

    You may think this isn’t a big deal, but in an environment in which dating sites are exceedingly difficult to navigate, difficult to use, and sketchy on details, a company as big at Match shouldn’t be commiting a sin as fundamental as making up its usage numbers.

    Perhaps SpeedDate.com is just a placeholder for something bigger. Maybe it’s a relic that Match is no longer feeding. That said, it still entices hapless singles to sign up, give out personal data, and get matched up with users that either don’t exist, or haven’t been using the site in years.

    Oh – and to “verify your profile” you need to enter credit card information and get billed $0.99. After all, there are thousands of singles waiting to meet you, right?

    Right?

    To be sure, the author of the Thinknum post said the company isn’t sure what’s up with Speeddate.com these days, or if they’re even still active as a business. In 2008, they came under fire for some Facebook login shenanigans that got them banned from the social network. Regardless, their site is active – and they’re accepting signups.

     

  • The FISA Memo, Obama, And The Election that Almost Wasn't

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    “Round up the usual suspects,” will be as far as the Democrats will be willing to go in the wake of the FISA memo’s release. There is nothing in that memo that anyone following the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation doesn’t already know.

    All the memo does is corroborate the bread crumbs left behind by a drip feed of leaks, counter-leaks and good ol’ fashioned investigative journalism.  Since the memo is based on actual evidence that the FBI admits is real but will not allow us to see, the memo itself can be taken as fact.

    The FBI has the evidence.  They’ve showed it to the House Intelligence Committee.  Both agree on the facts.  So, by extension, the memo is all the evidence we need.

    Put that in your DNC-scripted talking point pipe and blow it out your ass.

     

    Conclusions Matter

    Now that the timeline and paper trail have been determined the real implications of the memo and its facts can be discussed.  I’m no longer interested in the game of cut and thrust to stop the truth from coming out.

    I’m only interested now in the conclusions we can draw from the memo itself.

    And those conclusions are chilling.

    The out-going Obama administration, at the highest levels in coordination with the media, conspired to create news stories that supported a FISA warrant based on politically-motivated opposition research to undermine the newly-elected President of the United States.

    Moreover, it knowingly omitted material facts to the court not once, but four times, to keep that surveillance warrant open in service of this operation.  A warrant the FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe, testified under oath to Congress that was key to its issuance.

    They knew the dossier on Trump, compiled by Michael Steele, was unverifiable. They hid its origin and motivation from the court.  The information from this warrant and the details of the dossier were used to move public opinion and Congress into supporting Robert Mueller’s investigation.

    But, to what end?

    To disgrace and force from office the President of the United States.  Thus, these people, and the leadership of the Democratic Party, President Obama himself and Hillary Clinton’s staff all conspired to criminally disenfranchise more than 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump.

    To say that this is bigger than Watergate is like calling World War II a minor kerfuffle.

    What About the Voters!?

    Think about this for one second and you know what I’m saying.

    All of these people are guilty, at a minimum of corruption, conspiracy and fraud.  I’m no legal scholar, so I’m sure the list of offenses is longer than one of Hillary Clinton’s tirades after someone criticized her latest pantsuit atrocity.

    This ultimately opens all of these organizations up to the biggest civil rights class action lawsuit in the history of this country.  The Obama administration and the Democratic Party used opposition research to paint a false narrative of corruption in the Oval Office to discredit the election.

    How many riots and street demonstrations did we see in 2017 as outraged and triggered liberals ran around smashing in windows and beating people up because of their delusion based on a lie?

    How many hours of lost productivity did the country suffer because of FBI complicity in an operation to overturn a legal election?

    How many millions in property damage?  Destroyed careers?

    What about the direct victims of this disgusting display of government corruption taken to its logical conclusion?

    Why is Michael Flynn nearly bankrupt after being hounded by Mueller for months only to get a nothing guilty plea on the thinnest of procedural offenses?

    When the corruption is this venal isn’t it our right under the Constitution to petition our government for a redress of grievances?  Who do we sue?

    Because there’s material harm here and someone should be held responsible.  This began under Obama’s watch.  He set this whole process in motion.  High ranking members of his cabinet are directly implicated by the facts in the memo.

    And the memo is just the beginning of the discovery phase of this very public trial.

    Government on Trial

    But, I want more than that.  I want it all out in the open. And I want those responsible, those for whom the titles, salaries, benefits and power we bestow on them to do our work, to stand up and be accountable.

    And if they are too venal, feckless and narcissistic to admit these things, then we’ll drag them through the most embarrassing of show trials.

    And that means stripping them of their wealth, power and privilege.

    It means turning off their house organs in the media; outing the enablers, leakers, trolls and spooks.

    It means releasing everything, unredacted, in the name of national security.

    It means reminding them of just how much all of that depends on our consent, not theirs.

    Because if we don’t demand these things, then next time there won’t even be the pretense of an election.

  • Uma Thurman Says Her Assault By Weinstein Was Like "A Bat To The Head"

    After months of telling inquiring reporters that she would share her “Weinstein story” when she felt ready Uma Thurman – one of the actresses most closely associated with the Weinstein brothers’ Miramax film production studio – has finally opened up to the New York Times about her history of rape and abuse at the hands of Harvey Weinstein.

    Thurman explains she waited for two reasons: She was worried she “might cry” because of the intensely emotional subject matter, and she also felt guilty for being both a victim and an enabler of Weinstein’s predation. The two worked on a series of immensely popular films together, beginning with the 1994 blockbuster “Pulp Fiction”. Weinstein even introduced her to former President Barack Obama at a fundraiser he hosted for the former president at his house

     

    Weinstein

    After more than two decades in the film industry, Thurman is worried that her behavior inadvertently set a precedent that other women followed – willingly and naively walking into the web of a predator.

    “The complicated feeling I have about Harvey is how bad I fell about all the women that were attacked after I was,” she told me one recent night, looking anguished in her elegant apartment in River House on Manhattan’s East Side, as she vaped tobacco, sipped white wine and fed empty pizza boxes into the fireplace.

    “I  am one of the reasons that a young girl would walk into his room alone, the way I did. Quentin used Harvey as the executive producer of “Kill Bill”, a movie that symbolizes female empowerment. And all these lambs walked into slaughter because they were convinced nobody rises to such a position who would do something illegal to you, but they do.”

    Thurman, like fellow Weinstein victim Rose McGowan, accused her former agency, Creative Artists Agency, of abetting Weinstein’s predatory behavior.

    The agency has issued a pubic apology. And Thurman says she feels conflicted about her status as being both a victim and a part of the system that turned a blind eye to this culture of victimization.

    Like McGowan, Thurman’s history of being assaulted by powerful men in Hollywood began when she was a teenager and just starting her career.

    One night when she was 16, Thurman went out in Manhattan and met an actor nearly 20 years her senior. The two went back to his Greenwich Village brownstone for a nightcap.

    “I was ultimately compliant,” she remembers. “I tried to say no, I cried, I did everything I could do. He told me the door was locked but I never ran over and tried to grab the knob. When I got hoe I remember I stood in front of the mirror and I looked at my hands and I was so mad at them for not being bloody or bruised. Something like that tunes the dial one way or another, right? You become more compliant or less compliant, and I think I became less compliant.”

    Turning to the subject of Weinstein, Thurman explained how he and his first wife, Eve, befriended her in the aftermath of “Pulp Fiction” – the movie that launched Thurman to stardom.

    In a story that by now has become familiar to anybody following the #MeToo movement, Thurman explained how Weinstein groomed her, spending hours discussing film and her career.

    Then, one day, they were arguing over a script in a Paris hotel room, when – as Thurman tells it – Weinstein’s infamous bathroom came out.

    “I didn’t feel threatened,” she recalls. “I thought he was being super idiosyncratic, like this was your kooky, eccentric uncle.”

    Her first attack occurred later at the Savoy Hotel in London.

    “It was such a bat to the head. He pushed me down. He tried to shove himself on me. He tried to expose himself. He did all kinds of unpleasant things. But he didn’t actually put his back into it and force me. You’re like an animal wriggling away, like a lizard. I was doing anything I could to get the train back on the track. My track. Not his track.”

    The next day, she received a bouquet of flowers from Weinstein with a note that read “you have good instincts.” Thurman says she was repulsed.

    After that, Thurman soured on Weinstein, but reluctantly continued their working relationship, seeking to minimize her contact with him. Eventually, her repulsion to Weinstein impact her relationship with director Quentin Tarantino. After twice being told about Thurman’s assault, Tarantino confronted Weinstein, who eventually offered Thurman what she described as a “half-assed apology.”

    But Tarantino’s increasingly demanding requests of Thurman during the shooting of “Kill Bill” eventually led Thurman to sour on the director. Following a near-fatal accident on the set of “Kill Bill”, Thurman says her resentment finally boiled over and she began to despise Tarantino, who in turn began to resent her.

    Weinstein is back in Arizona for rehab. He has reportedly been spotted around Los Angeles following the dozens of accusations, and it’s believed that at least one of the many law enforcement agencies that are investigating him for potential sexual assault charges will soon move forward with an arrest.

     

     

  • Video Captures Cruise Missile Strike On Militants That Shot Down Russian Fighter Jet In Syria

    The Russian Ministry of Defense has released footage showing a precision strike against terrorists in the northwest Syria province of Idlib, following the downing of an Su-25 jet. The pilot, Roman Nikolaevich Filippov safely ejected – only to be killed by militants on the ground, according to the Ministry. 

    Earlier, Ebaa Agency released a video of the moment the Russian Su-25SM was shot down by MANPADS over Saraqib, in Idlib. According to Ebaa, the AlQaeda affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) backed by Qatar, was responsible. The MANPADS was probably an FN-6 delivered through Turkey, the agency speculated.

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

    Russia promptly responded: The aerial night-vision footage shows a barrage of cruise missiles hitting ground targets, which are believed to have killed around 30 terrorists. 

    More footage reveals a heavy cluster bomb attack on the village of Maasaran, near the site of the downed Su-25:

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

    As we reported earlier, the Su-25 warplane was the first Russian fighter jet downed above Syria since 2015. A Russian defense ministry official confirmed the plane was shot down, stating “The plane was flying around the de-escalation zone of Idlib.”

    a

    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

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

    The extremist group Tahrir al-Sham has claimed responsibility for the downing of the Ruissian Su-25, according to Reuters – while another militant group, Jaysh al-Nasr, took credit as well – posting pictures and videos celebrating the downed aircraft to its twitter account. 

    The group posted a video with an unknown date containing footage of a 23mm Anti-Aircraft gun ostensibly used to shoot down the Russian jet. 

  • How Do You Hide Stolen Cryptocurrency?

    The anonymous nature of digital wallets continues to stymie investigators in last week’s theft of 58 billion yen ($530 million) worth of NEM cryptocurrency from a Tokyo exchange, the biggest cryptocurrency heist in history.

    Authorities know which user accounts were affected by the Jan. 26 hacking, and the accounts holding the pilfered funds can be immediately identified because the virtual coins are traceable. And, as the Nikkei writes, if the Coincheck exchange case were a regular bank robbery, identifying the bank accounts holding the stolen money would let law enforcement easily return the funds to victims.

    But individuals who open a bank account must identify themselves, and no such requirement exists for opening a digital wallet. Anyone can obtain an anonymous digital wallet as easily as walking into a store and paying cash for an actual wallet.

    That helps explain why Coincheck and the NEM Foundation, the international organization that manages and promotes the currency, are having trouble identifying the owners of the wallets and demanding the restoration of funds.

    The foundation, which tags the NEM coins, could rewrite the blockchain virtual ledgers and forcibly return the stolen funds to Coincheck. But the NEM group has pledged never to rewrite blockchain records, so even those “transactions” resulting from a hack will remain valid.

    The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department had received communication logs maintained by Coincheck as of Thursday. The logs are being analyzed for any violation of Japanese anti-hacking laws, but the investigation is expected to encounter challenges similar to those in past cybercrime cases.

    In 2015, servers belonging to the state-run Japan Pension Service sustained a cyberattack in which computer viruses were used to obtain names, identification numbers and other data belonging to some 1.25 million people. The next year, travel agency JTB suffered a data breach affecting 6.79 million customers. In both cases, the hackers may have infiltrated systems via offshore servers, but no suspects have been named to date.

    When Mt. Gox went bankrupt in February 2014 after a massive amount of cryptocurrency went missing from its exchange, it took about a year and a half for authorities to arrest CEO Mark Karpeles, who was suspected of falsifying account data. Investigators went as far as crunching data in servers located in the U.S.

    Meanwhile, on Saturday, the infamous Coincheck exchange said it was preparing to announce a timeframe when yen withdrawals can begin. All yen deposits registered to customer accounts are being stored in a customer-specific account in a major financial institution, the exchange said adding that cryptocurrencies registered to customer accounts have been transferred out of hot wallets and are being stored in cold wallets, etc. And Google translated in its entirety:

    As we are announcing at the release on January 30, 2018, we are currently undergoing verification and verification of technical safety etc. accompanying Japanese yen withdrawal, and we are preparing for resumption We are. Based on the confirmation / verification that we are doing with the cooperation of outside experts, we will inform you of the timing of resumption of Japanese yen withdrawal.

    The Japanese yen held by the customer in the account is preserved in the customer exclusive account of the financial institution. Also, with respect to the virtual currency (BTC / ETH / ETC / LSK / FCT / XMR / REP / XRP / ZEC / LTC / DASH / BCH) which the customer has in the account, evacuate from the hot wallet, We keep it.

    We are sorry for the inconvenience for a while, thank you for your consideration.

    Meanwhile, someone is half a billion richer following the Coincheck theft, and nobody has any clue who it is.

  • Nunes: FISA Memo Just "Phase One," Now Targeting State Department In "Phase Two"

    Devin Nunes (R-CA) said that the investigation leading up to the four-page FISA memo released on Friday was only “phase one,” and that the House Intelligence Committee is currently in the middle of investigating the State Department over their involvement in surveillance abuses. 

    “We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this,” said Nunes. 

    “That investigation is ongoing and we continue work towards finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation.”

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

    While it is unclear what role the State Department may have in surveillance abuses, the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York noted last month that former MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, was “well-connected with the Obama State Department,” according to the book Collusion: Secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped Donald Trump win” written by The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding and published last November.


    Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele

    Harding notes that Steele’s work during the World Cup soccer corruption investigation earned the trust of both the FBI and the State Department: 

    The [soccer] episode burnished Steele’s reputation inside the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI. Here was a pro, a well-connected Brit, who understood Russian espionage and its subterranean tricks. Steele was regarded as credible. Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis. Many of Steele’s secret sources were the same sources who would supply information on Trump. One former State Department envoy during the Obama administration said he read dozens of Steele’s reports on Russia. The envoy said that on Russia, Steele was “as good as the CIA or anyone.” Steele’s professional reputation inside U.S. agencies would prove important the next time he discovered alarming material, and lit the fuse again.

    Aside from the infamous 35-page “Trump-Russia” dossier Steele assembled for opposition research firm Fusion GPS (a report which was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC), Congressional investigators have been looking into whether Steele compiled other reports about Trump – and in particular, whether those other reports made their way to the State Department, according to The Examiner

    they are looking into whether those reports made their way to the State Department. They’re also seeking to learn what individual State Department officials did in relation to Steele, and whether there were any contacts between the State Department and the FBI or Justice Department concerning the anti-Trump material.

    It will be interesting to see how the State Department – and in particular Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – responds to “phase two.”


    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

    Watch the entire Nunes interview here: 

  • The 1% Gets A Scare – More To Come?

    Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

    Most Americans have spent the last few years pressed up against the proverbial bakery window, watching the 1% enjoy a life of ever-increasing wealth and seemingly total indifference to the multitudes who aren’t favored by zero interest rates, big trust funds and political/corporate connections.

    The one consolation for the have-nots has been that, by owning few stocks and bonds, they would suffer less when those bubble markets did what bubbles always do, which is burst.

    Friday was a small but satisfying taste of that eventuality.

    From Bloomberg:

    World’s Richest People Lose $68.5 Billion in Stock Selloff

    The fortunes of the world’s 500-richest people dropped by $73.9 billion Friday as equity markets swooned with investor worries about the pace of interest rate hikes in the U.S. Warren Buffett led the declines, shedding $3.3 billion to end the day at No. 3 on the Bloomberg Billionaire Index with $90.1 billion.

    The chart shows about $100 billion of play money evaporating in the past week. Not enough to seriously inconvenience most of the people on Bloomberg’s billionaires list, but still a nice reversal of fortune versus the average person with a house, small bank account and not much more – who didn’t lose a thing.

    As for whether Friday was just a blip in an ongoing “secular bull market” or a sign that fundamentals are at last gaining the upper hand on “liquidity,” that remains to be seen. Longer-term though, there can’t be much doubt that today’s stock and bond valuations are higher than they’ll be during the next downturn.

    Here’s a chart from John Hussman’s latest (Measuring the Bubble) that illustrates the point.

     

    The adjusted price/earnings ratio on US stocks is now higher than before both the Great Depression and the dot-com bust.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 3rd February 2018

  • Can The Impending Collapse Of Russiagate Halt The Slide Toward A Nuclear 1914?

    Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    In the period preceding the World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended?

     

    Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace, progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter, revolution, and brutal ideologies?

    The answer is, probably very few, just as few people today care much about the details of international and security affairs. Normal folk have better things to do with their lives.

    To be sure, in that bygone era of smug jingosim, there was always the entertainment aspect that “our” side had forced “theirs” to back down in some exotic locale, as in the Fashoda incident (1898) or the Moroccan crises (1906, 1911). Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 seemed less a harbinger of the cataclysm to come than local dustups on the edge of the continent where the general peace had not been disturbed even by the much more disruptive Crimean or Franco-Prussian wars.

    Besides, no doubt level-headed statesmen were in charge in the various capitals, ensuring that things wouldn’t get out of hand.

    Until they did.

    A notable exception to the prevailing mood of business-as-usual, nothing-to-see-here-folks was Pyotr Durnovo, whose remarkable February 1914 memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II laid out not only what the great powers would do in the approaching general war but the behavior of the minor countries as well. Moreover, he anticipated that in the event of defeat, Russia, destabilized by unchecked socialist “agitation” amid wartime hardships, would “be flung into hopeless anarchy, the issue of which cannot be foreseen.” Germany, likewise, was “destined to suffer, in case of defeat, no lesser social upheavals” and “take a purely revolutionary path” of a nationalist hue.

    When the great powers blundered into war in August 1914, each confident of its ability speedily to dispatch its rivals, the price (adding in the toll from the 1939-1945 rematch) was upwards of 70 million lives. But the cost of a comparable mistake today might be literally incalculable – if there’s anyone left to do the tally.

    During the first Cold War between the US and the USSR, there was a general sense that a World War III was, in a word, unthinkable. As summed up by Ronald Reagan: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Then, it was understood that all-out war, however it started, meant massed ICBMs over the North Pole and the “end of civilization as we know it.”

    Not anymore. What was unthinkable in the old Cold War has become all-too-thinkable in the new one between the US and Russia. As described by veteran arms control inspector Scott Ritter, in analyzing a draft of the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the US threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has become dangerously low:

    ‘The 2018 NPR has a vision of nuclear conflict that goes far beyond the traditional imagery of mass missile launches. While ICBMs and manned bombers will be maintained on a day-to-day alert, the tip of the nuclear spear is now what the NPR calls “supplemental” nuclear forces – dual-use aircraft such as the F-35 fighter armed with B-61 gravity bombs capable of delivering a low-yield nuclear payload, a new generation of nuclear-tipped submarine-launched cruise missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles tipped with a new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads. The danger inherent with the integration of these kinds of tactical nuclear weapons into an overall strategy of deterrence is that it fundamentally lowers the threshold for their use. […]

    ‘Noting that the United States has never adopted a “no first use” policy, the 2018 NPR states that “it remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response.” In this regard, the NPR states that America could employ nuclear weapons under “extreme circumstances that could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks.” … The issue of “non-nuclear strategic attack technologies” as a potential precursor for nuclear war is a new factor that previously did not exist in American policy. The United States has long held that chemical and biological weapons represent a strategic threat for which America’s nuclear deterrence capability serves as a viable counter. But the threat from cyber attacks is different. If for no other reason than the potential for miscalculation and error in terms of attribution and intent, the nexus of cyber and nuclear weapons should be disconcerting for everyone. […] 

    ‘Even more disturbing is the notion that a cyber intrusion such as the one perpetrated against the Democratic National Committee and attributed to Russia could serve as a trigger for nuclear war. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The DNC event has been characterized by influential American politicians, such as the Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, as “an act of war.” Moreover, former vice president Joe Biden hinted that, in the aftermath of the DNC breach, the United States was launching a retaliatory cyberattack of its own, targeting Russia. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange of cyberattacks that escalates into a nuclear conflict would previously have been dismissed out of hand; today, thanks to the 2018 NPR, it has entered the realm of the possible.’

    The idea that a first-strike Schlieffen Plan could knock out the Russians (and no doubt similar contingencies are in place for China) at the outset of hostilities reflects a dangerous illusion of predictability. Truth may be the first casualty of war, but “the plan” is inevitably the second. That’s because war planners generally don’t consult the enemy, who – annoyingly for the planners – also gets a vote.

    Recently US Secretary of State James Mattis declared that “great power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security,” specifying Russia and China as nations seeking to “create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, pursuing veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic and security decisions.” At least we can drop the pretense that US policy has been to fight jihad terrorism, not to use it as a policy tool in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. And of course Washington never, ever meddles in “other nations’ economic, diplomatic and security decisions” . . .

    There is much anticipation that release of a House Intelligence Committee memo “naming names” of those in the FBI and elsewhere inside and outside of government to thwart the election of Donald Trump and cripple his administration with a phony Russian “collusion” probe will be a silver bullet that upturns the Mueller probe and cleans the Augean stables of the Deep State. Even in that unlikely case, the damage is already done. The primary purpose of Russiagate was always to ensure Trump could not reach out to Moscow, as seems to be his sincere desire. Even as the narrative began to boomerang against those who launched it, Trump’s defenders (such as fanatical Russophobe Nikki Haley) are as adamant as his detractors that Russia is and will remain the main enemy: Russia was behind the Steele Dossier, Russia tried to “corner the market” on “the foundational material for nuclear weapons” with the Uranium One deal, etc. Hostility toward Russia is not a means to an end – it is the end.

    At this point Trump is fastened to the neocons’ and generals’ axle, and all he can do is spin. Echoing Mattis, in his State of the Union speech Trump lumped “rivals like China and Russia” together with “rogue regimes” and “terrorist groups” as “horrible dangers” to the United States. (Note: The word “horrible” does not appear in the posted text. That evidently was Trump’s adlib.) The recently issued “name and shame” list of prominent Russians is a veritable Who’s Who of government and business, ensuring that there’s no American engagement with anyone within screaming distance of the Kremlin.

    To be fair, the Russians and Chinese are making their own war preparations. Russia’s “Kanyon,” a doomsday nuclear torpedo carrying a massive warhead, is designed to obliterate the U.S east and west coasts, rendering them inhabitable for generations. (Wait a minute. Is it any coincidence, Comrade, that the coastal cities are just where the Democrats’ electoral strength is? Talk about “collusion!” Somebody call Bob Mueller!) For its part, China is developing means to eliminate our white elephant carrier groups – handy for pummeling Third World backwaters but useless in a war with a major power – with drone swarms and hypersonic missiles.

    Just as in 1914, when Durnovo referred to “presence of abundant combustible material in Europe,” there is any number of global flashpoints that could turn Mattis’s “great power competition” into a major conflagration that probably was not desired by anyone. However, if the worst happens, and the lamps go out again – maybe this time forever – Americans will not again be immune from the consequences as we were in the wars of the 20th century. The remainder of our lives, however brief, might turn out very differently from what we had anticipated. 

  • Mapping Marijuana – Go West Young Man (For The Cheapest Weed)

    If you live in Washington D.C. and enjoy a responsible toke or two, move to Seattle…

    That’s the message, according to the 2018 Cannabis Price Index, a study compiled by Seedo, a Tel Aviv-based company that produces devices for home growers.

     

     

    The average cost of a gram of marijuana in Washington D.C. is a shocking $18.08, whereas in Seattle, the average cost is just $7.58, and in New York City, which consumes more marijuana than any other metropolis on Earth, the average price is $10.76.

    According to Seedo, the data (collected in December and January) matters because it helps to show the kind of tax revenue that could be collected if weed was legalized — something that Canada plans to do later this year.

     

    As Bloomberg reports, in Toronto, where the price is C$9.64 ($7.82), the city could generate as much as C$152 million per year if it levied tax at the same rate as cigarettes, the study shows, while the Big Apple could collect $354 million.

    It’s still unclear how Canada will actually set prices. Federal and provincial governments have agreed to split the proceeds from cannabis taxes, with 75 percent of the proceeds going to provincial authorities, who will oversee cannabis distribution.

  • Nomi Prins Fingers Trump's Financial Arsonists: "Next Financial Crisis – Not If, But When"

    Authored by Nomi Prins via TomDispatch.com,

    There’s been lots of fire and fury around Washington lately, including a brief government shutdown. In Donald Trump’s White House, you can hardly keep up with the ongoing brouhahas from North Korea to Robert Mueller’s Russian investigation, while it already feels like ages since the celebratory mood over the vast corporate tax cuts Congress passed last year. But don’t be fooled: none of that is as important as what’s missing from the picture.  Like a disease, in the nation’s capital it’s often what you can’t see that will, in the end, hurt you most.

     

    Amid a roaring stock market and a planet of upbeat CEOs, few are even thinking about the havoc that a multi-trillion-dollar financial system gone rogue could inflict upon global stability.  But watch out.  Even in the seemingly best of times, neglecting Wall Street is a dangerous idea. With a rag-tag Trumpian crew of ex-bankers and Goldman Sachs alumni as the only watchdogs in town, it’s time to focus, because one thing is clear: Donald Trump’s economic team is in the process of making the financial system combustible again.

    Collectively, the biggest U.S. banks already have their get-out-out-of-jail-free cards and are now sitting on record profits after, not so long ago, triggering sweeping unemployment, wrecking countless lives, and elevating global instability.  (Not a single major bank CEO was given jail time for such acts.)  Still, let’s not blame the dangers lurking at the heart of the financial system solely on the Trump doctrine of leaving banks alone. They should be shared by the Democrats who, under President Barack Obama, believed, and still believe, in the perfection of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.

    While Dodd-Frank created important financial safeguards like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even stronger long-term banking reforms were left on the sidelines. Crucially, that law didn’t force banks to separate the deposits of everyday Americans from Wall Street’s complex derivatives transactions.  In other words, it didn’t resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (axed in the Clinton era).

    Wall Street is now thoroughly emboldened as the financial elite follows the mantra of Kelly Clarkston’s hit song: “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” Since the crisis of 2007-2008, the Big Six U.S. banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — have seen the share price of their stocks significantly outpace those of the S&P 500 index as a whole.

    Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank (that’s paid $13 billion in settlements for various fraudulent acts), recently even pooh-poohed the chances of the Democratic Party in 2020, suggesting that it was about time its leaders let banks do whatever they wanted. As he told Maria Bartiromo, host of Fox Business’s Wall Street Week, “The thing about the Democrats is they will not have a chance, in my opinion. They don’t have a strong centrist, pro-business, pro-free enterprise person.”

    This is a man who was basically gifted two banks, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, by the U.S. government during the financial crisis. That present came as his own company got cheap loans from the Federal Reserve, while clamoring for billions in bailout money that he swore it didn’t need.

    Dimon can afford to be brazen. JPMorgan Chase is now the second most profitable company in the country. Why should he be worried about what might happen in another crisis, given that the Trump administration is in charge? With pro-business and pro-bailout thinking reigning supreme, what could go wrong?

    Protect or Destroy?

    There are, of course, supposed to be safeguards against freewheeling types like Dimon. In Washington, key regulatory bodies are tasked with keeping too-big-to-fail banks from wrecking the economy and committing financial crimes against the public. They include the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Treasury Department, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (an independent bureau of the Treasury), and most recently, under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (an independent agency funded by the Federal Reserve).

    These entities are now run by men whose only desire is to give Wall Street more latitude. Former Goldman Sachs partner, now treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin caught the spirit of the moment with a selfie of his wife and him holding reams of newly printed money “like a couple of James Bond villains.” (After all, he was a Hollywood producer and even appeared in the Warren Beatty flick Rules Don’t Apply.) He’s making his mark on us, however, not by producing economic security, but by cheerleading for financial deregulation.

    Despite the fact that the Republican platform in election 2016 endorsed reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, Mnuchin made it clear that he has no intention of letting that happen. In a signal to every too-big-not-to-fail financial outfit around, he also released AIG from its regulatory chains. That’s the insurance company that was at the epicenter of the last financial crisis. By freeing AIG from being monitored by the Financial Services Oversight Board that he chairs, he’s left it and others like it free to repeat the same mistakes.

    Elsewhere, having successfully spun through the revolving door from banking to Washington, Joseph Otting, a former colleague of Mnuchin’s, is now running the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). While he’s no household name, he was the CEO of OneWest (formerly, the failed California-based bank IndyMac). That’s the bank Mnuchin and his billionaire posse picked up on the cheap in 2009 before carrying out a vast set of foreclosures on the homes of ordinary Americans (including active-duty servicemen and -women) and reselling it for hundreds of millions of dollars in personal profits.

    At the Federal Reserve, Trump’s selection for chairman, Jerome Powell (another Mnuchin pick), has repeatedly expressed his disinterest in bank regulations. To him, too-big-to-fail banks are a thing of the past. And to round out this heady crew, there’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) head Mick Mulvaney now also at the helm of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose very existence he’s mocked.

    In time, we’ll come to a reckoning with this era of Trumpian finance. Meanwhile, however, the agenda of these men (and they are all men) could lead to a financial crisis of the first order. So here’s a little rundown on them: what drives them and how they are blindly taking the economy onto distinctly treacherous ground.

    Joseph Otting, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

    The Office of the Comptroller is responsible for ensuring that banks operate in a secure and reasonable manner, provide equal access to their services, treat customers properly, and adhere to the laws of the land as well as federal regulations.

    As for Joseph Otting, though the Senate confirmed him as the new head of the OCC in November, four key senators called him “highly unqualified for [the] job.”  He will run an agency whose history snakes back to the Civil War. Established by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, it was meant to safeguard the solidity and viability of the banking system.  Its leader remains charged with preventing bank-caused financial crashes, not enabling them. 

    Fast forward to the 1990s when Otting held a ranking position at Union Bank NA, overseeing its lending practices to medium-sized companies. From there he transitioned to U.S. Bancorp, where he was tasked with building its middle-market business (covering companies with $50 million to $1 billion in annual revenues) as part of that lender’s expansion in California.

    In 2010, Otting was hired as CEO of OneWest (now owned by CIT Group).  During his time there with Mnuchin, OneWest foreclosed on about 36,000 people and was faced with sweeping allegations of abusive foreclosure practices for which it was fined $89 million. Otting received $10.5 million in an employment contract payout when terminated by CIT in 2015. As Senator Sherrod Brown tweeted all too accurately during his confirmation hearings in the Senate, “Joseph Otting is yet another bank exec who profited off the financial crisis who is being rewarded by the Trump Administration with a powerful job overseeing our nation’s banking system.”

    Like Trump and Mnuchin, Otting has never held public office. He is, however, an enthusiastic proponent of loosening lending regulations. Not only is he against reinstating Glass-Steagall, but he also wants to weaken the “Volcker Rule,” a part of the Dodd-Frank Act that was meant to place restrictions on various kinds of speculative transactions by banks that might not benefit their customers.

    Jay Clayton, the Securities and Exchange Commission

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934, in the wake of the crash of 1929 and in the midst of the Great Depression. Its intention was to protect investors by certifying that the securities business operated in a fair, transparent, and legal manner.  Admittedly, its first head, Joseph Kennedy (President John F. Kennedy’s father), wasn’t exactly a beacon of virtue. He had helped raise contributions for Roosevelt’s election campaign even while under suspicion for alleged bootlegging and other illicit activities.

    Since May 2017, the SEC has been run by Jay Clayton, a top Wall Street lawyer. Following law school, he eventually made partner at the elite legal firm Sullivan & Cromwell. After the 2008 financial crisis, Clayton was deeply involved in dealing with the companies that tanked as that crisis began. He advised Barclays during its acquisition of Lehman Brothers’ assets and then represented Bear Stearns when JPMorgan Chase acquired it.

    In the three years before he became head of the SEC, Clayton represented eight of the 10 largest Wall Street banks, institutions that were then regularly being investigated and charged with securities violations by the very agency Clayton now heads. He and his wife happen to hold assets valued at between $12 million and $47 million in some of those very institutions.

    Not surprisingly in this administration (or any other recent one), Clayton also has solid Goldman Sachs ties. On at least seven occasions between 2007 and 2014, he advised Goldman directly or represented its corporate clients in their initial public offerings. Recently, Goldman Sachs requested that the SEC release it from having to report its lobbying activities or payments because, it claimed, they didn’t make up a large enough percentage of its assets to be worth the bother. (Don’t be surprised when the agency agrees.) 

    Clayton’s main accomplishment so far has been to significantly reduce oversight activities. SEC penalties, for instance, fell by 15.5% to $3.5 billion during the first year of the Trump administration.  The SEC also issued enforcement actions against only 62 public companies in 2017, a 33% decline from the previous year. Perhaps you won’t then be surprised to learn that its enforcement division has an estimated 100 unfilled investigative and supervisory positions, while it has also trimmed its wish list for new regulatory provisions. As for Dodd-Frank, Clayton insists he won’t “attack” it, but thinks it should be “looked” at.

    Mick Mulvaney, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of Management and Budget

    As a congressman from South Carolina, ultra-conservative Republican Mick Mulvaney, dubbed “Mick the Knife,” once even labeled himself a “right-wing nut job.” Chosen by President Trump in November 2016 to run the Office of Management and Budget, he was confirmed by Congress last February.

    As he said during his confirmation hearings, “Each day, families across our nation make disciplined choices about how to spend their hard-earned money, and the federal government should exercise the same discretion that hard-working Americans do every day.” As soon as he was at the OMB, he took an axe to social programs that help everyday Americans. He was instrumental in creating the GOP tax plan that will add up to $1.5 trillion to the country’s debt in order to provide major tax breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals. He was also a key figure in selling the plan to the media.

    When Richard Cordray resigned as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in November, Trump promptly selected Mick the Knife for that role, undercutting the deputy director Cordray had appointed to the post. After much debate and a court order in his favor, Mulvaney grabbed a box of Dunkin’ Donuts and headed over from his OMB office adjacent to the White House. So even though he’s got a new job, Mulvaney is never far from Trump’s reach.

    The problem for the rest of us: Mulvaney loathes the CFPB, an agency he once called “a joke.” While he can’t unilaterally demolish it, he’s already obstructed its ability to enforce its government mandates. Soon after Trump appointed him, he imposed a 30-day freeze on hiring and similarly froze all further rule-making and regulatory actions.

    In his latest effort to undermine American consumers, he’s working to defund the CFPB. He just sent the Federal Reserve a letter stating that, “for the second quarter of fiscal year 2018, the Bureau is requesting $0.” That doesn’t bode well for American consumers.

    Jerome “Jay” Powell, Federal Reserve

    Thanks to the Senate confirmation of his selection for chairman of the board, Donald Trump now owns the Fed, too. The former number two man under Janet Yellen, Jerome Powell will be running the Fed, come Monday morning, February 5th.

    Established in 1913 during President Woodrow Wilson’s administration, the Fed’s official mission is to “promote a safe, sound, competitive, and accessible banking system.” In reality, it’s acted more like that system’s main drug dealer in recent years. In the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, in addition to buying trillions of dollars in bonds (a strategy called “quantitative easing,” or QE), the Fed supplied four of the biggest Wall Street banks with an injection of $7.8 trillion in secret loans. The move was meant to stimulate the economy, but really, it coddled the banks.

    Powell’s monetary policy undoubtedly won’t represent a startling change from that of previous head Janet Yellen, or her predecessor, Ben Bernanke. History shows that Powell has repeatedly voted for pumping financial markets with Federal Reserve funds and, despite displaying reservations about the practice of quantitative easing, he always voted in favor of it, too. What makes his nomination out of the ordinary, though, is that he’s a trained lawyer, not an economist.

    Powell is assuming the helm at a time when deregulation is central to the White House’s economic and financial strategy.  Keep in mind that he will also have a role in choosing and guiding future Fed appointments. (At present, the Fed has the smallest number of sitting governors in its history.) The first such appointee, private equity investor Randal Quarles, already approved as the Fed’s vice chairman for supervision, is another major deregulator.

    Powell will be able to steer banking system decisions in other ways.  In recent Senate testimony, he confirmed his deregulatory predisposition. In that vein, the Fed has already announced that it seeks to loosen the capital requirements big banks need to put behind their riskier assets and activities. This will, it claims, allow them to more freely make loans to Main Street, in case a decade of cheap money wasn’t enough of an incentive.

    The Emperor Has No Rules

    Nearly every regulatory institution in Trumpville tasked with monitoring the financial system is now run by someone who once profited from bending or breaking its rules. Historically, severe financial crises tend to erupt after periods of lax oversight and loose banking regulations. By filling America’s key institutions with representatives of just such negligence, Trump has effectively hired a team of financial arsonists.

    Naturally, Wall Street views Trump’s chosen ones with glee. Amid the present financial euphoria of the stock market, big bank stock prices have soared.  But one thing is certain: when the next crisis comes, it will leave the last meltdown in the shade because our financial system is, at its core, unreformed and without adult supervision. Banks not only remain too big to fail but are still growing, while this government pushes policies guaranteed to put us all at risk again.

    There’s a pattern to this: first, there’s a crash; then comes a period of remorse and talk of reform; and eventually comes the great forgetting. As time passes, markets rise, greed becomes good, and Wall Street begins to champion more deregulation. The government attracts deregulatory enthusiasts and then, of course, there’s another crash, millions suffer, and remorse returns.

    Ominously, we’re now in the deregulation stage following the bull run. We know what comes next, just not when. Count on one thing: it won’t be pretty. 

  • Guess Which 'Shithole' Has The World's Most-Overcrowded Prison System

    According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. has a prison population of 2.2 million, 481 inmates per 100,000 of the population.

    The U.S. prison system has attracted headlines for overcrowding with 18 states reporting they were operating at over 100 percent capacity at the end of 2014. According to the World Prison Brief, the U.S. has an an occupancy level of 103.9 percent and only comes 113th worldwide when it comes to overcrowding in prisons

    However, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy details, somebody who gets arrested and jailed in Haiti will have to endure far tougher conditions.

    Infographic: The World's Most Overcrowded Prison Systems  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    The Caribbean nation has the most overcrowded prisons of any country worldwide and its institutions are operating at 454 percent capacity. That has resulted in 80 to 100 men being crammed into a single cell at once, malnutrition and the spread of disease. Many of Haiti’s inmates have not been convicted of a crime and the UN has condemned the situtation, saying inmates are subject to daily violations of their human rights.

     

    The situation in the Philippines is similar and conditions in its prisons have deteriorated steadily since President Rodrigo Duterte launched his war on drugs. That has seen the number of arrests skyrocket with thousands of people thrown into prison. That has seen occupancy rates stretched to 436 percent of capacity and Quezon City Jail is a good example. An ABC News report claims the facility was built to house 262 prisoners and it now hosts over 3,000.

    El Salvador comes third for prison overcrowding with its institutions operating at 348.2 percent of their capacity.

  • The Fragile Generation

    Authored by &  via Jim Quinn’s Burning Platform blog,

    Bad policy and paranoid parenting are making kids too safe to succeed

    One day last year, a citizen on a prairie path in the Chicago suburb of Elmhurst came upon a teen boy chopping wood. Not a body. Just some already-fallen branches. Nonetheless, the onlooker called the cops.

    Officers interrogated the boy, who said he was trying to build a fort for himself and his friends. A local news site reports the police then “took the tools for safekeeping to be returned to the boy’s parents.”

    Elsewhere in America, preschoolers at the Learning Collaborative in Charlotte, North Carolina, were thrilled to receive a set of gently used playground equipment. But the kids soon found out they would not be allowed to use it, because it was resting on grass, not wood chips. “It’s a safety issue,” explained a day care spokeswoman. Playing on grass is against local regulations.

    And then there was the query that ran in Parents magazine a few years back: “Your child’s old enough to stay home briefly, and often does. But is it okay to leave her and her playmate home while you dash to the dry cleaner?” Absolutely not, the magazine averred: “Take the kids with you, or save your errand for another time.” After all, “you want to make sure that no one’s feelings get too hurt if there’s a squabble.”

    The principle here is simple: This generation of kids must be protected like none other. They can’t use tools, they can’t play on grass, and they certainly can’t be expected to work through a spat with a friend.

    And this, it could be argued, is why we have “safe spaces” on college campuses and millennials missing adult milestones today. We told a generation of kids that they can never be too safe—and they believed us.

    Safety First

    We’ve had the best of intentions, of course. But efforts to protect our children may be backfiring. When we raise kids unaccustomed to facing anything on their own, including risk, failure, and hurt feelings, our society and even our economy are threatened. Yet modern child-rearing practices and laws seem all but designed to cultivate this lack of preparedness. There’s the fear that everything children see, do, eat, hear, and lick could hurt them. And there’s a newer belief that has been spreading through higher education that words and ideas themselves can be traumatizing.

    How did we come to think a generation of kids can’t handle the basic challenges of growing up?

    Beginning in the 1980s, American childhood changed. For a variety of reasons—including shifts in parenting norms, new academic expectations, increased regulation, technological advances, and especially a heightened fear of abduction (missing kids on milk cartons made it feel as if this exceedingly rare crime was rampant)—children largely lost the experience of having large swaths of unsupervised time to play, explore, and resolve conflicts on their own. This has left them more fragile, more easily offended, and more reliant on others. They have been taught to seek authority figures to solve their problems and shield them from discomfort, a condition sociologists call “moral dependency.”

    This poses a threat to the kind of open-mindedness and flexibility young people need to thrive at college and beyond. If they arrive at school or start careers unaccustomed to frustration and misunderstandings, we can expect them to be hypersensitive. And if they don’t develop the resources to work through obstacles, molehills come to look like mountains.

    This magnification of danger and hurt is prevalent on campus today. It no longer matters what a person intended to say, or how a reasonable listener would interpret a statement—what matters is whether any individual feels offended by it. If so, the speaker has committed a “microaggression,” and the offended party’s purely subjective reaction is a sufficient basis for emailing a dean or filing a complaint with the university’s “bias response team.” The net effect is that both professors and students today report that they are walking on eggshells. This interferes with the process of free inquiry and open debate—the active ingredients in a college education.

    And if that’s the case already, what of the kids still in grammar school, constantly reminded they might accidentally hurt each other with the wrong words? When today’s 8-year-olds become the 18-year-olds starting college, will they still view free speech as worthy of protecting? As Daniel Shuchman, chairman of the free speech-promoting Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), puts it, “How likely are they to consider the First Amendment essential if they start learning in fifth grade that you’re forbidden to say—or even think—certain things, especially at school?”

    Parents, teachers, and professors are talking about the growing fragility they see. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the overprotection of children and the hypersensitivity of college students could be two sides of the same coin. By trying so hard to protect our kids, we’re making them too safe to succeed.

    Children on a Leash

    If you’re over 40, chances are good that you had scads of free time as a child—after school, on weekends, over the summer. And chances are also good that, if you were asked about it now, you’d go on and on about playing in the woods and riding your bike until the streetlights came on.

    Today many kids are raised like veal. Only 13 percent of them even walk to school. Many who take the bus wait at the stop with parents beside them like bodyguards. For a while, Rhode Island was considering a bill that would prohibit children from getting off the bus in the afternoon if there wasn’t an adult waiting to walk them home. This would have applied until seventh grade.

    As for summer frolicking, campers don’t just have to take a buddy with them wherever they go, including the bathroom. Some are now required to take two—one to stay with whoever gets hurt, the other to run and get a grown-up. Walking to the john is treated like climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro.

    After school, kids no longer come home with a latchkey and roam the neighborhood. Instead, they’re locked into organized, supervised activities. Youth sports are a $15 billion business that has grown by 55 percent since just 2010. Children as young as third grade are joining traveling teams—which means their parents spend a lot of time in the car, too. Or they’re at tutoring. Or they’re at music lessons. And if all else fails, they are in their rooms, online.

    Even if parents want to shoo their kids outside—and don’t come home till dinner!—it’s not as easy as it once was. Often, there are no other children around to play with. Even more dishearteningly, adults who believe it’s good for young people to run some errands or play kickball down the street have to think twice about letting them, because busybodies, cops, and social workers are primed to equate “unsupervised” with “neglected and in danger.”

    You may remember the story of the Meitivs in Maryland, investigated twice for letting their kids, 10 and 6, walk home together from the park. Or the Debra Harrell case in South Carolina, where a mom was thrown in jail for allowing her 9-year-old to play at the sprinkler playground while she worked at McDonald’s. Or the 8-year-old Ohio boy who was supposed to get on the bus to Sunday school, but snuck off to the Family Dollar store instead. His dad was arrested for child endangerment.

    These examples represent a new outlook: the belief that anytime kids are doing anything on their own, they are automatically under threat. But that outlook is wrong. The crime rate in America is back down to what it was in 1963, which means that most of today’s parents grew up playing outside when it was more dangerous than it is today. And it hasn’t gotten safer because we’re hovering over our kids. All violent crime is down, including against adults.

    Danger Things

    And yet it doesn’t feel safer. A 2010 study found “kidnapping” to be the top parental fear, despite the fact that merely being a passenger in a car is far more dangerous. Nine kids were kidnapped and murdered by strangers in 2011, while 1,140 died in vehicles that same year. While Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker writes in 2011’s The Better Angels of Our Nature that life in most countries is safer today than at any time in human history, the press keeps pushing paranoia. This makes stepping back feel doubly risky: There’s the fear of child kidnappers and the fear of Child Protective Services.

    At times, it seems like our culture is conjuring dangers out of thin air, just to have something new to worry about. Thus, the Boulder Public Library in Colorado recently forbade anyone under 12 to enter without an adult, because “children may encounter hazards such as stairs, elevators, doors, furniture, electrical equipment, or other library patrons.” Ah, yes, kids and library furniture. Always a lethal combo.

    Happily, the library backed off that rule, perhaps thanks to merciless mocking in the media. But saner minds don’t always prevail. At Mesa Elementary School, which also happens to be in Boulder, students got a list of the items they could not bring to the science fair. These included “chemicals,” “plants in soil,” and “organisms (living or dead).” And we wonder why American children score so low on international tests.

    But perhaps the single best example of how fantastically fearful we’ve become occurred when the city of Richland, Washington, got rid of all the swings on its school playgrounds. The love of swinging is probably older than humanity itself, given our arboreal origins. But as a school district spokesman explained, “Swings have been determined to be the most unsafe of all the playground equipment on a playground.”

    You may think your town has avoided such overkill, but is there a merry-go-round at your local park, or a see-saw? Most likely they, too, have gone the way of lawn darts. The Consumer Product Safety Commission even warns parks of “tripping hazards, like…tree stumps and rocks,” a fact unearthed (so to speak) by Philip Howard, author of 2010’s Life Without Lawyers.

    The problem is that kids learn by doing. Trip over a tree stump and you learn to look down. There’s an old saying: Prepare your child for the path, not the path for your child. We’re doing the opposite.

    Ironically, there are real health dangers in not walking, or biking, or hopping over that stump. A Johns Hopkins study this summer found that the typical 19-year-old is as sedentary as a 65-year-old. The Army is worried that its recruits don’t know how to skip or do somersaults.

    But the cost of shielding kids from risks goes well beyond the physical, as a robust body of research has shown.

    Of Trophies and Traumas

    A few years ago, Boston College psychology professor emeritus Peter Gray was invited by the head of counseling services at a major university to a conference on “the decline in resilience among students.” The organizer said that emergency counseling calls had doubled in the last five years. What’s more, callers were seeking help coping with everyday problems, such as arguments with a roommate. Two students had dialed in because they’d found a mouse in their apartment. They also called the police, who came and set a mousetrap. And that’s not to mention the sensitivity around grades. To some students, a B is the end of the world. (To some parents, too.)

    Free play has little in common with the “play” we give children today. In organized activities, adults run the show. It’s only when the grown-ups aren’t around that the kids get to take over. Play is training for adulthood.

    Part of the rise in calls could be attributed to the fact that admitting mental health issues no longer carries the stigma it once did, an undeniably positive development. But it could also be a sign, Gray realized, that failing at basic “adulting” no longer carries the stigma it once did. And that is far more troubling.

    Is this outcome the apotheosis of participation-trophy culture? It’s easy to scoff at a society that teaches kids that everything they do deserves applause. But more disturbing is the possibility that those trophies taught kids the opposite lesson: that they’re so easily hurt, they can’t handle the sad truth that they’re not the best at something.

    Not letting your kid climb a tree because he might fall robs him of a classic childhood experience. But being emotionally overprotective takes away something else. “We have raised a generation of young people who have not been given the opportunity to…experience failure and realize they can survive it,” Gray has said. When Lenore’s son came in eighth out of nine teams in a summer camp bowling league, he got an eighth-place trophy. The moral was clear: We don’t think you can cope with the negative emotions of finishing second-to-last.

    Of course, it’s natural to want to see kids happy. But the real secret to happiness isn’t more high fives; it’s developing emotional resilience. In our mania for physical safety, coupled with our recent tendency to talk about “emotional safety,” we have systematically deprived our children of the thousands of challenging—and sometimes upsetting—experiences that they need in order to learn that resiliency. And in our quest to protect them, we have stolen from children the best resilience training known to man: free play.

    Play’s the Thing

    All mammals play. It is a drive installed by Mother Nature. Hippos do backflips in the water. Dogs fetch sticks. And gazelles run around, engaging in a game that looks an awful lot like tag.

    Why would they do that? They’re wasting valuable calories and exposing themselves to predators. Shouldn’t they just sit quietly next to their mama gazelles, exploring the world through the magic of PBS Kids?

    It must be because play is even more important to their long-term survival than simply being “safe.” Gray’s main body of research is on the importance of free play, and he stresses that it has little in common with the “play” we give kids today. In organized activities—Little League, for example—adults run the show. It’s only when the grown-ups aren’t around that the kids get to take over. Play is training for adulthood.

    In free play, ideally with kids of mixed ages, the children decide what to do and how to do it. That’s teamwork, literally. The little kids desperately want to be like the bigger kids, so instead of bawling when they strike out during a sandlot baseball game, they work hard to hold themselves together. This is the foundation of maturity.

    The older kids, meanwhile, throw the ball more softly to the younger ones. They’re learning empathy. And if someone yells, “Let’s play on just one leg!”—something they couldn’t do at Little League, with championships (and trophies!) on the line—the kids discover what it means to come up with and try out a different way of doing things. In Silicon Valley terms, they “pivot” and adopt a “new business model.” They also learn that they, not just grown-ups, can collectively remake the rules to suit their needs. That’s called participatory democracy.

    Best of all, without adults intervening, the kids have to do all the problem solving for themselves, from deciding what game to play to making sure the teams are roughly equal. Then, when there’s an argument, they have to resolve it themselves. That’s a tough skill to learn, but the drive to continue playing motivates them to work things out. To get back to having fun, they first have to come up with a solution, so they do. This teaches them that they can disagree, hash it out, and—perhaps with some grumbling—move on.

    These are the very skills that are suddenly in short supply on college campuses.

    “Free play is the means by which children learn to make friends, overcome their fears, solve their own problems and generally take control of their own lives,” Gray writes in 2013’s Free to Learn (Basic Books). “Nothing we do, no amount of toys we buy or ‘quality time’ or special training we give our children, can compensate for the freedom we take away. The things that children learn through their own initiatives, in free play, cannot be taught in other ways.”

    Unstructured, unsupervised time for play is one of the most important things we have to give back to kids if we want them to be strong and happy and resilient.

    Where Have All the Paperboys Gone?

    It’s not just that kids aren’t playing much on their own. These days, they’re not doing much of anything on their own. In an article in The Atlantic, Hanna Rosin admits that “when my daughter was 10, my husband and I suddenly realized that in her whole life, she had probably not spent more than 10 minutes unsupervised by an adult.”

    In earlier generations, this would have seemed a bizarre and wildly overprotective upbringing. Society had certain age-related milestones that most people agreed on. Kids might be trusted to walk to school by first grade. They might get a latchkey at 8, take on a newspaper route around 10, start babysitting at 12. But over the past generation or so, those milestones disappeared—buried by fears of kidnapping, the rise of supervised activities, and the pre-eminence of homework. Parents today know all about the academic milestones their kids are supposed to reach, but not about the moments when kids used to start joining the world.

    It’s not necessarily their fault. Calls to eight newspapers in North Carolina found none that would take anyone under the age of 18 to deliver papers. A police chief in New Albany, Ohio, went on record saying kids shouldn’t be outside on their own till age 16, “the threshold where you see children getting a little bit more freedom.” A study in Britain found that while just under half of all 16- to 17-year-olds had jobs as recently as 1992, today that number is 20 percent.

    The responsibility expected of kids not so long ago has become almost inconceivable. Published in 1979, the book Your 6-Year-old: Loving and Defiant includes a simple checklist for what a child entering first grade should be able to do: Can he draw and color and stay within the lines of the design being colored? Can he ride a small two-wheeled bicycle without helper wheels? Can he travel alone in the neighborhood (four to eight blocks) to a store, school, playground, or friend’s home?

    Hang on. Walk to the store at 6—alone?

    It’s tempting to blame “helicopter parents” for today’s less resilient kids. But when all the first-graders are walking themselves to school, it’s easy to add yours to the mix. When your child is the only one, it’s harder. And that’s where we are today. Norms have dramatically changed. The kind of freedom that seemed unremarkable a generation ago has become taboo, and in some cases even illegal.

    A Very Hampered Halloween

    In Waynesboro, Georgia, “trick or treaters” must be 12 or younger; they must be in a costume; and they must be accompanied by an adult at least 21 years of age. So if you have kids who are 15, 10, and 8, you can’t send them out together. The 15-year-old is not allowed to dress up, yet she won’t be considered old enough to supervise her siblings for another six years. And this is on the one night of the entire year we traditionally let children pretend to be adults.

    Other schools and community centers now send letters home asking parents not to let their children wear scary costumes. Some even organize “trunk or treats”—cars parked in a circle, trunks open and filled with candy, thus saving the kids from having to walk around the neighborhood or knock on doors. (That would be tiring and terrifying.) If this is childhood, is it any wonder college kids also expect to be micromanaged on Halloween?

    At Yale in 2015, after 13 college administrators signed a letter outlining appropriate vs. inappropriate costume choices for students, the childhood development expert and campus lecturer Erika Christakis suggested that it would be better to allow kids to think for themselves. After all, Halloween is supposed to be about pushing boundaries. “Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little obnoxious…or, yes, offensive?” she wrote. “Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity—your capacity—to ignore or reject things that trouble you?”

    Apparently, yes. Angry students mobbed her husband, the professor Nicholas Christakis, surrounding him in the courtyard of the residential college where he served as master. They screamed obscenities and demanded he apologize for believing, along with his wife, that college students are in fact capable of handling offensive costumes on Halloween. “Be quiet!” a student shouted at him at one point. “As master, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students!” She did not take kindly to his response that, to the contrary, he sees it as his job to create a space where students can grow intellectually.

    As it turns out, Halloween is the perfect Petri dish for observing what we have done to childhood. We didn’t think anything was safe enough for young people. And now we are witnessing the results.

    No Fun and No Joy

    When parents curtail their kids’ independence, they’re not just depriving the younglings of childhood fun. They are denying themselves the grown-up joy of seeing their kids do something smart, brave, or kind without parental guidance.

    It’s the kind of joy described by a Washington Post columnist who answered the phone one day and was shocked to find her 8-year-old son on the other end. He’d accidentally gone home when he was supposed to stay after school. Realizing she wasn’t there, he decided to walk to the store a few blocks away—his first time. The mom raced over, fearing God knows what, and rushed in only to find her son happily helping the shopkeeper stock the shelves with meat. He’d had a snack and done his homework, too. It was an afternoon he’d never forget, and neither would his very proud mother.

    When we don’t let our kids do anything on their own, we don’t get to see just how competent they can be—and isn’t that, ultimately, the greatest reward of parenting? We need to make it easier for grown-ups to let go while living in a society that keeps warning them not to. And we need to make sure they won’t get arrested for it.

    What Is To Be Done?

    By trying to keep children safe from all risks, obstacles, hurt feelings, and fears, our culture has taken away the opportunities they need to become successful adults. In treating them as fragile—emotionally, socially, and physically—society actually makes them so.

    To combat this problem, we have established a new nonpartisan nonprofit, the Let Grow Foundation. Our goal is to restore resilience by overthrowing the culture of overprotection. We teamed up with Gray, the professor whose research we highlighted above, and FIRE’s Shuchman, a New York investment fund manager who is now our chairman.

    We are building an organization that seeks to change the social norms, policies, and laws that pressure and intimidate parents, schools, and towns into coddling their kids. We will research the effects of excessive caution, study the link between independence and success, and launch projects to give kids back some free time and free play. Most of all, the Let Grow Foundation will reject the assumption of fragility and promote intellectual, physical, and emotional resilience.

    Children know that their parents had more freedom to roam than they do, and more unscheduled time to read or tinker or explore. They also realize that older generations were trusted to roll with some punches, at school and beyond. We hope kids today will start demanding that same independence and respect for themselves. It’s their freedom that has been chiseled away, after all.

    We want them to insist on their right to engage not just with the physical world, but also with the world of ideas. We want them to hear, read, and voice opinions that go against the grain. We want them to be insulted by the assumption that they and their classmates are so easily hurt that arguments must stop before they start. To this end, we hope to encourage their skepticism about the programs and policies that are ostensibly there to “protect” them from discomfort.

    If this effort is successful, we’ll soon see kids outside again. Common setbacks will be considered “resilience moments” rather than traumas. Children will read widely, express themselves freely, and work through disagreements without automatically calling on authority figures to solve their problems for them. The more adults step back, the more we believe kids will step up, growing brave in the face of risk and just plain happy in their independence.

    Children today are safer and smarter than this culture gives them credit for. They deserve the freedom we had. The country’s future prosperity and freedom depend on it.

  • GOP Reps Seek Criminal Prosecution Of FBI, DOJ Officials For "Full Throated" Illegal Misconduct And "Treason"

    Following the release of a four-page memo detailing rampant FISA warrant abuse by the FBI and DOJ, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) announced that he will seek the criminal prosecution of FBI and DOJ officials for the “full throated adoption of this illegal misconduct and abuse of FISA by James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein” who Gosar called “traitors to our nation.” 

    a

    Gosar focuses on the memo’s claim that the FBI and DOJ did not mention that Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 spy who compiled the dossier, was partially funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. 

    “This is third world politics where the official government agencies are used as campaign attack dogs,” Gosar said.

    The letter reads in part:

    The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence memorandum on the FBI abuse of FISA warrants and targeting a sitting President is not just evidence of incompetence but clear and convincing evidence of treason….

    I will be leading a letter to the Attorney General seeking criminal prosecution against these traitors to our nation.”

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

    Meanwhile, Georgia GOP Gubernatorial candidate Sen. Michael Williams is  calling for the prosecution of Comey – saying he should be “sent to prison for his crimes“:

    “The leadership of the FBI and DOJ behaved in a way we would expect of the former Soviet Union, not the United States of America. I applaud Representative Nunes and other Republican members of the House Intel Committee for fighting and exposing corruption. Americans are tired of corrupt bureaucrats and their career politician enablers. If powerful leaders are not held accountable, the American people will never regain faith in the institutions meant to protect us. Former FBI Director James Comey was entrusted with one of the most powerful positions in the world. Sadly, he intentionally abused his power in an effort to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sent to prison for his crimes. No one is above the law. No one.” 

    We’re sure Attorney General Jeff Sessions – who resisted calls for a second special counsel to investigate FBI misconduct – will take Gosar’s request seriously, despite praising Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein earlier today for representing “the kind of quality and leadership that we want in the department” right after the FISA memo detailing his conduct was released.

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

    Good thing Sessions isn’t some deep-state concession Trump had to agree to in exchange for GOP support during the election.

  • Why Albert Einstein Thought We Were All Insane

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    In the early summer of 1914, Albert Einstein was about to start a prestigious new job as Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics.

    The position was a big deal for the 35-year old Einstein– confirmation that he was one of the leading scientific minds in the world. And he was excited about what he would be able to achieve there.

    But within weeks of Einstein’s arrival, the German government canceled plans for the Institute; World War I had broken out, and all of Europe was gearing up for one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

    The impact of the Great War was immeasurable.

    It cost the lives of 10 million people. It bankrupted entire nations.

    The war ripped two major European powers off the map– the Austro Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire– and deposited them in the garbage can of history.

    Austria-Hungary in particular boasted the second largest land mass in Europe, the third highest population, and one of the biggest economies. Plus it was a leading manufacturer of high-tech machinery.

    Yet by the end of the war it would no longer exist.

    World War I also played a major role in the emergence of communism in Russia through the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

    Plus it was also a critical factor in the astonishing rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

    Without the Great War, Adolf Hitler would have been an obscure Austrian vagabond, and our world would be an entirely different place.

    One of the most bizarre things about World War I was how predictable it was.

    Tensions had been building in Europe for years, and the threat of war was deemed so likely that most major governments invested heavily in detailed war plans.

    The most famous was Germany’s “Schlieffen Plan”, a military offensive strategy named after its architect, Count Alfred von Schlieffen.

    To describe the Schlieffen Plan as “comprehensive” is a massive understatement.

    As AJP describes in his book War by Timetable, the Schlieffen Plan called for rapidly moving hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the front lines, plus food, equipment, horses, munitions, and other critical supplies, all in a matter of DAYS.

    Tens of thousands of trains were criss-crossing Europe during the mobilization, and as you can imagine, all the trains had to run precisely on time.

    A train that was even a minute early or a minute late would cause a chain reaction to the rest of the plan, affecting the time tables of other trains and other troop movements.

    In short, there was no room for error.

    In many respects the Schlieffen Plan is still with us to this day– not with regards to war, but for monetary policy.

    Like the German General Staff more than a century ago, modern central bankers concoct the most complicated, elaborate plans to engineer economic victory.

    Their success depends on being able to precisely control the [sometimes irrational] behavior of hundreds of millions of consumers, millions of businesses, dozens of foreign nations, and trillions of dollars of capital.

    And just like the obtusely complex war plans from 1914, central bank policy requires that all the trains run on time. There is no room for error.

    This is nuts. Economies are comprised of billions of moving pieces that are beyond anyone’s control and often have competing interests.

    A government that’s $21 trillion in debt requires cheap money (i.e. low interest rates) to stay afloat.

    Yet low interest rates are severely punishing for savers, retirees, and pension funds (including Social Security) because they’re unable to generate a sufficient rate of return to meet their needs.

    Low interest rates are great for capital intensive businesses that need to borrow money. But they also create dangerous asset bubbles and can eventually cause a painful rise in inflation.

    Raise interest rates too high, however, and it could bankrupt debtors and throw the economy into a tailspin.

    Like I said, there’s no room for error– they have to find the perfect balance between growth and inflation.

    Hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio summed it up perfectly last month when he said,

    “It becomes more and more difficult to balance those things as time goes on. . . It may not be a problem in the next year or two, but the risk of not getting it right increases with time.”

    Today there’s a changing of the guard at the Federal Reserve– Janet Yellen is leaving her post as chair, and she’s being succeeded by Jerome Powell.

    Yellen leaves her post having brought down the unemployment rate in the United States to 4.2%, which certainly sounds nice.

    Yet at the same time, workers’ wages (when adjusted for inflation) have hardly budged under her tenure.

    Americans’ savings rate has been cut in half. Consumer debt and student loans are at all-time highs.

    And dangerous asset bubbles have expanded, from stocks to bonds to property.

    The risk of them getting it wrong is clearly growing.

    That’s why having your own Plan B is so important.

    It’s a simple concept: don’t keep all of your eggs in one basket, especially when the people who control the basket have such a tiny margin of error.

    The right Plan B makes sense no matter what happens, or doesn’t happen, next. If they get it right, you won’t be worse off. But if they get it wrong, you’ll still prosper.

    I truly hope they don’t get it wrong.

    But if they ever do, people may finally look back and wonder how we could have been so foolish to hand total control of our economy over to an unelected committee of bureaucrats with a mediocre track record… and then expect them to get it right forever.

    It’s pretty insane when you think about it.

    As Einstein quipped at the height of World War I in 1917, “What a pity we don’t live on Mars so that we could observe the futile activities of human beings only through a telescope. . .”

    *  * *

    And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

  • Mattis Threatens Military Action Over Syria Gas Attack Claims, Then Admits "No Evidence"

    Mattis Threatens Military Action Over Syria Gas Attack Claims, Then Admits “No Evidence”

    “I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. “What I am saying is that other groups on the ground – NGOs, fighters on the ground – have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence.”

    This week the American public was once again bombarded by fresh headlines alleging the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad gassed its own people. And in predictable fashion the usual threat of US military force soon followed.

    Except of course rather than “alleging” a chemical incident, all the usual suspects from CNN pundits to State Department bureaucrats to Pentagon officials in typical fashion are opting for the simpler “Assad did it” narrative. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated Thursday“Russia is making the wrong choice by not exercising its unique influence. To allow the Syria regime to use chemical weapons against its own people is unconscionable. We will pursue accountability.”


    The White Helmets published this photo on Thursday, claiming that its “volunteer was suffocated by the chlorine gas attack”. It appears that this is the “NGO” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis referenced on Friday to say “open sources” say Assad is using chemical weapons.

    Nauert’s statement was a repeat of talking points from last week’s chemical attack claims, wherein both she and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson ultimately blamed Russia. But like with other recent chemical attack allegations, the claims couldn’t be more vague or poorly sourced, yet was still enough for U.S. officials to issue more direct threats of US military action against Assad.

    While addressing the prior East Ghouta incident during a talk on January 23rd, Tillerson let slip that he didn’t actually know much about the supposed earlier January attack at all while still putting blame squarely on Syria and Russia, saying at the time, Whoever conducted the attacks Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims in eastern Ghouta and countless other Syrians targeted with chemical weapons since Russia became involved in Syria.”

    This week the “evidence” doesn’t appear to be any clearer or narrowed.

    On Friday Defense Secretary Jim Mattis addressed the latest claims, confidently asserting the Syrian government had as a matter of routine used chlorine as a weapon against the remaining pockets of opposition areas of the country – specifically in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta, but it appears at this point that even Reuters has suddenly found its journalistic skepticism… Yes, actual knowledge on whether or not there was even a chemical attack to begin with is indeed thin enough for Reuters to headline its own report with “Mattis says has no evidence of sarin gas used in Syria, but concerned”.

    Mattis, in line with the rest of the administration – especially the State Department – did his best to paint a scenario of the case being all but certain that the Syrian Army has been using chlorine gas to attack civilians, while also suggesting Sarin may have been deployed as well, which could serve as a “red line” triggering US military attack on the Syrian government. 

    But Mattis was also forced to admit the following, according to Reuters:

    Mattis, speaking with reporters, said the Syrian government had repeatedly used chlorine as a weapon. He stressed that the United States did not have evidence of sarin gas use.

    “We are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, (but) I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. “What I am saying is that other groups on the ground – NGOs, fighters on the ground – have said that sarin has been used, so we are looking for evidence.”

    And according to CNN, Mattis is now merely going on “open source” information, which essentially means anything from media reports to YouTube to Twitter to mere “opposition sources say…”. CNN reports the following:

    “You have all seen how we reacted to that [referencing the April 2017 US airstrike], so they’d be ill advised to go back to violating the chemical convention”… Mattis acknowledged that the US has not seen direct evidence of the use of Sarin gas but pointed to open source reports. “I don’t have the evidence… We are looking for evidence. I don’t have evidence credible or uncredible.”

    Like with previous allegations, US government officials are issuing threats of military action based on NGO’s and fighters on the ground.

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

    In this case it once again appears to be the word of the White Helmets, which it seems just about every other week issue new and unverified claims of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government. As is now generally well-known the White Helmets are funded by US and UK governments to the tune of many tens of millions of dollars, and have further been frequently filmed and documented cooperating closely with al-Qaeda factions on the ground in Syria.

    Indeed the group only operates in areas controlled by al-Qaeda (HTS) and other anti-government insurgents, especially in the locations of recent alleged attacks – Idlib and East Ghouta.

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

    Now that unverified claims of chemical attack incidents in Syria (and their subsequent uncritical amplification by media and politicians) have become routine, the following somewhat obvious observations need to be recalled:

    • The Assad government has long been winning the war, what incentive does it have to do the one thing (use CW) that would hasten its demise?
    • The US is a party to the conflict, so its claims must be evaluated accordingly.
    • The “NGOs and fighters on the ground” (in Mattis’ own words) are an even more direct party to the conflict.
    • The only way anti-Assad fighters can survive at this point is by triggering massive US military intervention (by claiming “Assad is gassing his own people!”).
    • The greater the momentum of Syria/Russia/Iran forces in defeating jihadists on Syrian territory, the more frequent the claims of chemical attacks  become – issued from those very jihadists suffering near certain defeat.
    • In the midst of a grinding 7-year long “fog of war” conflict involving constant claims and counterclaims, mere “open source” information means nothing in terms of proof or hard evidence.
    • Al-Qaeda administers the locations from which chemical attack allegations are being made. 
    • US officials stand ready to make use of “chemical attack” claims with or without “evidence credible or uncredible” (in Mattis’ words) anytime further pressure needs to be applied toward Russia or Syria.
    • Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence (Iraq WMD anyone?).

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

    For its part, Russia alongside the Syrian government and other regional allies have long accused the US of blindly trusting opposition sources inside Syria concerning claims of chemical weapons attacks, including the April 2017 incident in al-Qaeda controlled (HTS) Idlib, which resulted in the US attacking an airbase in central Syria.

    Last October, the US State Department admitted that anti-Assad militant groups operating in Syria, especially in Idlib, possess and have used chemical weapons throughout the war – something which the US government previously said was impossible, as it consistently held the position that only the Assad government could be to blame.

  • The Ultimate Bear Chart

    Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

    “There are two bubbles: We have a stock market bubble, and we have a bond market bubble” – Alan Greenspan January 31, 2018

    This may not come as a surprise, but: I agree with him. Oh I know, every time Alan Greenspan says something related to “irrational exuberance” immediately the comments come that he said it in 1996 and stocks didn’t blow-up until 2000. While that may have been true then it didn’t invalidate his premise nor is the timing relevant to now. Back then people ignored him and went full bubble mode until it popped.

    Indeed this one may still go on for a while and 2018 upside risk targets remain despite this week’s first pullback action of 2018. However this week’s corrective move coincided with a sustained technical breakout in the 10 year yield above its 30 year trend lines. Stock clearly reacted and not favorably.

    Which brings me precisely to the relationship between stocks and bonds. If Alan Greenspan is correct then a chart I have been watching and musing about for a while may be the ultimate bear chart.

    I’ve shown this chart before, but let me walk you through the theory of it.

    This is a ratio chart of $TNX (10 year yield) vs the $SPX and yields a stunning picture:

    The correlation is stunning to me from a technical perspective. Why? Because it is so incredibly precise.

    Indeed, if Alan Greenspan is right, this chart could have enormous implications for the next few years. This chart could suggests a massive multi year bear market to emerge.

    Let me explain why and how.

    The ratio bottomed right near the 2008/2009 lows and, as you can see, we’ve seen a continued rise until the middle of 2016. In the years in between a trend line established itself that acted as precise support until the US election. That’s when everything went pear shaped.

    Since then the trend line became resistance and the renewed effort to break above it rejected precisely at the trend line again in 2017. Given this history it seems hardly a coincidence, but rather suggests a technical relationship of importance.

    Currently we see the ratio dropping hard this week. Why? Because stocks are falling and yields are rising. Which means that for this to move back higher yields must drop and stocks rise. Or at least yields need to stop rising.

    But if yields continue to rise and stocks continue to fall the actual pattern of the ratio could be even more alarming:

    That’s a massive multi-year heads and shoulders pattern. It’s not confirmed until it breaks its neckline, but consider the possibilities in context of the recent price action and in correlation to stocks and bonds on their own:

    Basically what this implies is that the entire rally since the early 2016 lows will turn out to have been a blow-off top. Recall what I said at the outset: The high in ratio was made in mid 2016. The action since has placed 2 bear patterns: 1. The trend line break 2. The heads and shoulders pattern.

    Now let me clear: I’m not calling for an immediate collapse here, but I’m, pointing to a possibly huge structural relationship between bonds and stocks, one that will likely take years to play out. But the signs of trouble are already in this chart. Bottom line: Bulls need yields to drop sooner rather than later or this market party may come to an abrupt end with deep reaching consequences.

    There may hope in the short term as the ratio is about to reach critical support:

    But if the ratio breaks below its neckline, then this chart may indeed prove to be the ultimate bear chart.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 2nd February 2018

  • Trump To Present Mideast Peace Plan "With Or Without The Palestinians"

    A ‘post hoc’ attempt to present the US as a sincere broker in the peace process? 

    Axios reports that amidst the current complete disconnect in relations between the White House and the Palestinian Authority there is serious consideration underway of moving forward with President Trump’s Middle East peace plan with or without the Palestinians at the negotiating table.

    A senior administration official told the diplomatic correspondent for Israel’s Channel 10 news Barak Ravid that Trump may simply place his plan before the world “so the parties and international community can judge it at face value.” As quoted in Axios, the senior official elaborated on the plan as follows:

    “Since it’s not done, we haven’t decided yet how we are going to put it forward and what happens if one of the sides isn’t ready to come to the table. We are not there yet. But we are very optimistic that all relevant countries who want to support a peace agreement between the two sides are still waiting for our plan, want to work with us and realize we cannot be replaced. Despite all of the false reports about our plan, we are confident it will be beneficial to both sides and both peoples.”

    Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu with President Trump in Jerusalem during a May 2017 visit. Image source: AP via Politico 

    As recently as a week ago Trump repeated his threat of cutting US aid to the Palestinian territories, telling reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he could cut $700 million in annual U.S. aid “unless they sit down and negotiate peace.”

    Trump has frequently visited the subject following the fierce international reaction to the early December move which gave formal US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which includes plans to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by the end of 2019. At Davos, just before a planned meeting held on the sidelines of the economic summit with Israel’s prime minister, Trump heightened his rhetoric, saying of the Palestinian side represented by Mahmoud Abbas, “They’re going to have to want to make peace, or we’re going to have nothing to do with them any longer.”

    Trump added further, “We give them tremendous amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars. That money is on the table, because why should we do that as a country if they’re doing nothing for us?” And concluded by saying he simply wants “peace” and “to save lives”: “And what we want to do is help them. We want to create peace and save lives. And we’ll see what happens. We’ll see what happens. But the money is on the table.”

    The December 6th announcement unleashed a wave of protest among Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem which resulted in multiple deaths during clashes with Israel security forces. Dozens of rockets were also launched out of Gaza, with Hamas leadership calling for a new ‘intifada’ – or mass uprising against Israeli occupation – soon after Trump’s announcement. In addition, Vice President Mike Pence was twice forced to push back plans to visit Jerusalem and the West Bank town of Bethlehem, the latter which was canceled altogether as Palestinian officials declared their intent to snub the vice president during this visit.

    Pence finally made the trip less than two weeks ago but failed to meet with Palestinian leadership, and gave a speech before Israel’s Knesset wherein he reaffirmed Trump’s commitment taking the next steps necessary to making the US recognition of Jerusalem a reality on the ground, saying “In the weeks ahead, our administration will advance its plan to open the United States Embassy in Jerusalem, and that United States Embassy will open before the end of next year [2019].” He further said, “Our president made his decision in the best interest of the United States,” and added, “The United States has chosen fact over fiction” while peppering his speech heavily with Old Testament references throughout while pledging to “stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny.”

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

    Palestinian officials have claimed that the US under Trump has fully abandoned its role as an “honest broker” – however its unlikely that the Palestinians ever genuinely perceived the Americans in that role to begin with, as US aid to Israel – the bulk of it in the form of military support – has for years been in the billions per year. In 2016 the US signed off on a record $38 billion military aid package to Israel over the next decade. Abbas recently summarized the Palestinian Authority’s reaction to the Jerusalem move by slamming the decision as the “slap of the century” .

    And CNN reported the Palestinian Authority’s reaction to Trump’s Davos comments, as well as its view of the future prospect of a peace plan, as follows:

    “If Jerusalem is off the table, then America is off the table as well,” President Mahmoud Abbas’ official spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said in a phone call with CNN, reiterating that Palestinians no longer recognize the US as a mediator in any peace negotiations with Israel.

    There will be no negotiations, Abu Rudeineh said, until the current American administration abides by international law and agrees to work toward a two-state solution, which would see a state of Palestine created along 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital.

    Per the Axios report, should the White House move ahead to present a Trump peace plan before the international community it will likely be a mere post hoc attempt to present Trump as a sincere broker in the peace process. A December 21 United Nations vote to condemn the US Jerusalem recognition was dubbed a “stunning rebuke” of the US President’s decision after 128 countries voted against the US and Israel, and with 35 abstaining. 

    While Palestinian officials saw the move as a final nail in the coffin concerning the peace process, Trump ironically presented it as “the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and Palestinians.”

    He said during the December 6 speech rolling out of the plan, “This is a long overdue step to advance the peace process and work towards a lasting agreement.” Trump generally framed the decision as a way to put his own stamp on one of history’s oldest conflicts. “The record is in: after more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians,” the president said at the time. “It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.”

    According to Axios’ report today, “Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said he will react to the Trump plan after he sees it but stressed he is ready to renew peace talks.” No doubt, the Israelis now see the US as firmly in their corner after the Jerusalem recognition, in line with the long-running Jewish claim on the contested capital. 

    * * *

     Meanwhile, Axios summarizes the latest developments as follows:

    • U.S. special envoy Jason Greenblatt held a series of meetings with Netanyahu, his advisers and several ministers over the last two weeks. Greenblatt also met with opposition leader Hertzog and briefed EU member states representatives in Tel-Aviv and East Jerusalem. He did not meet with any Palestinian officials but met with Palestinian students and private sector executives.

    • On Wednesday, Greenblatt participated in an emergency meeting of the donor countries to the Palestinian Authority. The meeting focused on the crisis in the peace process and on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah also participated in the meeting. It was the first time senior Palestinian and U.S. officials were around the same table since the Jerusalem announcement. Greenblatt and Hamdallah shook hands but didn’t hold a meeting.

    • In his speech during the plenary meeting, Greenblatt referred to Hamdallah and said he hopes that the fact he is participating shows the Palestinians are still committed to the efforts to renew the peace process. Greenblatt also said President Trump’s announcement was just a recognition of reality and the connection of Israel and the Jewish people to Jerusalem. Greenblatt also said in his speech: “Did the President’s decision prejudge any final status issues? No. We have not taken a position on borders”.

    • Greenblatt stressed that the Trump administration continues drafting its peace plan and called on the Palestinians to return to the peace talks: “Peace will not be achieved by walking away from negotiations. It is easy to walk away from the table. But that helps no one, and it reduces or perhaps eliminates the chances of achieving a comprehensive peace agreement. And that would be terrible for the Palestinian people”.

  • Meet The Corrupt Billionaire Who Has Brought About A New Cold War

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    One has to ask why there is a crisis in US-Russia relations since Washington and Moscow have much more in common than not, to include confronting international terrorism, stabilizing Syria and other parts of the world that are in turmoil, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In spite of all that, the US and Russia are currently locked in a tit-for-tat unfriendly relationship somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War.

    Apart from search for a scapegoat to explain the Hillary Clinton defeat, how did it happen?

     

    Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert Parry both think that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder, a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities trading.

    Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional “expert testimony” contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British citizen.

    Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.

    Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as “Putin’s enemy #1,” portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading “lawyer” who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail.

    Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in absentia.

    William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico.

    Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly ran away, literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.

    Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen operating in what was a wild west business environment.

    My question is, “Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the vitally important US-Russia relationship?” The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir reports that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major force behind the Magnitsky Act.

  • Newsweek Publisher Caught Defrauding Gov Agency In Ad Revenue Scheme

    A scheme by the publisher of Newsweek and the International Business Times to buy fraudulent traffic in order to help secure a major ad contract from a US government agency has come to light in a new report released by independent ad fraud researchers. 

    According to the report, IBTimes.com won a major video and display advertising contract from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – a federal oversight agency created six years ago as the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Social Puncher, a consulting firm that investigates online ad fraud, notes in its report that “ads purchased by the CFPB were displayed to an audience that includes a significant amount of “cheap junk traffic with a share of bots – effectively defrauding the agency. 

    a
    socialpuncher.com

    When it comes to IBT’s fraudulent traffic practices, Social Puncher’s findings align with reporting from BuzzFeed News on IBT India, and with separate data gathered by Pixalate, an ad fraud detection company, and DoubleVerify, a digital media measurement company. (Social Puncher and BuzzFeed News previously collaborated on ad fraud investigations, but worked separately in this case.)

    Based on what it described as a detailed investigation, DoubleVerify this week classified IBT’s US, UK, India, and Singapore sites as “as having fraud or sophisticated invalid traffic,” according COO Matt McLaughlin. DoubleVerify is now blocking all ad impressions on these sites on behalf of customers.

    In response to questions from BuzzFeed News, Newsweek Media Group, the parent company of IBT, acknowledged it purchases audiences from ad networks that sell pop-up and pop-under traffic. It said this traffic represents a “small percentage of traffic on our sites” and denied any fraudulent activity. –Buzzfeed

    “We use third-party platforms to verify and filter this traffic to ensure it is of the highest quality. This verification process prevents poor-quality traffic being redirected to our sites and we consistently score highly on various third-party ad verification platforms,” the company said. It declined to name the third-party verification partners it works with.

    The CFPB, now headed by Trump appointee Mick Mulvaney, told BuzzFeed News that the bureau is looking into the allegations. 

    We take allegations of fraud very seriously. Acting Director Mulvaney is actively looking into the work done by GMMB, and these allegations [of ad fraud by IBTimes.com] will be investigated as part of that process,” the spokesperson said.

    a
    Mick Mulvaney
    a
    socialpuncher.com

    The CFPB has come under fire in recent months after it was discovered that the agency established a “secret slush fund” to funnel penalties collected from defendants to Democrat causes. 

    A consultant who worked with the highly politicized Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) claims the organization funneled a large portion of over $5 billion in collected penalties to “community organizers aligned with Democrats” as part of a giant slush fund, the Post reported in early December. 

    [The CFPB] Funneled a large portion of the more than $5 billion in penalties collected from defendants to community organizers aligned with Democrats — “a slush fund by another name,” said a consultant who worked with CFPB on its Civil Penalty Fund and requested anonymity.

    a

    Created six years ago as the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren and slipped into the Dodd Frank bill before it was passed by Congressional Democrats, the CFPB became one of the most powerful agencies in D.C., with the ability to exercise enormous power over the U.S. economy while its budget remained unencumbered by congressional oversight. As one Hill writer put it:

    The problem is that this agency and its director were set up to be free from the control of the Congress. Congress’s fundamental obligation to oversee and fund such bureaus or agencies is short-circuited when it comes to the CFPB. In structuring it in the manner written by now-Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), the law abrogated the idea of a government by the people, for the people and of the people.

    Instead, it established an autocratic and unaccountable power center for people of Warren’s ideological persuasion — those who view our market economy as an enemy that must be managed by a chosen few. The creation of the CFPB as a rogue agency with a dictatorial leader is one of the most significant acts of malfeasance perpetrated on the American constitutional system since the Sedition Acts of 1798. 

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

    With the reins of the CPFB handed over to Mick Mulvaney in December following the resignation of Obama-era Director Richard Cordray, it appears that IBTimes.com’s government-funed gravy train has just been derailed. 

  • Walter Williams: "Immigration Lies And Hypocrisy"

    Authored by Walter Williams via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    President Donald Trump reportedly asked why the U.S. is “having all these people from shithole countries come here.” I think he could have used better language, but it’s a question that should be asked and answered.

     

    I have a few questions for my fellow Americans to consider.

    How many Norwegians have illegally entered our nation, committed crimes and burdened our prison and welfare systems? I might ask the same question about Finnish, Swedish, Welsh, Icelanders, Greenlanders and New Zealanders. The bulk of our immigration problem is with people who enter our country criminally from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. It’s illegal immigrants from those countries who have committed crimes and burdened our criminal justice and welfare systems. A large number of immigrants who are here illegally — perhaps the majority are law-abiding in other respects — have fled oppressive, brutal and corrupt regimes to seek a better life in America.

    In the debate about illegal immigration, there are questions that are not explicitly asked but can be answered with a straight “yes” or “no”: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do Americans have a right to decide who and under what conditions a person may enter our country? Should we permit foreigners landing at our airports to ignore U.S. border control laws just as some ignore our laws at our southern border? The reason those questions are not asked is that one would be deemed an idiot for saying that everyone in the world has a right to live in our country, that Americans don’t have a right to decide who lives in our country and that foreigners landing at our airports have a right to just ignore U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents.

    Immigration today, even when legal, is different from the immigration of yesteryear. People who came here in the 19th century and most of the 20th century came here to learn our language, learn our customs and become Americans. Years ago, there was a guarantee that immigrants came here to work, because there was no welfare system; they worked, begged or starved. Today, there is no such assurance. Because of our welfare state, immigrants can come here and live off taxpaying Americans.

    There is another difference between today and yesteryear. Today, Americans are taught multiculturalism throughout their primary, secondary and college education. They are taught that one culture is no better or worse than another. To believe otherwise is criticized at best as Eurocentrism and at worst as racism. As a result, some immigrant groups seek to bring to our country the cultural values whose failures have led to the poverty, corruption and human rights violations in their home countries that caused them to flee. As the fallout from President Trump’s indelicate remarks demonstrates, too many Americans are afraid and unwilling to ask which immigrant groups have become a burden to our nation and which have made a contribution to the greatness of America.

    Very unfortunate for our nation is that we have political groups that seek to use illegal immigration for their own benefit. They’ve created sanctuary cities and states that openly harbor criminals — people who have broken our laws. The whole concept of sanctuary cities is to give aid, comfort and sympathy to people who have broken our laws. Supporters want to prevent them from having to hide and live in fear of discovery. I’d ask whether, for the sake of equality before the law, we should apply the sanctuary concept to Americans who have broken other laws, such as robbers and tax evaders.

    We should not fall prey to people who criticize our efforts to combat illegal immigration and who pompously say, “We’re a nation of immigrants!” The debate is not over immigration. The debate is over illegal immigration.

    My sentiments on immigrants who are here legally and who want to become Americans are expressed by the sentiments in Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus,” which is on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty and in part says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

  • "One Typhoon Away From Full Breach" – US Nuke-Test Dome Leaking Fatal Radiation Into Pacific Ocean

    Before the 1970s, the United States and other nuclear-armed countries conducted more than 500 atomic weapons tests in the atmosphere.

    During these tests, radioactive debris and gases were flung up into the atmosphere and traveled around the world.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that people around the world have had exposure to radioactive fallout from these nuclear tests. Even today, radioactive fallout is present in many parts of the world, but in small amounts.

    In the early 2000s, the CDC released a global radioactive fallout report and found that any person living in the US since 1951 has been “exposed to some radioactive fallout, and all of a person’s organs and tissues have received some exposure.”

    The costs associated with nuclear tests for any country have been quite devastating for surrounding communities. Take, for instance, the Enewetak Atoll, a large coral atoll of 40 islands in the Pacific Ocean, where the U.S. government detonated 30 megatons of weapons – equivalent to 2,000 Hiroshima blasts – between 1948 and 1958.

    In total, sixty-seven nuclear bombs detonated on Enewetak Atoll and Bikini Atoll of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.

    Beginning in 1977, more than 8,000 people worked to clean up the Marshall Islands, shifting 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris into a blast crater.

    This thirty-foot-deep crater is called the Runit Dome, on Enewetak Atoll, also called “Cactus Dome” or locally “The Tomb.”

    The dome of death spans 350-feet across with an 18-inch concrete cap covering radioactive debris from 12-years of U.S. government nuclear tests.

    Despite the U.S. government’s resettlement efforts of radioactive debris in the 1970s, some parts of the Marshall Islands today, have elevated radiation levels deemed dangerous for human life.

    The Daily Star reports that the death dome’s concrete structure is rapidly deteriorating. This is allowing the tides of the ocean to pump water into the dome and then pump radioactive water out.

    Paul Griego, who was a specialist at the dome site blames the radiation for his health problems today.

    When I first arrived, the dome’s blast crater was open to the ocean – it continued to be full of sea water even after it was sealed off from the ocean.”

    “During my 10-hour work day I witnessed the water level in the crater rise and lower as the tide came in and out.”

    He continued:

    “No attempt was made to drain the crater or line it before the radioactive waste was dumped into it.”

    “The coral that created the island is porous and the shock from numerous nuclear weapon tests had also fractured the coral.”

    “From the first day forward, the water has flowed out of the lagoon with the tide, creating a gigantic radioactive toilet that is flushed about twice each day into the Pacific Ocean.

    Griego then warned,

    “The dome could be just one typhoon away from a breach.”

    Rama Schneider, who transported radioactive waste from various islands in amphibious vehicles during the cleanup, said it is no surprise that the dome is failing.

    “Standing on any island at that atoll is akin to standing inches above sea level – and that was in 1979,” he added.

    “The sea level and ground level are becoming more and more to be the same, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking sea level rise, land subsidence or both,” he said.

    Girard Frank Bolton III, who worked as a draughtsman on the dome for 14 months, insisted the damage to the dome is minimal. He stated the dome was designed to slow the migration of radiation not to completely stop it.

    And lastly, he warned, “Also, since concrete is porous, the wave action and tides are continuously pumping radioactive water in and out of the structure.”

    The toxic legacy of the U.S. military-industrial complex has a radioactive secret in the Pacific paradise of Enewtak Atoll that you are not allowed to know about.

    To keep America safe, the U.S. government has poisoned an entire region of the Pacific Ocean with nuclear weapons tests. In an attempt to cover their tracks, a massive crater was dug to dispose of the radioactive material, but decades later, a breach has been found poisoning the Pacific once more. At what point do Americans say “no more” to the military-industrial complex who runs around the world blowing things up in the name of keeping America safe, and at the same time poisoning planet earth.

  • Fidel Castro's Son Commits Suicide

    The 68-year-old son of late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Fidel Angel Castro Dmaz-Balart,  committed suicide on Thursday after suffering from depression, reports Cuban state-run media. 

    a

    Diaz-Balart, who had been attended by a group of doctors for several months due to a state of profound depression, committed suicide this morning, reported Cubadebate.cu.

    Known as “Fidelito” due to his resemblance to his father, Castro Jr. had been hospitalized for depression after which he received outpatint follow-up treatment outside of the hospital. 

    Castro, who held a Doctorate in Sciences, served as Scientific advisor to the Council of State, as well as the Vice President of the Academy of Sciences of Cuba. 

    Castro Dmaz – Balart’s bio at the Academy of Sciences reads: 

    Scientific Advisor of the State Council of the Republic of Cuba. Degree in Physics, Master of Science in Physics, and Ph.D. in Physical- Mathematics Sciences. Expert in Nuclear Physics, formed in the Kurchatov Institute in the former Soviet Union. Principal leader and organizer in the creation and strengthening of capacities in nuclear science and technology, presiding over several years the Secretary for Nuclear Affairs in Cuba. Second-level PhD. Senior researcher. Member of the Cuban Physical Society. Member of the Scientific Council of the Iberian – Latin American Association on Technology Management (ALTEC). Author and editor of several books of great strategic importance in matters of progress and trends of contemporary science. He has taught many presentations, lectures and has represented Cuba in events, scientific and high level authorities meetings for Science and Technology in several countries, UNESCO, TWAS. Nanoscience promoter and manager/founder of a project for its promotion and development in Cuba, which is coming true.

    Castro Jr. appears to have been well liked based on the comments section of  Cubadebate.cu:

    a
    cubadebate.cu

    Funeral arrangements have yet to be made. 

  • January Payrolls Preview: The "Bomb Cyclone" Rebound

    With the January jobs report due at 830am ET on Friday morning, here is a quick recap of Wall Street expectations, via RanSquawk and Goldman:

    PREVIEW: January Jobs Report

    • Non-farm Payrolls: Est. 180k (98k to 230k), Prev. 148k
    • Unemployment Rate: Est. 4.1% (4.1% to 4.2%), Prev. 4.1%
    • Average Earnings Y/Y: Est. 2.6% (2.4% to 2.7%), Prev. 2.5%
    • Average Earnings M/M: Est. 0.3% (0.1% to 0.4%), Prev. 0.3% • Average Work Week Hours: Est. 34.5hrs (34.4hrs to 34.5hrs), Prev. 34.5hrs

    The US is expected to have created 180K job in December (range 98K-230K), a rebound from last month’s disappointing 148K and just higher than last year’s average of 171K (down from 186K in 2016). With labor market fundamentals seemingly solid, some banks such as Goldman believe January jobs will benefit from weather in the survey week which improved sequentially from that of December, despite the “bomb cyclone” in the first week of the month.

    “Employment growth disappointed at the end of last year, but the 148k gain in nonfarm payrolls in December wasn’t far below the gradual downward trend over the last three years,” Capital Economics says. “That trend will probably continue in 2018, but with the labour force rising by only 70k per month on average over the last 12 months, it won’t prevent the unemployment rate from falling further.”

    The unemployment rate is expected to remain at 4.1%, the lowest level since February 2001.

    But nothing will get as much attention as the average hourly earnings print for renewed signs of wage inflation: it is expected to increase 0.3% (unch) month-over-month and 2.6% year-over-year (up from 2.5% in Dec.), as unfavorable calendar effects are partially offset by a modest expected boost from minimum wage hikes.

    For now, an allegedly tightening labour market hasn’t put any significant upward pressure on average hourly earnings, and analysts at HSBC are expecting a softer showing in January on the back of pay period calendar quirks. However, core inflation has begun to tick up, and analysts are confident that wages will soon follow. In its latest statement (31/Jan), the FOMC noted that “market-based measures of inflation compensation have increased in recent months but remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.”

    The latest US CB Consumer Confidence data suggests that US consumers are ambivalent with regards to income prospects over the coming months, perhaps due to uncertainty around the impact of the US tax plan, the CB said. Though it did note that consumer’s short-term view of income prospects over the coming had eased slightly, with the percentage of consumers now expecting an improvement falling by 2.3ppts to 20.4% (despite the proportion expecting a decrease also declining to 7.7% from 9%).

    * * *

    Arguing for a stronger report:

    Weather. Despite the first week of the month’s East Coast blizzards – aka “bomb cyclone” – NOAA weather-station data suggest that nationwide snowfall in January was only slightly above seasonal norms. More importantly, snowfall was elevated during the December payroll survey week and likely weighed on job growth in several states, including New York (-1k, mom sa), Texas (flat), and Maryland (-20k). As shown in Exhibit 1, our measure of population-weighted snowfall during the survey week actually declined in January (the right axis is inverted) and would suggest a boost to job growth relative to trend of around 15-30k. While the lingering effects of the bomb cyclone suggest potential downside risk to this estimate, outside of the Northeast, most of the associated snow accumulation in major population centers had melted away by Monday of the survey week.

    Exhibit 1: Nationwide Snowfall Declined from Survey Week to Survey Week,
    Despite “Bomb Cyclone” In Previous Week

    ADP. The payroll processing firm ADP reported a 234k increase in January private payroll employment, 49k above consensus expectations of +185k. While the report likely received a boost from the financial and economic indicators used in the ADP model, the report nonetheless suggests that the underlying pace of job growth remains firm.

    Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims rebounded from a cycle low during the four weeks between the payroll reference periods (244k vs. 236k for December), but the absolute level suggests a very low pace of layoffs. Additionally, continuing claims began to decline again in mid-December, and they declined by 8k from survey week to survey week.

    Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas pulled back 3k to 35k, its second consecutive decline. On a year-over-year basis, announced job cuts declined by 1k.

    * * *

    Business Surveys

    The January ISM manufacturing survey recorded the rate of employment growth easing (54.2 vs 58.1 previous), though has remained in expansion for the sixteenth consecutive month. ISM said “employment expansion remains strong, but difficulties across the supply chain continue to constrain production output.” The non-manufacturing ISM is to be released after the publication of the January Employment Situation Report.

    IHS Markit’s purchasing manager surveys didn’t specify the exact level of the employment sub-index, though the data compiler noted that “favourable demand conditions encouraged another robust rise in the employment numbers, although the rate of job creation eased slightly from December’s 39-month peak.”

    * * *

    Arguing for a weaker report:

    Manufacturing-sector surveys. Manufacturing sector surveys generally declined in January, and the ISM measure employment component in particular fell 3.9 pts to 54.2. While these surveys continue to suggest a firm pace of job gains in this sector, the pace of growth may slow in Friday’s report. Manufacturing payroll employment rose 25k in December and has increased by 20k on average over the last six months.

    * * *

    Neutral factors:

    Service-sector surveys. While service-sector employment surveys declined on net in January – led by a drop in the Philly Fed and Dallas Fed measures – the non-manufacturing employment tracker (-0.7pt to 55.1) is only a point below its 3-year high. And encouragingly, the Conference Board labor market differential – the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get – rose to a new 16-year high (+0.9pt to +21.2). Service sector job growth slowed to +91k in December and has increased 123k on average over the last six months.

    Job availability. The Conference Board’s Help Wanted Online (HWOL) report showed an unchanged level of online job postings (mom sa) following a 5.2% rebound in December. Analysts place limited weight on this indicator, in light of research by Fed economists that suggests the HWOL ad count has been depressed by higher prices for online job ads. The Conference Board is currently reviewing its methodology accordingly.

    Post-Holiday transportation layoffs. Transportation and warehousing payrolls have decelerated or declined outright in recent Januaries, reflecting payback from strong job gains ahead of the holidays. However, it appears that the BLS seasonal factors may have finally evolved to anticipate these trends (see Exhibit 3). Relatedly, the trend-like gains in transportation jobs in November and December 2017 (+11k and +2k respectively, compared to the full-year average of +6k), suggest minimal scope for payback in tomorrow’s report.

    Seasonal Factors Have Evolved to Anticipate Short-Term Holiday Employment in the Transportation Industry

    d

  • 'Leaker' Comey Blasts GOP "Weasels & Liars" In Confusing Tweet

    Not The Onion.

    Former FBI Director and admitted document-leaker James Comey took to Twitter this afternoon to apparently confuse and condemn those who dare to cross his or his old establishment buddies’ paths.

    In an apparent show of support for the current (and former) FBI leadership, who, among others, face alleged exposure from Nunes’ memo for their anti-Trump bias and abuse of FISA in surveiling Trump campaign officials, Comey tweeted the following ‘riddle’…

    “All should appreciate the FBI speaking up,” Comey said Thursday in a tweet. “But take heart: American history shows that, in the long run, weasels and liars never hold the field, so long as good people stand up. Not a lot of schools or streets named for Joe McCarthy.”

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

    We have a few questions, thoughts on the matter.

    1) The FBI “speaking up”? Presumably refers to FBI Director Wray’s “grave concerns” about the memo’s contents (which would allegedly expose the secretive agency that he runs for possible corruption and bias). Where were the “speaking up” FBI when it came to Hillary’s emails? Did they “speak up” about high-ranking officials “insurance” policies against the democratically-elected President?

    2) “Weasels and liars never hold the field” – well to be frank Mr.Comey, Democrats and Republicans have ‘held their field’ in Washington for decades skimming from the rest of America… and one other thing… is it a “weasel”-like act to leak documents to the press?

    3) Referencing Joe McCarthy seems odd – is it not “all 17 intel agencies” and every Democrat that proclaims anyone not toeing the “Russians disrupted our Democracy” bullshit as a “puppet of putin” to be villified and ostricized and removed from social media and the internet as Russian co-conspirators or “useless idiots” in the biggest McCarthy-esque witch-hunt, blame-scaping ever?

    4) What no virtue-signaling, scripture quotes?

    We will just have to see what the memo says tomorrow, won’t we…?

  • Dems Caught Playing Candy Crush During State Of The Union

    Michigan Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) was busted playing Candy Crush during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address while President Trump was talking about revamping America’s international trade by pushing for deals that are fair and reciprocal for Americans.

    as

    Lawrence was pictured next to two other members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were also playing with their phones during the speech – Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Joyce Beatty (D-OH). 

    Watson was pictured checking a response to a tweet she made, while Beatty was inspecting a proposed press release reacting to President Trump’s speech.

    a
    Rep Bonnie Watson Coleman checks twitter
    a
    Tweet Rep. Watson Coleman was checking
    a
    Rep. Beatty previews Democrat response

    Beatty’s spokesman told DailyMail.com on Thursday that she had read the entire speech already, and wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary. 

    ‘That State of the Union is put out an hour in advance so Democrats and Republicans can read along,’ the spokesman said.

    ‘And while the speech was going on, she was putting together a statement in response.’

    The other two congresswomen’s offices, however, didn’t offer any explanation. –Daily Mail

    David Martosko of the Daily Mail helpfully adds that “It’s unclear from the picture what level of Candy Crush she was on. Members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year.”

    a
    Black Caucus during SOTU
    a
    Reps. Brenda Lawrence, Joyce Betty and Bonny Watson Coleman pictured Tuesday night

    Aside from the three Democrat reps engaged with their phones, the Congressional Black Caucus declined to stand when Trump touted the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded:

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

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 1st February 2018

  • The Earth's Magnetic Field Is Shifting, Poles May Flip: "This Could Get Bad"

    “The shield that protects the Earth from solar radiation is under attack from within. We can’t prevent it, but we ought to prepare…” is the ominous sub-headline of a worrisome new report that shows scientists around the world fearing that the earth’s magnetic field is shifting, with potentially disastrous consequences for mankind.

    “When next the poles change places, the consequences for the electrical and electronic infrastructure that runs civilization will be dire. The question is when that will happen.”

    As SHTFplan.com’s Mac Slavo notes, scientists from the University of Colorado in Boulder are sounding the alarm that the Earth’s magnetic poles are showing signs of reversing. Although the pole reversal, in and of itself, isn’t unprecedented, the solar winds that would take out the power grid and make parts of the globe uninhabitable could cause widespread disasters.

    The Earth has a fierce molten core that generates a magnetic field capable of defending our planet against devastating solar winds.  This magnetic field is vital to life on Earth and has weakened by 15 percent over the last 200 years. This protective field acts as a shield against harmful solar radiation and extends thousands of miles into space and its magnetism affects everything from global communication to power grids.

    Historically, Earth’s North and South magnetic poles have flipped every 200,000 or 300,000 years. However, the last flip was about 780,000 years ago, meaning our planet is well overdue.  The latest satellite data, from the European Space Agency’s Swarm trio which monitors the Earth’s magnetic field, suggest a pole flip may be imminent.  The satellites allow researchers to study changes building at the Earth’s core, where the magnetic field is generated. Their observations suggest molten iron and nickel are draining the energy out of the Earth’s core near where the magnetic field is generated. While scientists aren’t sure why exactly this happens, they describe it as a “restless activity” that suggests the magnetic field is preparing to flip.

    The signs of the Earth’s poles reversing are also apparent to Daniel Baker, who says this would devastate the power grid.  If a switch happens, we would likely be exposed to solar winds capable of punching holes into the ozone layer. In a new report, Baker, who is the director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado in Boulder, claims if this reversal happens, it is likely to render some areas of the planet “uninhabitable” by knocking out power grids.

    Baker’s comments were made in an in-depth Undark report written by Alanna Mitchell, who has a new book about the topic titled “The Spinning Magnet: The Electromagnetic Force that Created the Modern World and Could Destroy It.”

    “The dangers: devastating streams of particles from the sun, galactic cosmic rays, and enhanced ultraviolet B rays from a radiation-damaged ozone layer, to name just a few of the invisible forces that could harm or kill living creatures,” Michelle writes.

     “This is serious business,” Richard Holme, Professor of Earth, Ocean, and Ecological Sciences at Liverpool University told MailOnline.

     “Imagine for a moment your electrical power supply was knocked out for a few months – very little works without electricity these days.”

    “No lights. No computers. No cellphones. Even flushing a toilet or filling a car’s gas tank would be impossible. And that’s just for starters.”

    Researchers predict that in the event of a flip, every year a hundred thousand people would die from the increased levels of space radiation. Radiation at ground level would increase so much that some estimates suggest overall exposure to cosmic radiation would double causing more deaths from cancer. “Radiation could be 3-5 times greater than that from the man-made ozone holes. Furthermore, the ozone holes would be larger and longer-lived,” said D. Colin Forsyth from the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at UCL.

  • A Post-Mortem On The Corpse Of "Social Justice"

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I have been commenting on social justice propaganda for quite some time; long before it was fashionable to do so, and long before there was an organized movement of support to defend commentators who dared to question the insane dictates of the cult of political correctness.

    In my article ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness’, published in early 2014, I outlined the basic philosophical underpinnings of political correctness and what these beliefs tend to lead to. At the time, the future for champions of individual liberty and reason appeared rather bleak. Today, I am happy to say the backlash against “third-wave feminism” and cultural Marxism has expanded beyond anything I could have dreamed.

     

    I do not want to diminish or underestimate the threat still posed to personal freedom by the adherents of the social justice cult, but at this stage I think it is safe to say that political correctness is effectively a dead movement walking.

    Recent statistics without bias are hard to come by. That said, the latest available numbers show that people who agree with “gender equality” are many, but those who identify as “feminist” are slim. In the U.S. this constitutes 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 that identify as feminist depending on which polls you look at, while in the U.K. feminists make up only 7 percent of the population.

    According to the CDC, abortion rates from 2008-2014 fell to historic lows post Roe v Wade. Abortion being a primary platform and leverage issue for social justice warriors, I take it as a good sign that even in a time of severe economic instability people are backing away from abortion as an acceptable option.

    Just as a general observation, social justice has not been a reliable driver for political success, considering the abject failure of the Clinton Campaign in 2016, which clung tightly to SJW ideologies throughout the election cycle.

    And finally, social justice has also not been selling so great in the marketplace. This is most evident in the entertainment world, where movies created by producers with open social justice agendas continually fail to bring in expected box office numbers.

    For example, the feminist-produced and-directed Ghostbusters reboot ended with a dismal showing compared to many other blockbuster movies of with the same production costs, ending its run with an estimated $70 million loss.

    Feminist action films perpetuating the fantasy of physical parity between the sexes, like the movie Atomic Blonde, though receiving accolades from mainstream critics (like all social justice films do), have had embarrassing showings in theaters.

    And finally, perhaps the biggest sign of a sea change against social justice in pop culture, even massive brand names like Star Wars are suffering when social justice propaganda is injected into the franchise. The latest installment, The Last Jedi, with its obvious and heavy-handed social justice messages, had one of the worst second week showings of all the Star Wars movies (adjusted for inflation) and only generated a little over half of the revenues brought in by The Force Awakens. Not to mention the highly critical audience reviews and the complete bomb the movie suffered in the Chinese market, which was supposed to help elevate revenues that were expected to be much higher.

    So, what has spurred this societal rush for the exits when it comes to cultural Marxist ideals?

    There are many reasons why Americans in particular cannot stand these people. Here are just a few…

    Deliberate Deconstructionism Of Root Mythologies

    One of the core tenets of cultural Marxism is the destruction of a society’s vital mythologies and symbols. In other words, the very psychological archetypes that make up the collective unconscious are targeted.

    This is one of the reasons why SJWs are so obsessed with the entertainment industry. Much of the art and stories that inspire us in modern times are found in film and television. Identity politics has been the premier staple of Hollywood the past decade, so much so that it is no longer even hidden. In fact, despite the reality that the SJW ideology has been proven to be a money loser, production companies are STILL pushing the issue, choosing political messages over profits. Parables are often more powerful than real events and present a tempting tool for mass mind control.

    Social Justice deconstructionism is often mistaken as an unintended “business blunder,” but the truth is that these companies are absolutely aware of what they are doing. Cultural Marxists want to dismantle social and biological norms, moral principles and beloved heroes because they hope to create internal chaos within a nation. Once this occurs, they desire to then instill their own ideology on the confused and fearful populace.

    Unmitigated Self-Indulgence

    Social Justice is also rooted in the notion that self-indulgence and gluttony on every level should be celebrated as healthy and “progressive.” Sexuality is a purely recreational affair without consequence or physical and psychological responsibility. Not only this, but it should be pursued in as many forms as possible, and if a person sees something wrong with this or has a natural inclination to avoid these behaviors, then they are “homophobic,” “transphobic,” racist, fascist, etc.

    Obesity is defended as “beautiful” and “wholesome” through the “body positivity movement,” even though it has been proven in every notable study to result in incessant health problems including diabetes, heart disease, birth defects, cancer and clinical depression.

    And, perhaps the worst indulgence of all; the psychological indulgence of intellectual isolation is encouraged. “Safe spaces” are enforced as a means to protect the social justice cult from challenging ideas and people. Willful ignorance is applauded as ideological strength and an act of loyalty to the collective. All intellectual opponents are treated as monstrous criminals rather than merely informed adversaries with a different point of view.

    The Attempted Erasure Of Masculinity

    In my article ‘Will Manliness Make A Comeback In 2018‘ I outlined why masculinity in particular has been so often targeted by SJWs. In fact, masculinity represents an element of unpredictability to a society that is important to individual liberty but dangerous to the establishment. Femininity tends to lend itself far more to collectivism and, by extension, the desire to rely on an outside force like the government as a provider and for security when a masculine presence is not available.

    When masculinity is repressed in a society and matriarchy is entrenched, such systems are historically doomed to failure and collapse. Superior production, invention, organization and security are a staple of a masculine foundation within a culture. The war on men is yet another product of cultural Marxist deconstructionism.

    By extension, the assertion that masculinity is evil within men is often followed by the assertion that masculine displays by women are empowering and good. In this way, true femininity is also under attack, as women that enjoy and naturally gravitate towards biologically feminine roles are admonished by feminists as being “slaves of the patriarchy” or “breeders” that hold back the social justice movement.

    Life Is About Emotional Validation

    Validation without merit and demanded empathy without discrimination are time bombs within any culture. Social justice thrives on these disturbing ideals.

    It is important to point out that these mindsets are often an extension of narcissism. Narcissists make up about 10% of any given population at any given point in history, which is interesting because latent sociopaths and psychopaths (as well as full blown sociopaths and psychopaths) also make up approximately 10% of any given population. SJWs are liable to display both narcissistic and sociopathic qualities, desiring constant emotional validation from all the people around them while also holding morally relativistic stances on most issues.

    This does not mean that SJWs do not appear empathetic. Quite the opposite. Most narcissists and sociopaths are highly adept at hiding their aberrant character flaws behind causes, platitudes and virtue signaling. They have to believe that the things they do and the ideals they seek to enforce are grounded in moral soil, even though the consequences of these ideals are usually destructive. When confronted with reality, that they are the villains rather than the heroes they imagine themselves to be, they can become erratic and violent.

    SJWs have effectively turned sociopathy and narcissism into a civil rights movement.

    Identity Politics

    SJWs see group identity as the defining factor in a person’s personal worth, as well as the worth inherent in their ideas and claims. Now to be fair, SJWs are not the only group guilty of this idiocy. The so-called “Alt-Right,” which is actually a tiny contingent of pretenders that claim to be “conservative,” is rampant with people that think skin color is somehow immediately reflective of mindset. While SJWs see all white people as inherently dangerous, the Alt-Right sees all non-white people as inherently dangerous. This of course ignores all cultural factors and individual factors for the sake of lazy broad brush politics and absurd non-solutions. These groups are basically two sides of the same coin.

    That said, it is true that SJWs are the most aggressive and vicious of the two sides so far.

    SJWs adore identity politics because they see victimhood as a currency. Victim group status can be used within a socialist/collectivist system to purchase entitlements from the state, which is the only god-figure that these people know or love. The more oppressed you are on the list of victim groups, the more stuff you can get from government, as long as that government is also collectivist in nature.

    This helps to explain the sudden explosion in the trans-person fad over the past few years. White people in particular are extremely disadvantaged within the identity politics ladder of oppression, UNLESS they identify as transgender. This allows them a quick route to victim status and social entitlements, swiftly surpassing other ethnic groups.

    Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Trial By The Mob

    Whenever I see SJWs in action I am always reminded of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, in which a man is prosecuted for a crime that is never explained to him and sentenced without understanding how or why. As his trial commences, he makes a rousing speech appealing to logic and reason but is laughed at by the hordes and the courts as if what he is asking for is ridiculous.

    This is the social justice standard — to attack all opponents as inherently criminal.  To label them racist, misogynistic, homophobic or privileged from birth by virtue of their skin color or gender. This argument even extends to “implicit bias” which they claim makes all white people specifically racist and advantaged without them even being consciously aware of it. They also accuse all men of being innately sexist and violent.

    This allows SJWs to make indictments without evidence, for how can anyone ever prove or measure such a thing as “implicit bias” and show that they DON’T suffer from it. Proving a negative (a virtual impossibility) becomes the task  the accused must perform to purify themselves before the court of social justice. It’s simpler for many to apologize for whatever they are accused of and sublimate in the hopes of redemption.

    What many SJWs don’t seem to realize is that by using broad and abstract ideas such as “hate speech” as a means to attack and criminalize their opponents as guilty until proven innocent, they also open the door for governments to do the same using similar justifications.

    A recent and horrifying example is the Spanish government’s implementation of “hate speech laws” against eight teachers that are vocal proponents of the Catalan separatist movement!  What do Catalan issues have to do with hate speech?  It doesn’t matter.  As we critics of social justice have been warning for years, literally anything can be labeled “hate speech” without due process, and one day this might even come back to bite cultural Marxists on the ass.

    A saying comes to mind which was popularized by Michael Savage, but stated first as far as I can tell in Ecclesiastes 9:10:

    Whatsoever thy hand is able to do, do it earnestly: for neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom, nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither thou art hastening.

    In other words, hell is a place without reason, and SJWs are seeking to construct hell on Earth.

    Are Social Justice Warriors Actually Aliens From Another Planet?

    This would help explain a lot, and I wish it were that easy.

    SJWs act like they cannot fathom humanity and despise the dictates of human nature. They display elements of moral relativism and lack critical thought. They seem to operate on a completely different set of intellectual and emotional rules. That which has sustained human society for thousands of years and hundreds of generations is not of any value to them. They almost seem to be studying how to dissect humanity rather than participate in humanity.

    Unfortunately, these people are indeed entirely human, which is a depressing fact to say the least. They are what Carl Jung describes in his book The Undiscovered Self as an expression of the “collective shadow.” That 10% (and sometimes greater) of a nation that embraces sociopathic tendencies and organizes in the worst of economic and cultural conditions.

    Luckily, this “invasion” is being squelched in the U.S., at least in the past couple of years. Before long, the term SJW may be a distant memory of a time that history will consider a brutal hallucination, rife with a mob-based mental illness that almost consumed the world.

  • Ambassador Says Russia Shouldn't Limit Oil Shipments To North Korea

    One would hope that, after President Donald Trump declined to impose sanctions against a host of Russians with purported ties to the government earlier this week, he would at least receive a temporary reprieve from any provocative behavior.

     

    Korea

    Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the reality. As Reuters reports, Russia’s ambassador to North Korea said Wednesday it was better not to cut deliveries of oil and oil products to North Korea, according to the RIA News Agency. Continuing oil shipments to North Korea would of course violate international sanctions passed by the UN Security Council – sanctions that Russia agreed to at the time.

    In recent months, US spy satellites have caught ships with ties to Russia and China delivering badly needed oil to North Korea via ship-to-ship trade.

    According to RIA, the ambassador said cutting oil deliveries to the North would be interpreted by Pyongyang as a declaration of war and lead to serious problems, including of a humanitarian nature.

    In recent months, Russia has kept up its low-pressure policy of confrontations with US military planes in international airspace. Yesterday, we published a video of Russia’s latest attempt to recreate a scene from the movie “Top Gun”: The video showed a Russian Su-27 fighter jet reportedly performed an “unsafe intercept of a US Navy P-3 Orion surveillance plane” while it was flying in international airspace next to Russia, over the Black Sea Monday. The Su-27 reportedly came within five feet of the US plane.

    While most observers labeled the Treasury’s “Oligarch’s List” as little more than a rehashing of a Forbes’ list of wealthy Russians, Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced its release as a “hostile” act.

    While the remarks haven’t made much of a splash outside the Russian media, we imagine this suggestion will warrant some kind of a response from the US, or the UN.

    Despite this, Reuters reported Wednesday that Russia will send home all migrant workers from North Korea by the end of 2019 in compliance with the UN sanctions.

  • Is Facebook’s Ban On Crypto Ads In Anticipation Of A Litecoin Integration

    Authored by Dennis Consorte via Cryptosumer,

    In early January rumors started spreading about whether Facebook would either adopt Litecoin or create its own cryptocurrency. On Tuesday, Facebook announced that it would block all cryptocurrency and ICO advertising on its platform.

    Coincidence? Let’s look at the details.

    Between December 6th and 17th of 2017, Litecoin (LTC) tripled in value, from $102.93 to $360.66 according to CoinGecko. Three days after it started to decline from its all-time-high, Charlie Lee, the founder of Litecoin announced that he sold off all of his LTC. Since then, Litecoin has been on a mostly downward trend and currently sits at $159.50.

    There has been some speculation about whether Lee’s sell-off had an impact on the prices of Litecoin, and there have even been accusations of insider trading, given that he was the Director of Engineering at Coinbase. He denies these allegations and explained that his decision to dump his LTC was to remove any sort of conflict of interest between his influence and any potential gains. Taking the financial gains out of the equation, it stands to reason that Lee may now tweet more freely about his thoughts while focusing on his skills as an engineer.

    At the time that Lee sold off his LTC, Coinbase announced the appointment of Facebook executive, David Marcus to their board of directors. David Marcus is the Head of Messenger at Facebook, with expertise in mobile-first products. Prior to that, he was President of PayPal, where he accelerated the overall growth of the company. The appointment of Marcus to the Coinbase board of directors sparked some speculation.

    Tom Luongo published the story on December 20, which was later picked up by Zero Hedge and various other publications. According to Luongo, Charlie’s announcement prompted a big sell-off in the wake of Coinbase adding Bitcoin Cash (BCH) to its platform. He saw the negative response from the market as temporary, though Litecoin is still on a decline.

    From a technology standpoint however, it’s a promising coin. It’s lighter, faster and cheaper than Bitcoin, is fully capable of smart contracts and according to Luongo, it has a “payment processing layer to facilitate point-of-sale convenience while retaining proof-of-work security.” It has the sort of technology built into it that an organization like Facebook might find appealing.

    Two weeks after this speculative article came out, Mark Zuckerberg announced that he’s “looking into cryptocurrency.” In his January 5th announcement on Facebook, Zuckerberg said:

    “Back in the 1990s and 2000s, most people believed technology would be a decentralizing force. But today, many people have lost faith in that promise. With the rise of a small number of big tech companies – and governments using technology to watch their citizens – many people now believe technology only centralizes power rather than decentralizes it. There are important counter-trends to this – like encryption and cryptocurrency – that take power from centralized systems and put it back into people’s hands. But they come with the risk of being harder to control. I’m interested to go deeper and study the positive and negative aspects of these technologies, and how best to use them in our services.

    This brings us to today. According to a CNBC article by Kurt Wagner, “Facebook is banning all ads that promote cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, in an effort to prevent people from advertising what the company is calling ‘financial products and services frequently associated with misleading or deceptive promotional practices.'” In other words, if you launch an ICO, or want to promote a cryptocurrency-related group or business, you’re probably out of luck, no matter how legitimate your business is.

    Litecoin founder Charlie Lee previously tweeted that in 2018 there will be “One huge unexpected surprise.”

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

    If indeed Facebook is looking to tie its business to cryptocurrency and/or blockchain technology, as Zuckerberg himself has suggested, whether it’s by way of Litecoin or some other technology, then it stands to reason that such a ban on advertising would clear out the competition and would allow Facebook to corner the market on this technology, using their tremendous platform to push it out to a massive audience.

    It’s only a matter of time before we are able to confidently analyze the motivation behind Facebook’s ban on crypto advertising. It could very well be that they genuinely want to prevent scammers from taking advantage of their audience. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that they are paving the way for a new Facebook coin offering, utilizing the blockchain to facilitate transactions on Facebook to purchase goods, advertising space and other things of value.

     

  • Nunes Hits Back Against FBI FISA Memo Freakout

    Now that the bombshell “FISA memo” has been released to the White House for review – and President Trump said he will allow its public release “100 percent” – despite protests from the DOJ and FBI Director Christopher Wray, efforts are underway to attack the report’s credibility by hinting at collusion between Rep. Devin Nunes, whose office authored the memo, and the White House. 

    Except then the transcript of Monday’s closed-door session came out… .

    s

    The Daily Beast published an inaccurate account of Monday’s closed door House Intel Committee meeting in which the four-page memo was released – suggesting that Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was backed into a corner and refused to answer a direct question from Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) over whether he had coordinated with the White House while his office compiled the memo which is said to reveal extensive political bias and abuse of the FISA surveillance court against the Trump team by the FBI and DOJ – implying that Nunes worked with the White House on the document. 

    During Monday’s contentious closed-door committee meeting, Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democrat, asked Nunes point-blank if his staffers had been talking with the White House as they compiled a four-page memo alleging FBI and Justice Department abuses over surveillance of President Trump’s allies in the Russia probe.

    According to sources familiar with the exchange, Nunes made a few comments that didn’t answer the question before finally responding, “I’m not answering.” –Daily Beast

    Except the 51-page transcript of that meeting came out hours later, revealing Daily Beast (or their House Intel Committee source) to have mischaracterized the exchange. 

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

    Here’s the ACTUAL conversation:

    MR. QUIGLEY: Let me ask you another question with the greatest respect. When you, as the majority, conceived of doing this memo for release to the body and to the public, the preparation, the thought of doing it, the consultation of it, was any of this done after/during conversations or consultations with anyone in the White House? Did they have any idea you were doing this? Did they talk about doing this with you? Did they suggest it? Did you suggest it to them? Did you consult in deciding how to go forward with this before, during , and after this point right now? 

    THE CHAIRMAN (Nunes): I would just answer, as far as I know, no. And I would also say that we are well aware that the minority has not wanted to conduct this investigation by the public opposition to the subpoenas that we issued back in August that were clearly looking into matters of FISA abuse and other matters. 

    MR. QUIGLEY: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that none of the staff members that worked for the majority had any consultation, communication at all with the White House.

    THE CHAIRMAN (Nunes): The chair is not going to entertain —

    MR. QUIGLEY: I yield.

    Quigley’s line of questioning alludes to an early 2017 controversy over whether or not Chairman Nunes revealed classified information when he disclosed revelations of major surveillance abuse in March. Nunes temporarily stepped aside from leading the House Intel Committee’s Russia probe last April while the House Ethics Committee investigated the matter. Of note, Nunes did not recuse himself from the probe and remained Chairman of the Committee while under investigation.

    Democrats cried foul when it emerged that Nunes had been at the White House the day before announcing that President Trump’s team had been “unmasked” by the Obama administration.

    While Nunes denied coordinating with the White House, the Washington Post reported that “at least three senior White House officials, including the top lawyer for the National Security Council, were involved in the handling of intelligence files that were shared with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and showed that Trump campaign officials were swept up in US surveillance of foreign nationals, according to US officials.” 

    The House Ethics Committee cleared Nunes in December, following consultation with experts in the classification process. 

    “While I appreciate the Ethics Committee’s work, I need to reiterate that the allegations against me were obviously frivolous and were rooted in politically motivated complaints filed against me by left-wing activist groups” –Devin Nunes

    Deep State In Deep Trouble?

    The four-page memo authored by staffers from Nunes’ office is said to name several high ranking FBI and DOJ officials, including former FBI Director James Comey, retiring Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. 

    With over 60 GOP lawmakers calling for its release, the top Democrat on the House Intel Committee believes the FISA memo could lead to the firings of special counsel Robert Mueller and the DOJ’s Rosenstein.

    The FBI isn’t taking this whole “calling us out for illegal behavior” thing sitting down – issuing a statement on Wednesday pointing to “grave concerns” over the release of the memo:

    a

    Earlier Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes release of a classified Republican memo alleging bias at the FBI and Justice Department because it contains inaccurate information and paints a false narrative, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    a

    In response, Nunes hit back – twice, issuing statements via the House Intel Committee website

    “Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. The FBI is intimately familiar with ‘material omissions’ with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts, and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses. Regardless, it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intelligence agencies and courts are never misused like this again.”

    In a second statement, Nunes says “After fighting our demands for these documents for months, the FBI and DOJ now seem to be going through a series of ridiculous, increasingly desperate excuses to avoid transparency.” 

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

    Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has called on the Trump administration to release the memo

    The same progressives who demanded accountability for FISA courts after Edward Snowden exposed federal snooping now want President Trump to shut down the House’s limited attempt at transparency. Don’t buy it, Mr. President. Let it all out—the two House Intelligence memos, Senator Chuck Grassley’s referral letter for a criminal investigation of Mr. Steele, and all other relevant FBI or Justice documents that won’t undermine U.S. security. Our democracy can take the transparency, and after the 2016 fiasco it deserves it. –WSJ

    And as we reported earlier, Chief of Staff John Kelly revealed in a Fox radio interview on Wednesday that he had seen the memo, and that it will be released “pretty quick.”

    Lastly – it has come to light that outgoing Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is under active investigation by the DOJ’s internal watchdog for sitting on emails related to the Hillary Clinton investigation for several weeks before the FBI reopened its probe right before the election. 

    “[F]or a period of at least three weeks, according to people involved at the time, nothing much happened, a lag that has sparked the inspector generals questions,” reports the Washington Post.

    a

    With the release of the bombshell FISA memo imminent, and its contents set to rock the FBI and the DOJ, it’s only natural that the cornered agencies of the so-called “deep state” and their Democrat supporters in Congress would lash out with claims of collusion in an effort to minimize its impact. 

  • PCR: Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity With The "Kremlin Report"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    In an act of insane escalation of provocations against Russia, Washington has produced a list of 210 top Russian government officials and important business executives who are “gangsters,” “members of Putin’s gang,” “threats,” “people deserving to be sanctioned,” or however the Western presstitutes care to explain the list.

    The absurd list includes the Prime Minister of Russia, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and executives of Gazprom, Rosneft, and Bank Rossiya. In other words, the suggestion is that the entirety of Russian political and business leadership is corrupt.

    The Russians do not seem to understand the purpose of the list. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the government sees the list as an attempt to interfere in the Russian presidential election. There is no doubt that Washington would like to reduce Putin’s public support so that Washington can use the Western-funded NGOs operating in Russia to present American stooges as Russia’s true voices. However, it is unlikely that the Russian people are stupid enough to fall for such a trick.

    Washington’s list has three purposes:

    1) To undercut Russian diplomacy by presenting the top echelons of Russia as gangsters.

    2) To present Russia as a military threat as per the ridiculous announcement by British defense minister Gavin Williamson on January 26 that Russia intends to rip British “infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths,” and create “total chaos within the country.”

    3) To shift American and European attention away from the coming release of the House Intelligence Committee’s report that proves Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the Obama Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee against President Trump. Washington’s Russian list will give the presstitutes something else to talk about instead of the act of treason committed against the President of the United States. Expect to hear nothing from the presstitutes except that the House Intelligence Committee report is only a political effort to shield Trump from accountability.

    There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington’s pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel’s use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby.
     
    The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington’s thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage.

    Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses?

    For the West to come to its senses requires the complete overthrow of the Zionist neoconservatives and/or the breakup of NATO. The overthrow of the neoconservatives would require a rival foreign policy voice, and that voice is very weak as it is shut off from the media, the think tanks, and the universities. The breakup of NATO would require European political figures to give up their Washington subsidies and the career advancement that Washington provides.

    As I write the Atlantic Council is holding a members and press call in for a discussion with Atlantic Council members Amb. Daniel Fried and Anders Aslund. The Atlantic Council is a neoconservative propaganda agency. The purpose of the “discussion” is to further undermine US-Russian relations.

    The Russian government faces a difficult situation. The foreign policy of the US, and thereby of the Western world, is controlled by neoconservatives who are determined to present Russia in the most threatening light. Russian diplomacy can do nothing to change this. The non-provocative and responsible Russian response has the effect of encouraging more provocations from Washington. At some point Russian passivity might convince the neoconservatives that they can successfully attack Russia. Alternatively, the continual provocations might convince Russia that the country is targeted for attack, thereby causing a Russian pre-emptive action.

    Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherrent in Washington’s policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington’s unilateralism.

  • Taiwan Holds Live-Fire War-Drills Amid Fears Of China Invasion

    As the Trump administration has maintained its focus on the North Korean threat, there is another, potentially more severe, crisis unfolding in the Taiwan Strait between China and Taiwan.

    Relations between China and Taiwan have deteriorated since President Tsai Ing-wen took office in May 2016, Beijing cut off communications with Taipei, stripped it of its democratic allies, and even conducted naval and air operations around the island in a show of force to ensure the island had minimal participation with international organizations.

    In 2017, the Trump administration signaled the traditional U.S. commitment to Taiwan in multiple gestures. For instance, the president allowed for a massive $1.42 billion arms deal, which infuriated Beijing. Another gesture by the Trump was Taipei’s entry into the Global Entry, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) program that allows expedited clearance for pre-approved travelers to the U.S.

    While Taiwan shifted closer to the United States in 2017, Chinese diplomat Li Kexin informed U.S. officials in early December that the moment one of its warships visits Taiwan, Beijing will launch an invasion on the island.

    Tensions have once again deteriorated this week as Chinese airlines have canceled hundreds of flights to Taiwan as disputes over aviation routes continue. Two major carriers, China Eastern Airlines and Xiamen Airlines, announced Tuesday they canceled the flights because Taiwan’s government refused to approve them.

    In conjunction with hundreds of canceled flights before the Lunar New Year, Taiwan troops staged a massive live-fire war drill to simulate an invasion by China on Tuesday.

    The military simulated an attack on the island using reconnaissance aircrafts to surveil incoming warships, followed by tanks firing rounds at the “mimicked enemy” landing around the Port of Hualien in eastern Taiwan.

    In the air, attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets launched assaults, supporting ground troops who battled the simulated enemy wearing red helmets.

    Taiwan’s ministry did not outright define who the simulated invasion was by, but it is pretty clear with the chart below who that is.

    Further, the ministry said the annual drill was to “show determination to safeguard peace in the Taiwan Strait and national security.”

    The Taiwan Strait is the waterway that divides the island from China.

    According to the AFP,

    Cross-strait relations have turned frosty since the inauguration of Tsai, who refuses to acknowledge self-ruling, democratic Taiwan is part of “one China.” The drill on Tuesday takes place annually prior to Lunar New Year holiday — which lands in mid-February this year — as a way to boost public confidence in Taiwan’s defence capabilities.  

    “Our combat readiness has no holidays,” Huang Kai-sen, a Taiwanese lieutenant general, told AFP.

    “In order for our citizens to feel safe during the Chinese New Year, we are standing by and on guard 24 hours a day,” he added. 

  • California's 'Other' Drought: A Major Earthquake Is Overdue

    Authored by Richard Aster via TheConversation.com,

    California earthquakes are a geologic inevitability. The state straddles the North American and Pacific tectonic plates and is crisscrossed by the San Andreas and other active fault systems. The magnitude 7.9 earthquake that struck off Alaska’s Kodiak Island on Jan. 23, 2018 was just the latest reminder of major seismic activity along the Pacific Rim.

    Tragic quakes that occurred in 2017 near the Iran-Iraq border and in central Mexico, with magnitudes of 7.3 and 7.1, respectively, are well within the range of earthquake sizes that have a high likelihood of occurring in highly populated parts of California during the next few decades.

    The earthquake situation in California is actually more dire than people who aren’t seismologists like myself may realize. Although many Californians can recount experiencing an earthquake, most have never personally experienced a strong one. For major events, with magnitudes of 7 or greater, California is actually in an earthquake drought. Multiple segments of the expansive San Andreas Fault system are now sufficiently stressed to produce large and damaging events.

    The good news is that earthquake readiness is part of the state’s culture, and earthquake science is advancing – including much improved simulations of large quake effects and development of an early warning system for the Pacific coast.

    The last big one

    California occupies a central place in the history of seismology. The April 18, 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 7.8) was pivotal to both earthquake hazard awareness and the development of earthquake science – including the fundamental insight that earthquakes arise from faults that abruptly rupture and slip. The San Andreas Fault slipped by as much as 20 feet (six meters) in this earthquake.

    Although ground-shaking damage was severe in many places along the nearly 310-mile (500-kilometer) fault rupture, much of San Francisco was actually destroyed by the subsequent fire, due to the large number of ignition points and a breakdown in emergency services. That scenario continues to haunt earthquake response planners. Consider what might happen if a major earthquake were to strike Los Angeles during fire season.

    Collapsed Santa Monica Freeway bridge across La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles after the Northridge earthquake, Jan. 17, 1994.

    Seismic science

    When a major earthquake occurs anywhere on the planet, modern global seismographic networks and rapid response protocols now enable scientists, emergency responders and the public to assess it quickly – typically, within tens of minutes or less – including location, magnitude, ground motion and estimated casualties and property losses. And by studying the buildup of stresses along mapped faults, past earthquake history, and other data and modeling, we can forecast likelihoods and magnitudes of earthquakes over long time periods in California and elsewhere.

    However, the interplay of stresses and faults in the Earth is dauntingly chaotic. And even with continuing advances in basic research and ever-improving data, laboratory and theoretical studies, there are no known reliable and universal precursory phenomena to suggest that the time, location and size of individual large earthquakes can be predicted.

    Major earthquakes thus typically occur with no immediate warning whatsoever, and mitigating risks requires sustained readiness and resource commitments. This can pose serious challenges, since cities and nations may thrive for many decades or longer without experiencing major earthquakes.

    California’s earthquake drought

    The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was the last quake greater than magnitude 7 to occur on the San Andreas Fault system. The inexorable motions of plate tectonics mean that every year, strands of the fault system accumulate stresses that correspond to a seismic slip of millimeters to centimeters. Eventually, these stresses will be released suddenly in earthquakes.

    But the central-southern stretch of the San Andreas Fault has not slipped since 1857, and the southernmost segment may not have ruptured since 1680. The highly urbanized Hayward Fault in the East Bay region has not generated a major earthquake since 1868.

    Reflecting this deficit, the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast estimates that there is a 93 percent probability of a 7.0 or larger earthquake occurring in the Golden State region by 2045, with the highest probabilities occurring along the San Andreas Fault system.

    Perspective view of California’s major faults, showing forecast probabilities estimated by the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast. The color bar shows the estimated percent likelihood of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years, as of 2014. Note that nearly the entire San Andreas Fault system is red on the likelihood scale due to the deficit of large earthquakes during and prior to the past century. USGS

     

    Can California do more?

    California’s population has grown more than 20-fold since the 1906 earthquake and currently is close to 40 million. Many residents and all state emergency managers are widely engaged in earthquake readiness and planning. These preparations are among the most advanced in the world.

    For the general public, preparations include participating in drills like the Great California Shakeout, held annually since 2008, and preparing for earthquakes and other natural hazards with home and car disaster kits and a family disaster plan.

    No California earthquake since the 1933 Long Beach event (6.4) has killed more than 100 people. Quakes in 1971 (San Fernando, 6.7); 1989 (Loma Prieta; 6.9); 1994 (Northridge; 6.7); and 2014 (South Napa; 6.0) each caused more than US$1 billion in property damage, but fatalities in each event were, remarkably, dozens or less. Strong and proactive implementation of seismically informed building codes and other preparations and emergency planning in California saved scores of lives in these medium-sized earthquakes. Any of them could have been disastrous in less-prepared nations.

    Remington Elementary School in Santa Ana takes part in the 2015 Great California Shakeout.

    Nonetheless, California’s infrastructure, response planning and general preparedness will doubtlessly be tested when the inevitable and long-delayed “big ones” occur along the San Andreas Fault system. Ultimate damage and casualty levels are hard to project, and hinge on the severity of associated hazards such as landslides and fires.

    Several nations and regions now have or are developing earthquake early warning systems, which use early detected ground motion near a quake’s origin to alert more distant populations before strong seismic shaking arrives. This permits rapid responses that can reduce infrastructure damage. Such systems provide warning times of up to tens of seconds in the most favorable circumstances, but the notice will likely be shorter than this for many California earthquakes.

    Early warning systems are operational now in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico and Romania. Systems in California and the Pacific Northwest are presently under development with early versions in operation. Earthquake early warning is by no means a panacea for saving lives and property, but it represents a significant step toward improving earthquake safety and awareness along the West Coast.

    Managing earthquake risk requires a resilient system of social awareness, education and communications, coupled with effective short- and long-term responses and implemented within an optimally safe built environment. As California prepares for large earthquakes after a hiatus of more than a century, the clock is ticking.

  • Ukraine Tests Fires First-Ever Cruise Missile Aimed At Neutralizing "Russian Aggressors"

    On Tuesday, Ukrainian armed forces conducted the first-ever cruise missile test capable of hitting land and sea targets, National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Secretary Oleksandr Turchynov announced.

    According to Turchynov, the cruise missile is locally made in Ukraine by manufacturers of the State Enterprise “State Kyiv Design Bureau Luch” in cooperation with other state and private defense companies.

    Turchynov made further arrangements with the NSDC, which coordinates Ukraine’s national missile program, to further “develop not only ground-launched cruise missile systems but also sea- and air-launched.” Turchynov failed to disclose the range of the cruise missile but specified the missile systems are in line with its international agreements.

    This is a crucial event for Ukraine, because after the total disarmament of the Ukrainian army in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum, not a single missile was left in the Armed Forces of Ukraine”, said Turchynov.

    Today’s tests have opened a new stage of the missile program, according to which our Armed Forces must receive powerful high-performance cruise missiles that can accurately strike hostile targets at great distances,” he added.

    Turchynov then suggests the new cruise missile system is an “important deterrent against the aggressor,” i.e. Russian forces in Crimea.

    According to the South China Morning Post,

    “The missile was not named by the authorities, but has been identified on the Defence Blog media outlet as the Neptune, based on the Soviet-designed Kh-35 introduced to the Russian military in 2003, the Kyiv Post reported. According to the Kyiv Post, the missile can sink warships with displacements of up to 5,000 tons of water – which would include all of Russia’s landing ships and frigates.”

    Ukraine is in the middle of fighting Russian-backed terrorists in eastern Ukraine in a conflict that started four years ago after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

    Lately, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry warned Russia to withdraw its troops from temporarily occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine.

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine strongly condemns ratification by the State Duma of the Russian Federation of the agreement on the incorporation of certain units of the army of self-proclaimed South Ossetia into the Russian Armed Forces.

    The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry also condemns the opening of a customs office in Akhalgori (Tskhinvali region) by the Russian occupation authorities and the formation of a specialized customs point in Sukhumi in Abkhazia, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said in its comments.

    “This next provocative step is a continuation of the Kremlin’s policy of destabilizing the situation in the Black Sea region and undermining the architecture of European security. We urge the Russian Federation to fulfill its obligations under international law and withdraw all its armed formations and occupation administrations from the temporarily occupied territories of Georgia and Ukraine, the document says.

    The sanctions imposed by the European Union (EU), the United States, Canada, and Japan on Russia to halt aggression against Ukraine have widely flunked. The United States knows it, and that is why Washington made a move to supply Ukrainian forces with anti-tank missiles in late 2017. Now, Ukraine is attempting to level the playing field with Russia with the introduction of supersonic cruise missiles. What could possibly go wrong?

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 31st January 2018

  • "Oh Yeah, 100 Percent" – Trump Tells Republican He'll Release The Memo

    After what even the mainstream-est of mainstream media admitted under duress was a solid SOTU address…

    Nearly half of those who watched President Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday reacted “very” positively to the speech, according to a snap CNN/SSRS poll.

    According to that survey, the results of which were announced on-air on CNN, 48 percent of respondents said they had a “very positive” reaction to the speech — Trump’s first since taking office. Only 22 percent said they had a “somewhat positive” reaction to the speech, while 29 percent reacted negatively.

    Sixty-two percent of respondents said that the policies outlined by the president on Tuesday would move the country in the right direction, according to the CNN/SSRS poll. By comparison, 35 percent said they would move it in the wrong direction.

    Which was followed by the exact opposite from The Democratic Party’s official response…

     

    It appears President Trump has managed to set another narrative as he left the House Chamber.

    As Trump shook hands up the aisle after his SOTU address, Rep. Jeff Duncan called out to Trump, asking him “Let’s release the memo,” referring to the House Intelligence Committee’s FISA memo.

    As the following clip shows, Trump responded instantly: “Oh yeah, don’t worry, 100%.

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

    So that seems pretty clear.

    As The Hill notes, Republican members of the committee said on Tuesday that they are working on a transcript of the closed-door vote and will release it when its finished. 

    CBS News reported on Tuesday that representatives from the FBI, DOJ, National Security Agency and Office of the Director of National Intelligence are reviewing it.

    Rep. Trey Gowdy said this week on Fox that the memo is “embarrassing” to Democrats. Gowdy said:

    My Democratic colleagues didn’t want us to find this information. They did everything they could to keep us from finding this information. I think it will be embarrassing to Adam Schiff once people realize the extent to which he went to keep them from learning any of this. That would be the embarrassment…. if it were up to Adam Schiff, you wouldn’t know about Hillary Clinton’s email. You wouldn’t know about the server. You wouldn’t know about the dossier. I do find it ironic that he has his own memo right now because if it were up to him, we wouldn’t know any of it.

    Is it any wonder Nancy Pelosi was making faces…

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

  • Economic Collapse: Will Cryptocurrency Save The Financial System?

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    In the second article of my three part series, I addressed how we got to the current state of this financial chaos. In this last article, I explain where we are heading and how cryptocurrency could be the last chance to create a sustainable economic system.

    Where to go from here?

    If trust and sustainability were the two conditions that allowed for the transition from physical gold to paper currency, it is from this basis that we must start to analyze where we are going and what effects the next economic crisis could have.

    In 2008, confidence in central banks saved the global economy. But as Mario Draghi said, the bazooka of quantitative easing was fired and a second hit during a crisis would have proved ineffective. The reason is complex and must be clearly explained. Most people are paid in a currency deposited in the bank, because that is where one keeps one’s currency, able to withdraw it at any time. But in the event of an economic crisis, priority is given to the banks, whatever remaining liquidity being for the customers. The reason why there was no bank run in 2008, which would have led to the collapse of the global banking system, lies in the trust that ordinary people continued to place in the financial system, courtesy of what the corporate-controlled media told them.

    The problem concerns the next financial crisis and how the world population will react. The path already seems to be traced, especially in geopolitical terms. Countries like China and Russia have created their own alternative banking and financial system to escape dollar sanctions; but they have also begun to de-dollarize by accumulating gold and using different payment methods to the US currency. In the same way, the desire to escape from a centrally controlled financial system, and the attendant need to remain anonymous, has produced a technological evolution known as cryptocurrency, much as the need to quickly communicate and globally exchange data in real time produced the Internet. Both evolutions find common roots in the American security services. The Internet stems from a DARPA project, and blockchain was outlined in NSA documents back in 1996.

    It is easy to imagine that governments and central banks have been caught flat footed by the birth of the cryptocurrencies, but it would be better not to underestimate nations that have been ruling the world for decades and have their finger on the pulse. Although Washington’s aggressive foreign policy has accelerated de-dollarization, one must consider the reason why cryptocurrencies have not been declared illegal.

    Let us go back for a moment to the devastating effects of the loss of the gold standard. Looking at a chart, it is easy to see how the start of world debt coincided with the end of the dollar being linked to gold. This has led to an increase in inflation, calmed only by false economic data and a powerful financial manipulation by central banks in collusion with each other. Purchasing power has plummeted and the average person has as a result become impoverished.

    When the ordinary person is overwhelmed by debts and sees his purchasing power steadily declining over the years, while continuously being told by the media that the exact opposite is happening, dissatisfaction and frustration increases to a point of passing a tipping point.

    In the US in 2008, the burden of the bailout fell on the shoulders of ordinary citizens. Once bitten, twice shy.

    People are placing less and less trust in the media and the banks.

    From Gold to Money to Crypto.

    In this sense, we can perhaps understand why bitcoin and blockchain technology have been able to prosper in complete freedom. It is conceivable that the project reflects an evolving world in which paper money disappears in favor of the digital one. How this transition could take place, and why some nations devoted to de-dollarization will find themselves in a privileged position compared to economies entirely tied to the dollar is a matter open to debate. The possible economic-shift must be considered real and probable for the sustainability of many nations, accompanied by the inevitable technological change and the need to anchor the global economy back to real values. The natural passage is a return to physical gold or to virtual gold, precisely the block chain and the value we bring with it.

    We should not underestimate the power of central banks and their plans to invent their own cryptocurrency as a mean to perpetuate their Ponzi scheme.

    What will make the main difference in the future is what backs up these virtual currencies.

    For example, Russia and China have accumulated many tons of gold and diversified their assets, dumping USD in exchange for tangible goods. A Crypto-Yuan or Ruble will eventually be valued more than an empty crypto-dollar without any counter-value. In a not to long distant future, Yuan and Ruble will be backed with gold or other financial assets like bitcoin while new virtual currencies will continue to perpetuate their empty value as with fiat currency. No surprise that with the next financial crisis, fiat money will pour into gold and crypto market looking for a safe haven from the devaluing dollar.

    In the next couple of years we can expect central banks such as those of the US, Europe and Japan develop their own crypto-currency and start pushing conversion from fiat money into their crypto, advancing their project of keeping the system centralized. We should not exclude drastic measures, such as banning non-state-actor cryptos, from governments when central banks start realizing having lost their competitive edge on currency manipulation.

    The last straw will be related to US military power trying to enforce the use of USD. In a scenario of steady economic and military decline of power, the US will find itself unable to force certain countries to use their currency, therefore losing its main weapon to create chaos in the world to advance its geopolitical goals. Without the dollar as the main world reserve currency, Washington will be forced to reconcile with the rest of the world, understanding that the unipolar moment is over and the neoliberal hegemonic planes to rule the world are forever gone.

  • The Jeff Bezos Empire In One Giant Chart

    With a fortune largely tied to his 78.9 million shares of Amazon, the net worth of Jeff Bezos continues to be on the rise.

    In November, Bezos became only the 2nd man in history to amass a 12-figure net worth and has surpasses Bill Gates as the world’s richest man…

    Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins previously showed how Bezos built Amazon from scratch, but, after making more headlines today along with Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett, today’s infographic focuses on the extent and reach of Jeff Bezos and his Amazon Empire…

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    ALL STREAMS LEAD TO AMAZON

    Jeff Bezos makes investments and acquisitions through multiple vehicles:

    Amazon makes acquisitions and investments that relate to the company’s core business and future ambitions. This includes acquisitions of Whole Foods ($13.7 billion in 2017), Zappos.com ($1.2 billion in 2009), Twitch.tv ($970 million in 2014), and Kiva Systems ($780 million in 2012). It also includes investments in everything form failed dot-com company Kozmo.com (2000) to Twilio, which successfully IPO’d in 2016.

    Bezos Expeditions manages Jeff Bezos’ venture capital investments. Over the years, this venture arm has put money into Twitter, Domo, Juno Therapeutics, Workday, General Fusion, Rethink Robotics, Business Insider, MakerBot, and Stack Overflow. More recent investments include GRAIL, a startup that recently raised over $900 million to cure cancer before it happens, as well as EverFi, an edtech startup.

    Jeff Bezos also invests money on a personal level. He was an angel investor in Google in 1998, and has also put money in Uber and Airbnb. (Note: these last two companies are listed on the Bezos Expeditions website, but on Crunchbase they are listed as personal investments.)

    Nash Holdings LLC is the private company owned by Bezos that bought The Washington Post for $250 million.

    Bezos Family Foundation is run by Jeff Bezos’ parents, and is funded through Amazon stock. It focuses on early education, and has also made an investment in LightSail Education’s $11 million Series B round.

    It’s also worth noting that Jeff Bezos is the founder of Blue Origin, an aerospace company that is competing with SpaceX in mankind’s final frontier.

    EARLY GROCERY AMBITIONS

    While the Whole Foods acquisition is the latest talking point for Amazon, it is certainly not the company’s first foray into the groceries business.

    Interestingly enough, the company actually invested heavily in HomeGrocer.com in 1999, a company that delivered groceries from large warehouses to homes. Sales peaked at $1.5 million per day, but unfortunately HomeGrocer couldn’t make it through the Dot-com bust.

    This postponed Amazon’s grocery ambitions, but it wouldn’t stop them.

  • The "Dirty Game" To Fuel Ethnic Proxy War Across The Greater Middle East

    Authored by James M. Dorsey via AlMasdar News,

    Turkish allegations of Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian support for the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) threatens to turn Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds aligned with the PKK into a regional imbroglio. The threat is magnified by Iranian assertions that low-intensity warfare is heating up in areas of the Islamic republic populated by ethnic minorities, including the Kurds in the northwest and the Baloch on the border with Pakistan.

    Taken together, the two developments raise the specter of a potentially debilitating escalation of the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as an aggravation of the eight-month-old Gulf crisis that has pitted Saudi Arabia and its allies against Qatar, the latter which has forged close ties to Turkey.


    Image via al-Masdar News.

    The United Arab Emirates and Egypt rather than Saudi Arabia have taken the lead in criticizing Turkey’s incursion into Syria designed to remove US-backed Kurds from the border region and create a 30-kilometer deep buffer zone. UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said the incursion by a non-Arab state signaled that Arab states would be marginalized if they failed to develop a national security strategy.

    Notably Egypt, for its part, condemned the incursion as a “fresh violation of Syrian sovereignty” that was intended to “undermine the existing efforts for political solutions and counter-terrorism efforts in Syria.”

    Despite Saudi silence, Yeni Safak, a newspaper closely aligned with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), charged that a $1 billion Saudi contribution to the reconstruction of Raqqa, the now Syrian Kurdish-controlled former capital of the Islamic State, was evidence of the kingdom’s involvement in what it termed a “dirty game.” Analysts suggest that Saudi Arabia may have opted to refrain from comment in the hope that it could exploit the fact that Iran, a main backer of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, has refused to support the incursion.

    Nevertheless, Saudi, UAE and Egyptian support for the Syrian Kurds would jive with suggestions that the Gulf states are looking at ways of undermining regimes in Tehran and Damascus by stirring unrest among their ethnic minorities.

    Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, according to recent reports in state media, said it had recently seized two large caches of weapons and explosives in separate operations in Kurdish areas in the west of the country and a Baloch region on the eastern border with Pakistan. It said the Kurdish cache seized in the town of Marivan included bomb-making material, electronic detonators, and rocket propelled grenades while the one in the east contained two dozen remote-controlled bombs.

    The ministry further accused Saudi Arabia of providing the weapons but offered no evidence to back up its claim. The ministry has blamed the kingdom for a number of weapons seizures in the past year. And Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard  said earlier this month that it had captured explosives and suicide vests in the south-eastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan that had been smuggled in by a jihadist group that operates out of the neighboring Pakistan region of Balochistan. Separately, a Guard commander said that three Guards and three Islamic State militants had been killed in a clash in western Iran.

    Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman vowed last year that the battle between his kingdom and the Islamic republic would be fought “inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.” Former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Britain and the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, told a rally of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a controversial Iranian opposition group that “I, too, want the fall of the regime.”

    At the same time a Saudi think tank, the Arabian Gulf Center for Iranian Studies (AGCIS), believed to be backed by Prince Mohammed, called in a study published last year for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. In the study, published by the Riyadh-based the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies, Mohammed Hassan Husseinbor, a Washington-based Baloch lawyer, researcher and activist, argued that the “Saudis could persuade Pakistan to soften its opposition to any potential Saudi support for the Iranian Baluch… The Arab-Baluch alliance is deeply rooted in the history of the Gulf region and their opposition to Persian domination.”

    Pointing to the vast expanses of Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Mr. Husseinbor went on to say that “it would be a formidable challenge, if not impossible, for the Iranian government to protect such long distances…in the face of widespread Baluch opposition, particularly if this opposition is supported by Iran’s regional adversaries and world powers.”


    Iran’s minority politics. Source: John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University

    Futhermore, Washington’s conservative Hudson Institute, which prides itself on the Trump administration having adopted many of its policy recommendations, last year organized a seminar which featured speakers that included Baloch, Iranian Arab, Iranian Kurdish and Iranian Azerbaijani nationalists.

    And to top it all off Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia had in the last year stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.

    The specter of ethnic proxy wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria threatens to further destabilize the greater Middle East and complicate Chinese plans to develop the Pakistani deep-sea port of Gwadar, a crown jewel of China’s Belt and Road initiative.

    Fuelling ethnic tensions further risks Iran responding in kind. Saudi Arabia has long accused Iran of instigating low-level violence and protests in its predominantly Shiite oil-rich Eastern Province as well as in Bahrain.  It also risks aggravating war in Yemen, regionalizing the Turkish-Kurdish confrontation in Syria, and pushing the Middle East ever closer to the brink.

  • One Million People Are Waiting To Trade Crypto With Robinhood

    Robinhood Financial, the”fastest-growing online brokerage in history”, announced last week that it was getting into cryptocurrency trading. And since then, Bloomberg reports, more than one million people have put their names on the company’s waiting list in four days…

    Digital currency trading will mark the first paid product for Robinhood, which became wildly popular among millennials by letting anyone buy and sell small amounts of stock without fees. The company said it’ll only charge for cryptocurrency transactions to recoup the costs associated with trading the assets and won’t take a commission.

    Still, the total transaction costs will be lower compared with Coinbase’s 1.5% to 4% fees in the US. Robinhood is already allowing users track the price, news, and set up alerts on those and 14 other top crypto coins, including Litecoin and Ripple.

     

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

     

    Robinhood Financial LLC said last week it plans to let its users buy and sell digital coins without fees starting in February. It’ll roll out the option gradually, with the intention of having it available to customers in most states by midyear.

     

    dontsleep

    That won’t be easy, as even the biggest exchanges are suffering from slow trading, rising transaction fees and other issues as demand for crypto has skyrocketed. Complaints about Coinbase Inc., one of the largest crypto exchanges instance, have surged recently as transaction times has soared and the company has frequently been forced to cut off trading and withdrawals when cryptocurrency prices are plunging. Stripe Inc., an online credit-card processor, recently said it would stop accepting bitcoin payments because of the rising fees.

    According to Bloomberg, the extremely long waiting list for Robinhood crypto trading proves that consumer interest in the crypto craze isn’t slowing even after Bitcoin tumbled more than 50 percent from its mid-December record as regulators step up scrutiny. Not even one of the biggest thefts in crypto history could spoil the excitement.

    That could bode well for the crypto market, which has suffered from lackluster performance since the start of the year following its best year on record.

  • On Disinformation & The Dossier

    Via EmptyWheel.net,

    Since we’re going to be obsessing about the dossier for the next while again, I want to return to a question I’ve repeatedly raised: the possibility that some or even much of the Christopher Steele dossier could be the product of Russian disinformation.

     

    Certainly, at least by the time Fusion and Steele were pitching the dossier to the press in September 2016, the Russians might have gotten wind of the project and started to feed Steele’s sources disinformation. But there’s at least some reason to believe it could have happened much sooner.

    Former CIA officer Daniel Hoffman argues the near misses are a mark of Russian disinformation

    A number of spooks had advanced this idea in brief comments in the past. Today, former CIA officer Daniel Hoffman makes the arguement at more length at WSJ.

    There is a third possibility, namely that the dossier was part of a Russian espionage disinformation plot targeting both parties and America’s political process. This is what seems most likely to me, having spent much of my 30-year government career, including with the CIA, observing Soviet and then Russian intelligence operations. If there is one thing I have learned, it’s that Vladimir Putin continues in the Soviet tradition of using disinformation and espionage as foreign-policy tools.

    Hoffman points to what I consider the dossier’s abundance of near-misses (such as events involving the correct person in the wrong place or time) on correct information to back his case.

    The pattern of such Russian operations is to sprinkle false information, designed to degrade the enemy’s social and political infrastructure, among true statements that enhance the veracity of the overall report. In 2009 the FSB wanted to soil the reputation of a U.S. diplomat responsible for reporting on human rights. So it fabricated a video, in part using real surveillance footage of the diplomat, that purported to show him with a prostitute in Moscow.

    Similarly, some of the information in the Steele dossier is true. Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, did travel to Moscow in the summer of 2016. But he insists that the secret meetings the dossier alleges never happened. This is exactly what you’d expect if the Kremlin followed its usual playbook: accurate basic facts provided as bait to convince Americans that the fake info is real.

    John Sipher, in our joint interview with Jeremy Scahill admitted such a thing was possible, though that the dossier still tied the hack to “collusion.”

    The Russians are the best in the world at this disinformation and deception. I don’t think, based on what we saw in the June, the first of his reports, that the Russians would have controlled all of those sources and controlled that whole narrative. It just doesn’t seem to make sense to me. And if in fact they did control the information that was given to Mr. Steele at that time, you have to wonder what was the point. If they were trying to send a message that they had compromising information on Mr. Trump, that might be that they wanted Mr. Trump to know what they had so he would act accordingly. In terms of using kompromat you don’t have to go to the person and make the quid pro quo, you just have to let them know that you have the information and they’ll do the right thing. So, I do agree, as time went by, and as she mentioned, for example, that what GPS Fusion information had in the connections they had there’s, it’s certainly possible that the Russians could have come across some of these sources and provided disinformation especially as time went by. I don’t think that that’s out of the realm of possibility.

    Nevertheless Sipher argued in response to Hoffman that the content of the dossier would rule against it being disinformation.

    [Hoffman] did not address the content. If was disinformation, it was designed to hurt Trump.

    The content of the dossier would have led Democrats to be complacent about the hacking

    But I can think of several ways the information in the dossier, if it was disinformation, would help Trump. I have already noted how, if Democrats had used the intelligence provided by Steele in the very earliest reports in the dossier to gauge the risk posed by the hack, they would have been lulled into complacency, because Steele’s first reports clearly said any kompromat the Russians wanted to dump was old intercepts from Hillary’s trips to Russia, and even Steele’s first report after the WikiLeaks dump would not only not confirm Russia was behind the release, but would also contradict a year of public reporting on APT29 to claim that Russia had not had success breaching targets like the State Department and Hillary.

    On June 20, Perkins Coie would have learned from a Steele report that the dirt Russia had on Hillary consisted of “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls rather than any embarrassing conduct.” It would also have learned that “the dossier however had not yet been made available abroad, including to TRUMP or his campaign team.”

    On July 19, Perkins Coie would have learned from a Steele report that at a meeting with a Kremlin official named Diyevkin which Carter Page insists didn’t take place, Diyevkin “rais[ed] a dossier of ‘kompromat’ the Kremlin possessed on TRUMP’s Democratic presidential rival, Hillary CLINTON, and its possible release to the Republican’s campaign team.” At that point in time, the reference to kompromat would still be to intercepted messages, not email.

    On July 22, Wikileaks released the first trove of DNC emails.

    On July 26 — days after Russian-supplied emails were being released to the press — Perkins Coie would receive a Steele report (based on June reporting) that claimed FSB had the lead on hacking in Russia. And the report would claim — counter to a great deal of publicly known evidence — that “there had been only limited success in penetrating the ‘first tier’ foreign targets.” That is, even after the Russian hacked emails got released to the public, Steele would still be providing information to the Democrats suggesting there was no risk of emails getting released because Russians just weren’t that good at hacking.

    In fact, in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, in one of the few instances in either congressional appearance where he admitted that Steele was hired at almost precisely the same moment the Democrats were trying to get the FBI to make a public statement attributing the hack to Russia, Glenn Simpson explained that the Democrats did use Steele’s intelligence to “manage” the aftermath of the hack.

    MR. SIMPSON: Well, this was a very unusual situation, because right around the time that the work started, it became public that the FBI suspected the Russians of hacking the DNC. And so there was sort of an extraordinary coincidence. It wasn’t really a coincidence but, you know, our own interest in Russia coincided with a lot of public disclosures that there was something going on with Russia.

    And so what was originally envisioned as an original — as just a sort of a survey, a first cut of what might be — whether there might be something interesting about Donald Trump and Russia quickly became more of an effort to help my client manage a, you know, exceptional situation and understand what the heck was going on.

    I also think it’s creepy that Guccifer 2.0 promised what he called a dossier on Hillary on the same day Steele delivered his first report, June 20, and delivered documents he claimed to be that dossier the next day.

    There are multiple ways the Russians may have learned of the Steele dossier

    Hoffman lays out a number of the reasons I believe Steele’s production process might have been uniquely susceptible to discovery.

    There are three reasons the Kremlin would have detected Mr. Steele’s information gathering and seen an opportunity to intervene. First, Mr. Steele did not travel to Russia to acquire his information and instead relied on intermediaries. That is a weak link, since Russia’s internal police service, the FSB, devotes significant technical and human resources to blanket surveillance of Western private citizens and government officials, with a particular focus on uncovering their Russian contacts.

    Second, Mr. Steele was an especially likely target for such surveillance given that he had retired from MI-6, the British spy agency, after serving in Moscow. Russians are fond of saying that there is no such thing as a “former” intelligence officer. The FSB would have had its eye on him.

    Third, the Kremlin successfully hacked into the Democratic National Committee. Emails there could have tipped it off that the Clinton campaign was collecting information on Mr. Trump’s dealings in Russia.

    I’d flesh out another, one the Republicans have been dancing close to for the last year. Because Fusion GPS did business with both the Democrats and, via Baker Hostetler, anti-Magnitsky lobbyists Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin at the same time, it created a second source via which the Russians might learn that Hillary had a dossier. In addition to Simpson himself,  Fusion researcher Edward Baumgartner also worked with both Baker Hostetler and the Democrats at the same time. Simpson tried to minimize the overlap and the possibility for revealing the dossier, especially in his Senate testimony.

    Q. We had talked about work for multiple clients. What steps were taken, if any, to make sure that the work that Mr. Baumgartner was doing for Prevezon was not shared across to the clients you were working for with regard to the presidential election?

    A. He didn’t deal with them. He didn’t deal with the clients.

    But the publicly released financial data shows a clear overlap in those projects and Baumgartner’s comments to BI show he worked quite closely with Veselnitskaya.

    Baumgartner, a fluent Russian speaker, said he was hired by Fusion to serve as “an interface” with Veselnitskaya, who does not speak much English. They worked “very closely” together in Washington and Moscow, Baumgartner said, reviewing documents and finding witnesses who could bolster Prevezon’s case.

    Simpson attended a dinner in DC on June 10, attended by both Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin, in the aftermath of the Trump Tower meeting at which (per Simpson) “we had drinks before;” Baumgartner’s vague memory suggests he did too. When asked if Baumgartner knew Akhmetshin, which is virtually certain, Simpson said, “I don’t know.” So there were at least opportunities where people working on both campaigns might have disclosed details about the project for the Democrats (though both Simpson and Baumgartner said Baumgartner didn’t know about the Steele part of the project).

    One other detail makes it more likely that Russians succeeded in planting at least some disinformation: both Luke Harding (who worked closely with Steele on his book) and Simpson describe Steele’s sources drying up as the focus on Trump’s ties to Russia grew. Simpson’s statement on this grossly understates (as he often does) how much focus there already publicly was on the Russian hack by the time he hired Steele.

    So, you know, when Chris started asking around in Moscow about this the information was sitting there. It wasn’t a giant secret. People were talking about it freely. It was only, you know, later that it became a subject of great controversy and people clammed up, and at that time the whole issue of the hacking was also, you know, not really focused on Russia. So these things eventually converged into, you know, a major issue, but at the time it wasn’t one.

    So if Steele’s regular sources were drying up, it makes it far more likely any new ones would be easy to compromised.

    Russians seem to have planned to use the dossier to discredit the investigation — just as they are using it

    Finally, I want to turn to another reason why I think parts of this may be disinformation. At least two of the reports — the Alfa Bank report (which was pretty clearly a feedback loop on another dodgy story) and the depiction of what should have been the Internet Research Association but was instead targeted at Webzilla, seem custom made to prepare the kind of lawfare that has discredited the dossier. Indeed, Alfa Bank and Webzilla’s owners both sued, suggesting they feel like they can survive discovery.

    Look, now, at this detail from the letters Chuck Grassley sent out to the DNC, its top officials, and the Hillary campaign, and its top officials, trying to find out how much they knew about and used the dossier. Grassley also asks for any communications to, from, or relating to the following (I’ve rearranged and classified them).

    Fusion and its formal employees: Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro; Nellie Ohr;

    Fusion researcher who worked on both the Prevezon and Democratic projects: Edward Baumgartner;

    Anti-Magnitsky lobbyists: Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman;

    Christopher Steele’s business and colleagues: Orbis Business Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited.; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited; Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood,

    Hillary-related intelligence and policy types: Cody Shearer; Sidney Blumenthal; Jon Winer; Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones;

    DOJ and FBI: Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker; Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch;

    Grassley, like me, doesn’t believe Brennan was out of the loop either: John Brennan

    Oleg Deripaska and his lawyer: Oleg Deripaska; Paul Hauser;

    It’s the last reference I’m particularly interested in.

    When Simpson talked about how the dossier got leaked to BuzzFeed, he complains that, “I was very upset. I thought it was a very dangerous thing and that someone had violated my confidences, in any event.” The presumed story is that John McCain and his aide David Kramer were briefed by Andrew Wood at an event that Rinat Akhmetshin also attended, later obtained the memo (I’m still not convinced this was the full memo yet), McCain shared it, again, with the FBI, and Kramer leaked it to Buzzfeed.

    But Grassley seems to think Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska was in on the loop of this. Deripaska is important to this story not just for because he owns Paul Manafort (he figures heavily in this worthwhile profile of Manafort). But also because he’s got ties, through Rick Davis, to John McCain. This was just rehashed last year by Circa, which has been running interference on this story.

    There is a report that Manafort laid out precisely the strategy focusing on the dossier that is still the main focus of GOP pushback on the charges against Trump and his campaign (and Manafort).

    It was about a week before Trump’s inauguration, and Manafort wanted to brief Trump’s team on alleged inaccuracies in a recently released dossier of memos written by a former British spy for Trump’s opponents that alleged compromising ties among Russia, Trump and Trump’s associates, including Manafort.

    “On the day that the dossier came out in the press, Paul called Reince, as a responsible ally of the president would do, and said this story about me is garbage, and a bunch of the other stuff in there seems implausible,” said a personclose to Manafort.

    [snip]

    According to a GOP operative familiar with Manafort’s conversation with Priebus, Manafort suggested the errors in the dossier discredited it, as well as the FBI investigation, since the bureau had reached a tentative (but later aborted) agreement to pay the former British spy to continue his research and had briefed both Trump and then-President Barack Obama on the dossier.

    Manafort told Priebus that the dossier was tainted by inaccuracies and by the motivations of the people who initiated it, whom he alleged were Democratic activists and donors working in cahoots with Ukrainian government officials, according to the operative.

    If Deripaska learned of the dossier — and obtained a copy from McCain or someone close to him — it would make it very easy to lay out the strategy we’re currently seeing.

    Update: Welp, here’s why Grassley wants to know who among the Democrats spoke with Cody Shearer.

    The FBI inquiry into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election has been given a second memo that independently set out many of the same allegations made in a dossier by Christopher Steele, the British former spy.

    The second memo was written by Cody Shearer, a controversial political activist and former journalist who was close to the Clinton White House in the 1990s.

    [snip]

    The Shearer memo was provided to the FBI in October 2016.

    It was handed to them by Steele – who had been given it by an American contact – after the FBI requested the former MI6 agent provide any documents or evidence that could be useful in its investigation, according to multiple sources.

    The Guardian was told Steele warned the FBI he could not vouch for the veracity of the Shearer memo, but that he was providing a copy because it corresponded with what he had separately heard from his own independent sources.

    Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel.

  • Unknown Group Pays $175 Million For 74,000 Acres In Nevada For Mysterious Ethereum Project

    Earlier this month, we reported that a Russian businessman had purchased two vacant power stations in the Perm region with the intention of setting up a large crypto mining operation – the latest sign that miners are moving to fill the void left by China’s crackdown on cryptocurrency miners, who had previously enjoyed heavily subsidized power.

    As for North America, we’ve already noted that miners are clustering in Winnipeg City, Manitoba, the town with the cheapest electricity on the whole continent.

    And now, a mysterious new industrial scale cryptocurrency project is coming to Nevada: As the Nevada Independent reports, a little-known company focused on blockchain technology and bitcoin has purchased a huge chunk of land at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center.

     

    Map

    The park has managed to attract dozens of tech firms, including several notable names. Back in 2014, it made headlines when Tesla selected the park as the site for its Gigafactory. Google and Switch also have campuses there. 

    All told, Blockchains bought 74,000 acres for $175 million – the largest deal since the park was developed in 1998, and more than the Gigafactory and the other corporate campuses.

    A little-known company focused on the underlying technology behind cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin has purchased a huge chunk of land at a Northern Nevada industrial park.

    Storey County Commissioner and Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center broker Lance Gilman said he closed escrow last week on the sale of 67,125 total acres of land to Blockchains, LLC, a business that studies and develops applications for blockchain distributed ledger technology, the decentralized platform that makes up the backbone of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies

    Though Gilman said he was prohibited from discussing terms of the sale, which is expected, he said that total value of the 74,000 acres in land sales closed this month at the park, including the sale to Blockchains, was worth about $175 million.

    “There’s no question — they’re going to have a major footprint in the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center,” he said.

    But little information is publicly available about the company or its intentions, though Gilman says they now own more than 104 square miles at the industrial park. The land sale was first reported by Nevada Newsmakers.

    According to the company’s website, which provides only a vague description of what the company does, Blockchains, LLC is a “premier innovator” in the blockchain industry, specializing in “financial services, software development of distributed applications (Dapps) for the Ethereum blockchain.”

     

    Park

    But Lance Gilman, the real-estate agent who sold the plot to Blockchains, said he was unable to provide details about the company’s plans, saying only that he believes they’ll be building a corporate headquarters and a research lab. He said the company said it will release more information soon. 

    But given the association with cutting-edge tech that the park’s developers have nurtured, Gilman said he’s “proud” to have a cutting edge blockchain company in the park.

    Gilman told Nevada NewsMakers “I believe they envision a product that will showcase all of the capabilities of the block chain technology.”

    Gilman said that he and his partner believed it would take generations to sell all of the land in the park. But thanks to interest from a slew of tech companies, they managed to do it in less than 20 years. The park only has 250 acres of land left for sale, according to Nevada Newsmakers.

    While the details are still fuzzy, one could be excused for suspecting that the company intends to build a lavish campus. As Newsmakers reported, the park’s owners believe Blockchains’s plans will “mesh perfectly” with the “Emerald City” concept the developers are planning: That project involves a lake in the middle of a 500-acre town center that would double as a holding reservoir for treated water to be used by the park’s residents.

    * * *

    Blockchains, LLC was registered in Nevada in May 2017 by California attorney Jeffrey Berns, a partner at the law firm of Berns Weiss LLP. According to his LinkedIn, Berns has been the president of “Berns Inc.,” which owns the URL Blockchains.com, and states that the company’s plan is to “stay in a somewhat of a stealth mode until approximately second quarter 2018.”

    In addition to virtual currencies, Berns Weiss LLP focuses on class-action lawsuits against financial services companies, and has won millions of dollars in settlements against the likes of Ticketmaster, Cisco Systems and Home Loan Center.

    Tesla, one of the anchor tenants at the park with its lithium ion battery production “Gigafactory,” owns slightly more than 2,800 acres at the park. Google purchased 1,210 acres at the park last year, and data center giant Switch operates a 2,000 acre campus at the park, which covers over 107,000 acres in rural Storey County.

  • Trump Calls For $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

    President Donald Trump was widely expected to discuss his long-anticipated infrastructure plan tonight, particularly since the White House leaked an outline for a plan to generate $1 trillion in spending through public-private partnerships. Tonight, Trump unveiled an even more ambitious sum, requesting Congress present an infrastructure bill for $1.5 trillion to rebuild America’s roads, airports and rails.

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

    Lamenting that it can take up to 10 years for a permit to be approved to build a simple road Trump demanded that the infrastructure plan also clear away the red tape surrounding the permitting process.

    As previously discussed, Trump’s framework under discussion for modernizing U.S. roads, bridges, waterways and other public works calls for allocating at least $200 billion in federal funds over 10 years to spur states, localities and the private sector to spend at least $800 billion and as much as $1.6 trillion. Ultimately, however, the government may be on the hook for the full amount, which would have to be funded with incremental debt.

    As Bloomberg notes, White House infrastructure adviser DJ Gribbin has said the administration plans to send detailed principles to Congress a week or two after Trump’s State of the Union speech to begin the legislative process.

    Excerpted from the speech:

    I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.

    Tonight, I am calling on the Congress to produce a bill that generates at least $1.5 trillion for the new infrastructure investment we need.

    Every Federal dollar should be leveraged by partnering with State and local governments and, where appropriate, tapping into private sector investment — to permanently fix the infrastructure deficit.

    Any bill must also streamline the permitting and approval process — getting it down to no more than two years, and perhaps even one.

    In response, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Nathan Dean says that Trump’s call for $1.5t for the new infrastructure is going to fall flat with Congress, noting that there isn’t enough time for Congress to agree on such a broad package before they turn their attention to the 2018 elections, not to mention coming to a bipartisan agreement over budget concerns.

    As Dean further says, “all of this infrastructure talk in Washington is going to have little impact on total U.S. infrastructure growth in 2018.”

    Meanwhile, Democrats are already questioning the plan and key groups are at loggerheads over the question of funding.

    And so, despite the massive spending commitment, which could mean as much as $1.5 trillion in new debt, there was little reaction in the ten year, which was modestly lower on the news, as it either has had plenty of time to price the news debt in, or simply does not believe that it will happen.

     

  • Watch Live: The Democratic RebuttalFest

    After listening to the President’s address (or not in some cases for those who decided to skip it), members of The Democratic Party decided that one rebuttal was not enough.

    In keeping with the division theme, The Democrats are planning six rebuttals to Trump’s first official State of The Union address.

    The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti provides a helpful guide to all of them… just in case you’re in the mood for more long-winded speeches to explain just what the ‘issues’ really are…

    The Official Response: Right after Trump’s speech concludes, the Democrats will try to convince voters that they are more in touch with issues affecting the “real Americans” who populate “flyover country.” They will do this with a speech from, Sen. Joseph Kennedy III, a third-generation Senator from America’s most notable “royal family,” who will give his rebuttal from a coastal hideaway in Massachusetts.

    The Spanish-Language Response: Virginia Delegate Elizabeth Guzman will give the Democrats’ “Spanish-language” response, despite the fact that she is not yet a member of Congress. Guzman is one of ten Democrats who were swept into the Virginia statehouse in a landmark victory in 2017 — quite the feat — but she isn’t exactly ready to help the Dems connect with average voters. She may be best known for quipping to the Huffington Post that, “We cannot be centrist any more.”

    The Bernie Sanders Response: Not to be outdone by a freshman lawmaker, Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders will deliver his own State of the Union response, but unlike his Democratic colleagues, Sanders will not deliver his remarks from a prepared speech. Rather, he’ll respond on the fly, largely from a set of talking points he’s already released. Expect plenty of conspiracy theories starring the Koch brothers.

    The Socialist Response: Wait! Were you concerned that Bernie Sanders would demand enough free stuff in his rebuttal to Donald Trump? Well, then, you’re in luck, because the Working Families Party, which considers itself an “independent minor party” pushing the larger Democratic Party to the left, will fill in the blanks with their response to Bernie Sanders’ response to Sen. Joe Kennedy’s response to Donald Trump.

    The Maxine Waters Response: In a fair world, Maxine Waters’ State of the Union response would just be “IMPEACHMENT” scribbled on a poster board. But because she’s booked on BET, she’ll give a heartfelt argument for booting the President from office based, largely, on a set of imagined criteria, and what she feels are personal insults.

    No embeddable live feed for Maxine we are afraid to say. Link here to the BET site, she is due to begin tomorrow night at 10pmET.

    The Celebrity Response: This happened on Monday night, so you won’t be able to catch it live, but if, after all of this, you still feel the need to experience yet a stranger version of a State of the Union response, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Moore, and others, including the “artistic directors” of the Women’s March, have put together an excruciatingly long video from their “People’s State of the Union” event, calling for “resistance” and a host of economic policies that will never impact them personally.

    *  *  *
    We suspect by the end of all these, the results will be summed up as follows…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 30th January 2018

  • Pakistan 'Pivots' To Purchase Weapons From China/Russia After Trump Halts Military Aid

    President Trump’s decision to ring the New Year by simultaneously demonizing Pakistan on Twitter has mostly backfired.

    In an interview with the Financial TimesPakistan’s defense minister Khurram Dastgir Khan said Pakistan is expanding its relationships with Russia and China, as relations with Washington deteriorate following the suspension over $2 billion in military aid to Islamabad.

     

    Khan said is his government is undergoing a “regional recalibration of Pakistan’s foreign and security policy,” which implies Pakistani defense forces will be buying military weapons from Russia and China, rather than the United States.

    “The fact that we have recalibrated our way towards better relations with Russia, deepening our relationship with China, is a response to what the Americans have been doing,” Khan stated.

    Khan’s comments to the Financial Times came three weeks after Beijing announced it would be building its second foreign military base near the Gwadar Port, in the Pakistani province of Balochistan.

    Plans call for the Jiwani base to be a joint naval and air facility for Chinese forces, located a short distance up the coast from the Chinese-built commercial port facility at Gwadar, Pakistan. Both Gwadar and Jiwani are part of Pakistan’s western Baluchistan province.

    The large naval and air base will require the Pakistani government to relocate scores of residents living in the area. Plans call for their relocation to other areas of Jiwani or further inland in Baluchistan province.

    The Chinese also asked the Pakistanis to undertake a major upgrade of Jiwani airport so the facility will be able to handle large Chinese military aircraft.

    Work on the airport improvements is expected to begin in July.

    The naval base and airfield will occupy nearly the entire strategic peninsula.

     

    Khan made it clear that Pakistan started the “recalibration” process three years ago when it began buying Russian helicopters. He indicates this is not a new trend, but the recent actions by President Trump have certainly spurred Pakistan to gravitate towards Russia and China for defense weapons.

    Tensions between the US and Pakistan are the worst point ever in its 70 years of friendship. Khan stressed that Pakistan has many similar goals with Washington, but “lately the focus has been on areas of divergence”.

    “We have already bought some Russian helicopters in the past three years,” he said. “This is what we call a regional recalibration of Pakistan’s foreign and security policy. It is because of the unfortunate choice the United States continues to make.”

    Earlier this month, the U.S. said it would suspend the security assistance program to Pakistan worth $2 billion because the country has failed to combat terrorism within its borders.

    “The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools,” President Donald Trump tweeted in earlier January.

    Khan called Trump’s tweets “deeply offensive” and “counterproductive.”

    Khan further added: “It is unfortunate that we are even discussing the numbers [the amount of aid] while Afghanistan slowly spirals out of the American and Afghan control.”

    Khan notes that the backbone of the Pakistan air force is the General Dynamics’ F-16 Fighting Falcon of the U.S., which Khan said Islamabad has been received spare parts from Washington in two years.

    “We are using our own ingenuity and using other sources to keep the fleet up in the air,” he said. “It has been very difficult.”

    Considering Washington’s neglect in sending parts for Pakistan’s F-16s, Khan said he is open for dialogue with Russia on the Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jet.

    About nine days after President Trump’s tweet, Khan declared that military and intelligence cooperation with the United States would be suspended.

    Interestingly enough, both Beijing and Moscow issued strong statements in support of Pakistan after Trump unleashed fire and furry on Twitter.

    “We must value Pakistan’s important role on the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and reasonable security concerns,” China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson over the telephone, according to Chinese media.

    And lastly, this might be the bombshell, “The fact that we have recalibrated our way towards better relations with Russia, deepening our relationship with China, is a response to what the Americans have been doing. And they have their own reasons. They want to use India, in our view, to contain China,” Khan said.

  • Army Major: Wrong On 'Nam, Wrong On Terror

    Authored by Major Danny Sjursen via TomDispatch.com,

    Vietnam: it’s always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.

     

    A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command.  And almost half a century later, they’re still losing it and blaming others for doing so. 

    Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the previous century and perhaps it’s well that they did.  The United States really had no business intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides of that country’s artificial border.  In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans in those years as the Vietcong. 

    More than two decades of involvement and, at the war’s peak, half a million American troops never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon.  Despite millions of Asian deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam’s military could not, in the end, hold the line without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.

    There’s just one thing.  Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the “orthodox” school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior American military officers do not.  Instead, they’re still refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.

    The Big Re-Write

    In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned an article for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral dissertation on the Vietnam War.  It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus’s impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war.  Though he did observe that Vietnam had “cost the military dearly” and that “the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of those who lead the services,” his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared to wage what were then called “low-intensity conflicts” and are now known as counterinsurgencies.  His takeaway: what the country needed wasn’t less Vietnams but better-fought ones.  The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such wars.

    Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to win the war on terror.  The names of some of them — H.R. McMaster and James Mattis, for instance — should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan, Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice.  Americans — and much of the rest of the planet — still live with the results.

    Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient conflict.  After all these decades, such “thinking” generals and “soldier-scholars” continue to draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America’s second longest war. 

    Rival Schools

    Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools of revisionist thinking. 

    There are the “Clausewitzians” (named after the nineteenth century Prussian military theorist) who insist that Washington never sufficiently attacked the enemy’s true center of gravity in North Vietnam.  Beneath the academic language, they essentially agree on one key thing: the U.S. military should have bombed the North into a parking lot.

    The second school, including Petraeus, Hess labeled the “hearts-and-minders.”  As COINdinistas, they felt the war effort never focused clearly enough on isolating the Vietcong, protecting local villages in the South, building schools, and handing out candy — everything, in short, that might have won (in the phrase of that era) Vietnamese hearts and minds.

    Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in Vietnam. 

    The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century.  Senior commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have translated that conflict’s supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in Washington.  The result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can work now. 

    The Go-Big Option

    The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military.  It’s easy enough to understand why.  Summers argued that civilian policymakers — not the military rank-and-file — had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi.  More troops, more aggressiveness, even full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have led to victory.

    Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic.  Later, he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay in “draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences.”  In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn’t even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States. 

    Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that “you know you never beat us on the battlefield.”

    “That may be so,” replied his former enemy, “but it is also irrelevant.”

    Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!) 

    A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty.  He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that “the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice.”  He concluded that the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon’s generals, which led civilian officials to opt for a deficient strategy. 

    McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy — a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country.  In this sense, he was just another “go-big” Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge — an observation of historian Edward Miller — that “the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war.”

    COIN: A Small (Forever) War

    Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening salvo for the hearts-and-minders.  In The Army and Vietnam, published in 1986, he argued that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy’s chief center of gravity and that the American military’s failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional concepts of war sealed its fate.  While such arguments were, in reality, no more impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points out, because they offer a “simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam.” 

    Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairs piece, “How to Win in Iraq,” in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New York Times’s resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating “discussion in the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president.” 

    In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam.  Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, “the fighting wasn’t over, but the war was won.”  According to his comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the “big-war” strategy of U.S. commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams — Sorley’s knight in shining armor — was (or at least should have been) a war winner. 

    Critics noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals’ strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work.  It didn’t matter, however.  By 2005, just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley’s book found its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State Department counselor Philip Zelikow.  By then, according to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, it could also “be found on the bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad.”

    Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl.  (He even made it onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.) His Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in claiming that “if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the start of the war, America might very well have won it.”  In 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker “so liked [Nagl’s] book that he made it required reading for all four-star generals,” while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.

    David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first (New York Times-reviewed) military field manual for counterinsurgency since Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders.  Nagl wrote a foreword for their manual, while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement.

    Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had filtered down to the entire officer corps. 

    Reading All the Wrong Books 

    In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps — the military’s primary tactical headquarters — he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a professional reading list to his principal subordinates.  To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley’s A Better War.  This should have surprised no one, since his argument — that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors — was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire.  It wasn’t the military’s fault!

    Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual guideposts to the complex challenges ahead.  Indeed, there’s much to be admired in the concept, but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire generation of future leaders.  In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious.  The generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.

    Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers — who spoke at my West Point graduation — included Summers’s On Strategy on his list.  A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker added McMaster’s Dereliction of Duty.  The trend continues today.  Marine Corps Commandant Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war criminal fame).  Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and added good old Lewis Sorley.  To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list, Krepinevich’s The Army and Vietnam.

    Just as important as which books made the lists is what’s missing from them: none of these senior commanders include newer scholarship, novels, or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that might highlight the limits of American influence and power. 

    Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam 

    Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War.  They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974, future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976, and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984.  Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971, while Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976.

    In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia.  That meant they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so the professional credibility that went with it.  They were mentored and taught by academy tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict.  Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era — and it’s never ended.

    Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding.  And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that — on civilians in Washington (or in the nation’s streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam’s shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters.   

    From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War

    All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam “lessons” inform the U.S. military’s ongoing “surges” and “advise-and-assist” approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the Trump administration’s version of global strategy. President Trump’s in-house Clausewitzians clamor for — and receive — ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam vet) Edward Meyer called for back in 1983: “a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam.” In other words, more bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts’ content.

    Meanwhile, President Trump’s hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world’s nations.  Furthermore, they’ve recently fought for and been granted a new “mini-surge” in Afghanistan intended to — in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language — “break the deadlock,” “reverse the decline,” and “end the stalemate” there.  Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, “stabilize” Afghanistan.  The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that — despite his original instincts — 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones, planes, and other equipment) will do the trick.  This represents tragedy bordering on farce. 

    The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting.  None of today’s acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn’t have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, “we were fighting on the wrong side.”

    Today’s leaders don’t even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end.  In an interview last June, Petraeus — still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment — disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as “generational.”  Eerily enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something similar. speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down.  Even as President Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) — a process known then as “Vietnamization” — the general warned that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support “would be required indefinitely to maintain an effective force.”  Vietnam, too, had its “generational” side (until, of course, it didn’t). 

    That war and its ill-fated lessons will undoubtedly continue to influence U.S. commanders until a new set of myths, explaining away a new set of failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, take over, possibly thanks to books by veterans of these conflicts about how Washington could have won the war on terror.  

    It’s not that our generals don’t read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the wrong books.

    In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parameters article with a quote from historian George Herring: “Each historical situation is unique and the use of analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous.”  When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), “dangerous” hardly describes the results. They’ve helped bring us generational war and, for today’s young soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.

  • Visualizing History's Biggest Crypto-Heists

    The Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Coincheck had to admit having been targeted by hackers who got away with NEM coins worth half a billion dollars on Friday.

    As Statista’s infographic based on data by news agency Bloomberg shows, this wasn’t the first such heist.

    Infographic: The Biggest Crypto Heists  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    In 2014, the crypto exchange Mt. Gox lost digital currency worth some 480 million dollars. The company based in Tokyo said it had probably been stolen and had to file for bankruptcy in the United States and Japan shortly after. It had been one of the leading bitcoin exchanges.

    Coincheck for its part has assuaged its customers that any losses would be refunded, and further reassuring investors – sending the price of the hacked NEM surging higher – developers behind NEM created an automated tagging system to track down the funds stolen by hackers.

    As CoinTelegraph reports, the NEM development team created an automated tagging system to ensure that all funds stolen from Coincheck are traced. By tagging stolen funds as tainted funds, cryptocurrency exchanges can now easily verify if stolen NEM funds are withdrawn or deposited to regulated trading platforms.

     

    Image Courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    “Hack update: NEM is creating an automated tagging system that will be ready in 24-48 hours. This automated system will follow the money and tag any account that receives tainted money. NEM has already shown exchanges how to check if an account has been tagged. So the good news is that the money that was hacked via exchanges can’t leave,” said a NEM spokesperson.

    During an interview, NEM Foundation vice president Jeff McDonald confirmed the development of the tagging system and the work NEM Foundation will lead in the next few weeks to prevent stolen funds from being cashed out or converted to other cryptocurrencies through trading platforms.

    As of now, the hackers behind the Coincheck NEM security breach are out of options. It is not possible for the hackers to convert the stolen NEM to other major cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and Ethereum because the automated tagging system will immediately alert exchanges about the tainted funds.

    Due to the sheer size of the stolen funds, it is also not likely that the hackers will go through small-scale cryptocurrency exchanges to convert or launder the stolen funds.

    At this stage, the only safe option for the hackers is to hold onto the stolen NEM. Because of the technology NEM has developed in light of the recent Coincheck hack, it has become significantly difficult for the hackers to do anything with the funds. It is not possible to cash out the stolen NEM to fiat currencies like the US dollar and it is also not possible to convert the stolen funds to other cryptocurrencies.

    NEM, its open-source development community, and the NEM Foundation did not have to develop the tagging system for the benefit of Coincheck, specifically because stolen funds on the NEM blockchain network would still have circulated around the network even if they are not recovered. But, NEM developers have done Coincheck and investors that lost millions of dollars in the hacking attack a tremendous favor by voluntarily creating a solution to a serious problem.

  • "History Isn't All About Us" – Nationalism Means Peace On The Korean Peninsula

    Authored by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

    Korea, the Winter Olympics, and the Spirit of Queen Min

    Nationalism means peace on the Korean peninsula

    We are told by practically everyone that nationalism is an archaic, aggressive, and downright evil sentiment, one that causes wars, racism, bigotry, and probably the common cold as well. And we get this from both the right and the left. Nationalism of any kind, we are told, is a dangerous atavism, a throwback to primitive “tribalism” and an insult to sacred “modernity.”

    While this nonsensical view is pretty widespread throughout the Western world, it is especially dominant – at least among the political class – here in the United States, where it is routinely alleged that America isn’t a place, it isn’t the American people: America, they solemnly intone, is an Idea. What sort of idea, or, rather, whose idea, seems to be a matter of some dispute: but, in any case, we aren’t really an actual country, according to the wise and wondrous elites who let us know what to think, so much as we’re an abstraction, floating in the ether, like a cloud in the sky imprinted with the image of a giant welcome mat.

     

    Things are quite different on the Korean peninsula.

     

    They called it the Hermit Kingdom before its forcible opening by the Western powers, and for a very good reason: unlike Japan and, later, China, the Koreans stubbornly resisted trade – or, indeed, any sort of contact with the West, which was strictly forbidden. While Western writers routinely attribute this to the supposedly tyrannical rule of Yi Ha-ung, the Regent (1864-97), Koreans then and now revere him as the defender of the nation from European encroachment and domination, which was China’s sad fate.

    An American crew in service to a British company made the first serious attempt to “open” Korea: in 1866 the General Sherman tried to sail up the Taedong river to reach Pyongyang, but were ordered back by the Korean authorities. The Westerners ignored this edict and continued on their way, but were soon beached when the river waters ran low. They were then set upon by the Koreans, who rescued the Korean officials who had been taken hostage by the crew and killed everyone on board. An inauspicious beginning to a relationship rife with conflict: today there is a monument on the spot where the General Sherman was burned which informs visitors that the leader of the attackers was the great-grandfather of Kim Il-Sung!

    Several more attempts were made by the Europeans, and all were repulsed: the French sent Catholic missionaries, who were ruthlessly persecuted along with their few converts. It was the Japanese who, finally, succeeded where the Western barbarians had failed: a Japanese force invaded in 1876 and succeeded in imposing a “treaty” according to which they acquired a complete trade monopoly, locking out the Chinese, their major rivals. This was endorsed by the king, who was considered a weak ruler, but opposed by Queen Min, who resisted the Japanese westernizing influence.

    As tensions rose, the Japanese demanded that the Koreans pay them tribute: Queen Min mocked the Japanese emissaries for wearing Western clothes and had them summarily deported. Shortly afterward a gang of Japanese thugs murdered her in her palace: she is today considered a symbol of patriotism and is honored in both the North and the South. During the subsequent Sino-Japanese war, the Japanese annexed the Korean peninsula, where they exercised dominion as part of their empire until the end of World War II.

    Korea’s history is one of implacable and fairly constant conflict with the violent and aggressive West, as well as resistance to both Japanese and Chinese domination: it is, in short, the history of a fiercely nationalistic people determined to shape their own destiny in the face of avaricious imperialism.

    The division of the Korean peninsula as the victorious Allied powers devoured the spoils of war did not erase the spirit of the courageous Queen Min, who sought an independent road for her country, or the Regent who resisted “modernization,” i.e. the integration of Korea into one or another mercantilist arrangement.

    While the communist North and the Western-occupied South certainly developed along far different lines, beneath the thin veneer of official ideology the country retained its nationalistic character. Both fragments of the split apart nation set up ministries devoted to “unification,” and, despite efforts by the Bush II administration to stop it, the “Sunshine Policy” of economic cooperation and closer ties nearly succeeded in bringing the two regimes to the point where unity was at least a possibility. However, the Bushites were determined to torpedo that effort and they finally succeeded, naming the North as part of the “axis of evil,” and threatening to invade by regularly conducting military “exercises” that limn a full-scale frontal attack. This is a yearly ritual.

    Despite all this, Queen Min is still looking out for her subjects: her unabashedly nationalist spirit pervades the new sense of optimism that is preceding the Winter Olympics, to be held in South Korea, with the full participation of the North. In a move that surprised – and horrified – the warmongers in the West (both inside and outside the Trump administration) North and South Korean athletes will march together under a special “unification flag”: the two countries will unite their hockey teams, and the North’s two champion figure skaters, Ryom Tai-Ok and Kim Ju-Sik, described by their South Korean counterparts as “friendly and kind and a little bit shy,” will be the stars of the show. The North Korean state orchestra is scheduled to perform.

    What is saving the Korean peninsula from a war so horrific that it is unthinkable is nothing less than nationalism, i.e. love of country and a fierce desire to preserve it against the depredations of foreign powers. As I wrote last year:

    No, China is not the key to ending the impending North Korean crisis: with the installation of an antimissile system in South Korea, which the Chinese think is aimed at them, they aren’t likely to cooperate in any meaningful way. And, in any case, their influence is very limited, since their relations with Pyongyang have never been worse.

    The initiative is going to have to come from Seoul, which has the most to lose if war breaks out. And when this initiative does come, Washington must welcome it, and do everything to foster it. When Trump was campaigning for President, he questioned the US presence in the South and wondered aloud why we had to risk war and bankruptcy providing for Seoul’s defense. His instincts were right: now perhaps we’ll get to see if his policies match his campaign rhetoric.”

    The initiative did come from Seoul. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric since taking the White House has caused many of the more hysterical NeverTrumpers to squeal that he’s about to launch a first strike at Pyongyang. Folks, it ain’t happening. His rhetoric no doubt helped motivate South Korean President Moon Jae-in to take the initiative in fulfilling his campaign promise to revive the “Sunshine Policy” and pursue better relations with the North in a serious way.

    History isn’t all about us. Sometimes – and, in the future, I believe this will increasingly be the case in a multi-polar world – it’s about people independently determining their own destiny and pursuing the path of peace.

  • Corrupt Baltimore Cops Admit Planting Guns, Using GPS-Locators To Rob Drug Dealers

    Over the past year, the Baltimore Police Department has undoubtedly gained national attention in a corruption scandal involving the Gun Trace Task Force, running wild on the streets of Baltimore.

    Members of this elite group were charged with “racketeering and other corruption, accused of robbing citizens, making illegal arrests and filing for thousands of dollars in overtime they never worked,” said the Baltimore Sun.

    Maurice Ward, one of the Gun Trace Task Force detectives, took the stand Tuesday in the case of officers Daniel Hersl and Marcus Taylor who were charged with robbery, extortion, fraud and firearm charges.

    Ward’s testimony provided a somewhat shocking account of how detectives used GPS locators to follow drug dealers, and then, eventually rob them of their cash and drugs.

    According to the Baltimore Sun, here are some notable and shocking moments from the testimony during Tuesday’s proceedings:

    Ward testified that his squad would prowl the streets for guns and drugs, with his supervisor, Sgt. Wayne Jenkins, driving fast at groups of people and slamming on the brakes. The officers would pop their doors open to see who ran, then give chase and detain and search them. Ward said this occurred 10 to 20 times on slow nights, and more than 50 times, “easy,” on busier nights.

    The officers had no reason to target the crowds other than to provoke someone who might have drugs or a gun into running. “A lot of times” guns and drugs were recovered in this way, Ward said.

    Ward said Jenkins liked to profile certain vehicles for traffic stops. Honda Accords, Acura TLs, Honda Odysseys were among the “dope boy cars” that they would pull over, claiming the drivers weren’t wearing seat belts or their windows were too heavily tinted.

    Ward said Jenkins also believed males over the age of 18 carrying bookbags were suspicious and attempted to stop them.

    Jenkins would portray himself as a federal agent, telling drug dealers that he was taking their money and drugs but would let them go because they weren’t his ultimate target.

    Ward said the officers used illegal GPS trackers to follow the movements of some targets.

    Jenkins would ask suspected drug dealers, “If you could put together a crew of guys and rob the biggest drug dealer in town, who would it be?” The officers would use the answers to determine who to target, Ward said

     

     

    In Ward’s testimony, he described some detectives carried around fake guns to plant on suspects in case they got into a jam. He further detailed an incident where detectives stole $100,000 from an illegal search of a home. The testimony shows detectives were in the game of robbing drug dealers, but on a positive note, the task force removed plenty of guns from the war-torn streets.

    Ward said the officers kept BB guns in their vehicles “in case we accidentally hit somebody or got into a shootout, so we could plant them.” He did not say whether the officers ever planted a BB gun on anyone.

    In one incident, police took a man’s house keys, ran his name through databases to find his address, went into the home without a warrant and found drugs and a safe. The officers cracked open the safe, which had about $200,000 inside. They took $100,000 out, closed the safe back up, then filmed themselves pretending to open it for the first time. “Nobody touch anything,” Jenkins can be heard saying on the video, which was played for jurors.

    After the man’s arrest, Jenkins listened to the man’s calls made from jail. He was discussing the officers taking his money, and said he wanted to hire a good lawyer to go after them. Ward said Jenkins determined the man’s wife was arranging his legal matters, and wanted to cut her out. They wrote a note purporting to be from another woman, saying the man had gotten her pregnant, and left it in the man’s door, Ward said.

    Later, Ward said Jenkins contacted him about wanting to rob the man again. They met at an apartment, where Jenkins and Detective Daniel Hersl sipped Twisted Teas and discussed a robbery. Another time, he proposed a different robbery, and showed the officers a large black bag that was full of balaclava ski masks, black clothing and shoes. Another bag contained tools such as a crow bar, battering ram, and a rope with a grappling hook. “I didn’t understand that part,” Ward said of the grappling hook. Both bags were emptied out for jurors in the courtroom.

    A federal prosecutor described the elite team of Baltimore detectives as a “perfect storm” of corruption in the opening arguments at the Gun Trace Task Force trial on Tuesday.

    Justin Fenton, a crime reporter for the Baltimore Sun provides more updates on the ongoing trial:

  • Mike Krieger's Four Pillars For A Better Future: Part 3 – Action Matters

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better. Don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got… because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now… the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

    Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. 

    – George Carlin on The American Dream

    Part 2 of this series dived into the importance of technology and innovation to the evolution of the human species. Indeed, innovation is one of the most important pieces to the puzzle, with the caveat that such advancements must be rooted in higher consciousness. An unconscious people will create and embrace technology that will enslave, while a conscious and thoughtful people will manifest innovation that can propel humans forward toward a vastly superior paradigm. Consciousness + innovation are the two most crucial variables when it comes to realizing our higher potential in the decades and centuries to come.

    That said, not everyone has the capacity or desire to work on the next groundbreaking technology. That’s perfectly fine. What we all possess is the capacity to become more conscious,thoughtful and loving, and it’s from this foundation that every individual can contribute to the creation of a better world. Whether you’re a lawyer, a banker, a painter or a chef, the most important thing you can do is ensure your work stems from a higher state of consciousness.

    An unfortunate aspect of life here on earth is we often neglect the power we have as individuals to affect the world around us. We overlook the fact we’re presented with various opportunities on a daily basis to do some good via small interactions with others and the environment. Don’t discount the importance of all the little things you do every day simply because you aren’t in a corporate suite making billion dollar decisions, or voting on legislation in Congress. You have tremendous power to influence the world around you each and every day. Don’t let the seemingly little, but consequential, daily opportunities pass you by unconsciously. Everything we do matters.

    Once you recognize your true power, you start to realize the current world is designed to prevent you from figuring it out. In fact, much of our media and culture is designed to make us feel small, inferior, weak, scared and insecure. We’re endlessly encouraged to obsess about the bread and circus spectacles that are Presidential elections, with the implication that voting for some new fraud every four years is the highest manifestation of our duties as citizens. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

    No billionaire or political “rising star” is going to sweep down and save you, the country, or the planet. It’s up to us to do that, and until we stop being lazy and admit this, we’ll continue to fall for conmen and women who offer fairytales visions of imminent salvation via a centralized and monumentally corrupt Washington D.C.

    The point is we need to first work on ourselves and then take it from there. A conscious people will not just bring forth liberating innovation, a conscious people will also understand that political change comes from the ground up, not from the top of the pyramid. Thinking otherwise is actually insane. Paradigm level change will never come from a place as deranged and corrupt as Washington D.C. Forget getting the “right people” in office and instead get to work at the local level.

    I like to highlight the issue of cannabis because it’s extremely instructive. Thanks solely to the will of the people, 9 states have now made cannabis fully legal, and it’s been decriminalized in another 13 states.

    This represents a historical achievement that would’ve appeared inconceivable 20 years ago. Most importantly, it was led by the people themselves in Colorado and Washington, where citizens directly voted to legalize it via public referendum in 2012. Significantly, the federal government played no role whatsoever. If anything, that centralized, corrupt bureaucracy has been actively holding things back, as we saw in 2016, when the DEA denied two petitions to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

    Bottom line, Washington D.C. won’t be the wellspring of anything decent or beneficial, so stop indulging in such fantasies. Rather, we need to change as individuals and then drive meaningful improvement at the local level. Cannabis is just one high profile example of how much power the people can exert if we get organized and demand change. In fact, legalization has been such a success 65% of the U.S. population (including a majority of Republicans) now think cannabis should be legal. It’s become such a clear cut issue at this point even a federal fossil like Jeff Session is essentially powerless to stop it. Take the lessons learned from the huge success of the cannabis legalization movement and apply them everywhere.

    The point of this piece is to emphasize that we the people actually possess a lot of power. We relinquish that power by indulging in these silly games of looking for a decent politician to vote for. Even if we got one, D.C. is so entirely corrupt and entrenched with nefarious interests, a well-meaning person doesn’t stand a chance. The solutions to our problems will never come from the top, so please let that fairytale go.

    In reality, the true power resides in each and every one of us. Let’s start using it.

    In case you missed them:

    Four Pillars for a Better Future: Knowledge, Consciousness, Innovation, Local Action – Part 1

    Four Pillars for a Better Future: Knowledge, Consciousness, Innovation, Local Action – Part 2

    *  *  *

    If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

  • Trump Refuses To Impose New Sanctions On Russia

    Following an expected Monday release of a list of “corrupt Russian oligarchs” by the US Treasury Department, the Trump administration notified Congress that legislation passed last year authorizing new Russia-related sanctions was sufficiently “serving as a deterrent,” and no action would be taken against those on the list, nor those doing business with the blacklisted entities according to a State Department spokesperson. 

    a

    “Given the long timeframes generally associated with major defense deals, the results of this effort are only beginning to become apparent. From that perspective, if the law is working, sanctions on specific entities or individuals will not need to be imposed because the legislation is, in fact, serving as a deterrent,” the spokesperson said.

    That said, the State Department also said that foreign governments and private sector entities are “on notice … that significant transactions with listed Russian entities will result in sanctions.”

      The list was created pursuant to an August 2017 law requiring the Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by “their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth” in order to penalize the Kremlin for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election. The law allows President Trump to postpone sanctions on people or entities if he determines they are in the process of reducing or ending their involvement with Russia’s defense or intelligence industries – as long as Congressional committees are notified every six months that that progress has been made. 

      Trump’s decision has already drawn criticism from opponents and Russia hawks, as the move could be determined as a handout to the country which helped Trump win the election – as that narrative goes.

      “I’m fed up waiting for this administration to protect our country and our elections,” said Rep. Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, adding “They’ve now shown us they won’t act, so it’s time for Congress to do more.”

      “The Trump administration had a decision to make whether they would follow the law and crack down on those responsible for attacking American democracy in 2016 … They chose instead to let Russia off the hook yet again. The State Department claims that the mere threat of sanctions will deter Russia’s aggressive behavior. How do you deter an attack that happened two years ago, and another that’s already underway? It just doesn’t make sense.” –Eliot Engel

      Trump was reluctant to sign the August 17 legislation which called for the creation of the “corrupt oligarchs” list, as the new laws limit the President’s ability to undo sanctions imposed by the previous administration. 

      The president, who sought to change CAATSA while it was being written, sharply criticized the law while signing it in August.

      “By limiting the executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together,” Trump said in a statement at the time.

      The State spokesperson said Monday that some of the senior most State Department officials and other U.S. authorities have privately and publicly dangled the threat of sanctions over both foreign governments and other entities for their dealings with listed Russian entities. –The Hill

      “Since the enactment of the CAATSA legislation, we estimate that foreign governments have abandoned planned or announced purchases of several billion dollars in Russian defense acquisitions,” said State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert.

      Trump’s decision on sanctions was being watched closely by Moscow on Monday, according to Eurasia Group director Alex Brideau. “Wealthy Russians are reported to be lobbying heavily in Washington, seeking legal advice regarding their foreign investments,” said Brideau, adding that they were “trying to distance themselves from the Kremlin.”

      Amusingly, the Kremlin has pointed the the sanctions as a “direct and obvious attempt” by the United States to interfere with Russia’s upcoming presidential vote in March. 

      “We do think that this is a direct and obvious attempt to time some sort of action to coincide with our elections in order to influence them,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on a Monday teleconference. “We disagree with this, and we are sure this will have no influence.”

      We’re sure the Kremlin isn’t too worried about election influence, however – after the Kremlin disqualified one of Putin’s top rivals, Alexei Navalny, for a fraud conviction December, who was just arrested at a Moscow anti-corruption demonstration on Sunday.

    • NSA Deletes "Honesty" And "Openness" From Core Values

      Authored by Jean Marc Manach via The Intercept,

      The National Security Agency maintains a page on its website that outlines its mission statement. But earlier this month, the agency made a discreet change: It removed “honesty” as its top priority.

      Since at least May 2016, the surveillance agency had featured honesty as the first of four “core values” listed on NSA.gov, alongside “respect for the law,” “integrity,” and “transparency.” The agency vowed on the site to “be truthful with each other.”

      On January 12, however, the NSA removed the mission statement page – which can still be viewed through the Internet Archive…

       

      And replaced it with a new version

       

      Now, the parts about honesty and the pledge to be truthful have been deleted. The agency’s new top value is “commitment to service,” which it says means “excellence in the pursuit of our critical mission.”

      Those are not the only striking alterations.

      In its old core values, the NSA explained that it would strive to be deserving of the “great trust” placed in it by national leaders and American citizens. It said that it would “honor the public’s need for openness.” But those phrases are now gone; all references to “trust,” “honor,” and “openness” have disappeared.

      The agency previously stated on its website that it embraced transparency and claimed that all of its activities were aimed at “ensuring the safety, security, and liberty of our fellow citizens.” That has also been discarded.

      The agency still says it is committed to transparency on the updated website, but the transparency is now described as being for the benefit of “those who authorize and oversee NSA’s work on behalf of the American people.”

      The definition of “integrity” has been edited, too. The agency formerly said its commitment to integrity meant it would “behave honorably and apply good judgment.” The phrase “behave honorably” has now been dropped in favor of “communicating honestly and directly, acting ethically and fairly and carrying out our mission efficiently and effectively.”

      The new list of values includes the additions “respect for people” and “accountability.” But the section on respecting people is a reference to diversity within the NSA workforce, not a general commitment to members of the public. Accountability is defined as taking “responsibility for our decisions.”

      The one core value that remains essentially unchanged is “respect for the law,” which the agency says means it is “grounded in our adherence to the U.S. Constitution and compliance with the U.S. laws, regulations and policies that govern our activities.”

       

      In response to questions from The Intercept on Tuesday, the NSA played down the alterations. Thomas Groves, a spokesperson for the agency, said: “It’s nothing more than a website update, that’s all it is.”

    • Information Blackout Follows Putin-Netanyahu Meeting

      What was today’s most important diplomatic meeting, was also the least publicly discussed. And judging by the information blackout in its aftermath, that’s just what the organizers intended.

      Very few details have emerged from the lengthy Moscow talks between Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, the duo’s seventh face to face meeting in two years, in which the two leaders who are currently reshaping the middle east in the power vacuum left by the US, were expected to discuss military cooperation on Syria and Iran’s influence in the region.

      The information fog after the meeting was so dense there wasn’t even a brief blurb on either Bloomberg or Reuters what the two spoke about in private; alternatively – and may this be a lesson for Trump – this is the intended outcome when there are no leaks.

      The meeting came less than a week after Netanyahu met US President Donald Trump in Davos, and he said that he spoke with the Russian leader about the same issues concerning Syria and Iran that he spoke about with Trump. Both men, he said, “understand” Israel’s positions.

      Netanyahu was also accompanied by the head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, and Putin brought Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu to the talks.

      With the Russian army just across the border in Syria, Netanyahu said that these meetings with Putin – and the type of cooperation that has developed between the defense establishments of both countries – is critical “so we don’t clash.” In addition, he said these meetings are also important because they allow the two sides to frankly tell the other about their positions.  “In light of the changing situation, our policies also change,” Netanyahu said, adding that he relays to Putin Israel’s positions as “clearly and truthfully” as possible.

      Netanyahu and Putin met for some 90 minutes privately, and also held talks on bilateral issues with their wider staffs. Netanyahu said the discussions were “concrete,” not “theoretical.”

      Netanyahu said he and Putin talked about various “scenarios of escalation” in the region, and how they can be dealt with. Netanyahu said that with the Mideast at a crossroads, there is an opportunity to stabilize Syria and Lebanon, but that there is one actor – Iran – which is trying to do the opposite.

      The prime minister said he raised the issue of the Iranian nuclear deal, and he told Putin that if changes were not made to the deal, then it was likely that the US would walk away from it.

      * * *

      Russia’s president and the Israeli prime minister met at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, where the two leaders took part in the opening of an exhibit to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day call called “Sobibor: Victorious over Death,” which is dedicated to the 1943 uprising in the Nazi extermination camp. The exhibit tells the story of Alexander Pechersky, a Red Army officer who led a successful breakout from the camp.

      Putin said that memory of the Holocaust is “a warning against any attempt to jump on the idea of global domination, to announce, build or assert one’s grandeur based on racism, ethnic or any other supremacy. Russia categorically rejects any such attempt.”

      Commenting on the meeting, the Russian president’s aide Yuri Ushakov vaguely told reporters that Putin and Netanyahu discussed a number of bilateral and regional issues, as well as the process of reconciliation in Syria. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress, currently taking place in Sochi, was also among the topics discussed, the Russian official said, without providing any details.

      Senior Israeli official Ze’ev Elkin, who came to Moscow alongside Netanyahu, said the meeting between the two leaders was “very fruitful and lasted longer than it was planned” adding that meetings between Putin and Netanyahu have “contributed greatly to the security of our country.”

      * * *

      There was some additional coverage in the Israeli local press, with Jerusalem Post  which quoted Netanyahu saying that “if Iran is not stopped from entrenching itself militarily in Syria or turning Lebanon into a factory for precision missiles aimed at Israel, then Israel will stop it.” Speaking with Israeli reporters via a conference call after the meeting, Netanyahu said the discussions took place at a “watershed” moment.

      “Will Iran entrench itself in Syria, or will this process be stopped?” Netanyahu said. “I made clear to Putin that we will stop it if it doesn’t stop by itself. We are already acting to stop it.”

      The prime minister said he also spoke with Putin about the threat of Iran manufacturing precision weapons in Lebanon, something Jerusalem views as “a grave threat.” Netanyahu said he told Putin that “also here, if we need to act, we will act.”

      The Israeli prime minister revealed some of the topics he discussed with Putin in a recorded statement posted on Twitter.

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

      Netanyahu said he told the Russian president about his concerns of “Iranian attempts to create military bases in Syria,” and of Tehran’s alleged attempts to place “high-precision weapons” in Lebanon to target Israel. Tel Aviv firmly opposes such actions and will act on its own if the international community won’t handle the issue, he warned Putin. The reaction of the Russian president to these statements, however, remained a mystery.

      In parting, Putin gave Netanyahu as a gift a letter the German industrialist Oskar Schindler, who save some 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust, sent to his wife.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 29th January 2018

    • Russia's "Doomsday Weapon" – Disinformation Or Disaster?

      Authored by Eric Margolis via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      While we agonize over such life and death questions as clumsy men groping women and the crucial need for gender and racial ‘inclusion,’ let me spare a few seconds thought to something really important and scary:  Russia’s doomsday nuclear torpedo.

       

      Code-named by NATO ‘Kanyon,’  it’s reportedly something new and terrifying, a ‘third strike’ weapon designed to obliterate the US east and west coasts in a nuclear war.   US intelligence seems to think this doomsday weapon is very real indeed.

      I just re-watched for the umpteenth time the wonderful, 1964 Kubrick film, ‘Dr. Strangelove’ and marveled anew at how prescient this razor-sharp satire was.  In the film, the Soviets admit they ran out of money to keep up the nuclear arms race with the United States.  Their answer was to create a secret, automated doomsday nuclear device that would destroy the entire planet in the event of a major war.

      Now, the Russians appear to have responded to a new, trillion dollar US program to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that would negate their ballistic missile system:  the ‘Kanyon.’  Fact imitates fiction.

      This revelation comes just after the Trump administration has also embarked on new programs to deploy an entire new generation of lower yield nuclear weapons that can be used for tactical war-fighting purposes.  North Korea and Iran are the evident targets, as well as Afghanistan.  But there is now talk aplenty in Pentagon circles about waging a limited tactical nuclear war against Russia.  New US bomber and drone programs are being speeded up.  War talk is in the air.  Military stocks are booming.

      ‘Kanyon,’ according to the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a cheerleader for military spending, is a mammoth 100-megaton nuclear device carried by an unmanned submarine.  This monster weapon is designed to detonate on the US west coast, destroying the ports of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  The device is reportedly covered with cobalt, for maximum radioactive effect.

      A similar device launched from the Atlantic Ocean would devastate the US East coast, leaving it under a lethal shroud of radiation for generations. 

      If these reports are true, any hopes that some US generals have of fighting and winning a ‘limited’ nuclear exchange with Russia or China (never mind India) are absurd.   But in fact any serious nuclear exchange between the great powers would be a death sentence for the entire planet, wrapping us in a lethal shroud of nuclear winter. 

      One US intelligence study done of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan estimated two million immediate dead and 100 million deaths within weeks.  That was from a rather limited nuclear war using first generation weapons.  Today’s weapons have ten times the explosive power.

      Russia has a large and effective nuclear arsenal.  The sharp decline of Russia’s once-mighty conventional military forces after 1991 drove Moscow to place ever greater reliance on nuclear weapons to defend its interests.   Russia has also begun introducing modernized nuclear weapons in strategic and tactical versions.  China is also slowly developing its nuclear forces to be able to fight a thermonuclear war against the United States and India at the same time.

      President Trump, who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War on spurious medical grounds, appears infatuated by military affairs and the panoply of weapons that he commands.  In an act of historic irresponsibility, he has brought the US to the edge of nuclear war against North Korea heedless of the dire consequences of even a ‘small’ nuclear war in Asia. 

      Anyone who thinks a nuclear war can be waged without permanently polluting our planet should be put under psychiatric care.  As crazy as this notion sounds, there are some senior US generals who share this view and, most likely, President Trump, the man with the big red button.  Russia’s marshals are more cautious.  They still see the scars of World War II, in which some 27 million Soviet civilians died, and know what war means.  

      Perhaps leaks about this Russian monster weapon are clever disinformation spread by Moscow to give the Americans a big scare.  Let’s hope so because, if real, they should scare the pants off all of us.

    • Female Kurdish Fighter Blows Herself Up As Turkish Tank Enters Syrian Village

      With the assistance of Al Masdar News,

      A female fighter within the Kurdish People’s Protection Units paramilitary group has blown herself up amid an ongoing offensive by Turkey-led forces in Syria’s Afrin regional sources report. Sources following developments on the ground in Afrin are reporting that a Kurdish female fighter by the name of Avesta Khabur committed the suicide attack to in an attempt to turn back an armored assault by the Turkish Army.

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

      The incident is said to have taken place in the village of Hemmam and that it resulted in Avesta Khabur taking the lives of several Turkish troops along with her own as well as the destruction of a battle tank. However, sources are vague about the conditions in which Avesta Khabur carried out the suicide bombing.

      It is hard to believe that it was a preempted Islamist-style martyrdom operation in the fashion that jihadist factions carry out such attacks as it is an unusual tactic for Kurdish groups. Rather it is likely the case that Avesta found herself surrounded by enemy forces and–seeing no way out–then committed to the suicide attack against the Turkish Army.

      The YPJ-General Command (YPJ is the all-female Kurdish military organization parallel to the YPG)  released an official statement which described Khabur’s actions as follows: “she attacked with her grenades a Turkish tank which was trying to enter Hemmam village. As such she exploded her body and destroyed the tank.”

      Earlier on Sunday, the Turkish Armed Forces managed to capture the strategic mountaintop of Jabal Barsaya in the northeastern part of the Afrin Canton, which overlooks many Kurdish villages.  This was later confirmed the Turkish regime, as their troops continue to move through heavily fortified areas controlled by the predominately Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG/YPJ).

      President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used the moment and seized on images of soldiers planting the Turkish flag at the top of Jabal Barsaya to energize his political base during a speech Sunday while claiming “484 terrorists have been killed so far” in reference to US-backed Syrian Kurdish fighters. He stated enthusiastically after proclaiming the death of “terrorists” that, “this will keep getting better!” while adding that thanks to the operation “people have literally found peace”

      Footage of both the mountaintop advance and Erdoğan’s speech can be seen in the following pro-Turkish media clip:

      In other related developments, on Saturday Kurdish activists in northern Syria accused the Turkish Air Force of using internationally banned napalm bombs over the Afrin Canton in northern Aleppo.

      “The Turkish army uses the forbidden weapon napalm in Afrin against civilians,” Syrian-Kurdish politician Îlham Ehmed tweeted last night.

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

      While no visual proof has been released, several Kurdish activists in northern Syria took to social media to accuse the Turkish Air Force of using the munitions. In addition to accusing the Turkish Air Force of using napalm, Kurdish activists also claimed that the former bombed archaeological sites inside the Afrin Canton.

      Meanwhile, Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) ground forces continue to advance on villages on the edges of Afrin Canton. Though Turkey claims it is “bringing peace” to the area, several FSA media accounts have released videos showing its Islamist fighters declaring their intent to conduct ethnic cleansing against the “atheist Kurds”.

      Below is one such widely circulated video released over the weekend:

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

      Though a number of such videos with threats of genocide by invading Turkish and FSA forces have made the rounds over the last week, and though President Erdoğan himself in public speeches of late has used similar language, mainstream media in the West has continued to be mild or completely silent in its criticism of Erdoğan or the Turkish military invasion of Syria. 

      Indeed Erdoğan has recently vowed “to give Afrin back to its real owners” while claiming that “55% of Afrin is composed of Arabs with 35% of Kurds coming there later on”. Such language of militarily forced “demographic shift” inside another nation’s sovereign territory by Turkish leadership has gone relatively unreported in major international press. 

      On Sunday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) – a Syrian opposition outlet in England which has long been a favored source for mainstream media – reported 42 civilian casualties among the Kurds, Arabs and Armenians killed by the Turkish shelling of Afrin. As reported by SOHR “about half of them are children and women”. 

      SOHR further reports a total of 144 killed among soldiers and paramilitary factions on both sides of the fighting, now in its ninth day.

    • Gowdy "100 Percent" Confident In Mueller, Tells Lawmakers To "Leave Him The Hell Alone"

      Trey Gowdy (R-SC) says he has “100 percent” confidence in Robert Mueller to conduct a fair investigation if he’s given the proper time and resources, and urged lawmakers criticizing the special counsel to “leave him the hell alone,” the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman told Fox News Sunday

      a

      “I think he’s got a fair prosecutor in Bob Mueller, but I don’t think he’s got a fair jury,” Gowdy said, referring to President Trump

      “Mueller didn’t raise his hand and say ‘pick me,’ ” Gowdy added. “We as a country asked him to do this.”

      (Actually, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who is apparently named in the FISA memo – asked Mueller to do it). 

      Mueller’s investigation has been widely criticised by Congressional GOP legislators, while president Trump has labeled the probe a “hoax” and a “witch hunt.” Trump reportedly ordered Mueller fired last June – only to back off when White House Counsel Don McGahn threatened to resign according to the WSJ, however Trump has denied the report as Fake News

      Several Republicans in Congress, including Gowdy, have called for the release of a classified memo that purports to show FBI officials abusing surveillance power. 

      Republicans have also fixated on text messages exchanged between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that they argue show anti-Trump bias. Strzok was removed from Mueller’s investigation last year after the texts were discovered.

      “Republicans would be well served, let the texts speak for themselves, let the jury make up their mind and quit engaging in hyperbole, which we seem to do a lot,” Gowdy said. –The Hill

      That said – Gowdy notably did not join fellow House Republicans last month in their efforts to build a case against the FBI and DOJ for “improper” and perhaps criminal mishandling of the salacious and unproven 34-page “Trump-Russia” dossier.

      As POLITICO reported at the time, “A congressional aide with knowledge of the meetings said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was not among the participants. ”While he does believe the FBI and DOJ have recently made decisions worth looking into, he [Gowdy] is and will always be a defender of the FBI, DOJ and the special counsel,” the aide said.

      Of course, Gowdy having spearheaded the controversial Benghazi probe puts him on equal footing with the FBI when it comes to Hillary Clinton exonerations.

    • "Is This The Greatest Stock Market Bubble In History?"

      Submitted by GoldCore

      In episode two of the Goldnomics podcast we look at the developments in financial markets through the lens of precious metals.  Reader can stay up to date with all of the developments in precious metals markets by subscribing for market updates at www.goldcore.com.

      Key topics:

      • Fundamentals do not justify the massive gains in US stocks in recent years (rise of over 300% in the S&P 500 since 2009)?
      • Does the U.S. have a perfect ‘Goldilocks economy’ or a vulnerable ‘Food stamp economy’?
      • Are we in a ultra low interest rate, liquidity driven “everything bubble”?
      • Is margin debt one of the factors driving speculation in stocks and a stock market bubble?
      • Is there ‘irrational exuberance‘ and overly bullish sentiment as seen in the recent headline ‘Stock market never goes down anymore’?
      • Importance of ongoing education in world of fake news bombardment
      • Importance of owning hard assets including physical gold and actual bank note cash outside our digital financial and banking system

      GoldCore CEO Stephen Flood and GoldCore’s Research Director and precious metals commentator Mark O’Byrne in discussion with Dave Russell.

      We discuss what is really driving the markets to new record heights, the less than stable economic fundamentals and central bank interventionist strategy that it is based on. We ask is there anything that central banks have left in there ammunition box to halt a slide when it starts and avoid a crash.

      And most importantly we discuss what investors can do to protect themselves from the effects of the “Everything Bubble” bursting

      Cutting through the financial markets jargon and looking at the risks to your investment portfolio that aren’t spoken about in the mainstream media.

      Listen to the full episode or skip directly to one of the following discussion points:

      • 1:25 Why despite low volatility, low interest rates, low inflation, tax cuts and good employment numbers we are calling this the greatest stock market bubble in history.
      • 2:13 Why we are in the bubble cycle.
      • 4:04 The remarkable performance of the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones, are they to be believed? The Dow up 1,000 in a week!
      • 5:45 How to evaluate if we are in a bubble
      • 6:00 Why if you look under the bonnet of the fundamentals you find a rusty old engine.
      • 6:06 Leverage, political and monetary interventions and irrational exuberance are all setting alarm bells ringing.
      • 6:45 They’ve coined a new phrase for it – “Rational Exuberance”!
      • 7:02 What’s fundamentally underpinning market sentiment, is there anything real?
      • 7:35 The economic number that is the canary in the coal mine.
      • 7:58 The fallacy of the economic numbers that we are shown.
      • 8:20 A most shocking statistic – 15% of the American population are included in this incredible statistic. This doesn’t bode well for the state of the US economy.
      • 9:10 The work of John Williams at Shadowstats revealing the truth behind the numbers.
      • 9:30 What we mean when we talk about the Goldilocks economy.
      • 9:45 Looking behind the employment and unemployment numbers. The shocking truth about manufacturing jobs in the US.
      • 11:08 How the central banks created a wall of liquidity to fuel the everything bubble.
      • 15:05 The massive growth in global debt since the credit crisis/debt crisis.
      • 15:30 The importance if the debt to GDP ratio – no longer earning a return on capital.
      • 17:05 The economic Ponzi scheme created by the central banks.
      • 19:20 How the everything bubble effects everyone. Why what happens in the US has implications globally.
      • 20:20 Margin debt and borrowing to invest, reminiscent of 1929 as are the moves in the stock market.
      • 22:40 The silent danger of the passive investors.
      • 24:20 Are we abandoning the fundamentals, is anyone actually looking at these individual companies anymore?
      • 24:40 The growth and impact of ETFs and the lack of price discovery.
      • 27:25 Algorithmic trading technological enhancement or a danger to free markets.
      • 27:50 That tabloid-like Bloomberg headline.
      • 28:55 What happens to market leading stocks in a downturn, are they safe?
      • 30:20 FANG Stocks – Facebook, Amazon, Netflix & Google in a downturn.
      • 30:40 Are the central banks out of ammunition and powerless to stop a crash?
      • 31:50 Opening the Pandora’s Box of printing money, is hyperinflation assured?
      • 34:20 Another way to look at quantitative easing.
      • 34:25 The difference between printing money and printing currency. You can’t print money – gold is money.
      • 35:45 How stocks are a hedge against inflation, but probably not the best one.
      • 36:35 Should we be looking at higher allocations to precious metals in this climate?
      • 37:40 The impact of the cashless society and what this means for gold and the importance of gold ownership.
      • 38:05 How quantitative easing is effectively taxation except that it is much more insidious and the case for gold.
      • 39:15 The danger of the cashless society and the digitization of the economy.
      • 40:30 What actions you should be taking in to prepare for an in the event of a crash.
      • 41:55 The role of cash in a portfolio during times of hyperinflation, bank bail-ins and stock market crashes.

      Full interview below:

      Complete interview transcript:

      Today we’re asking the question; Is this the greatest stock market bubble in history? And as usual I’m joined here today by the dynamic duo behind Goldcore, Stephen Flood C.E.O.

      Steve: Hello everybody.

      Dave: And Mark O’Byrne, Research Director and well known precious metals commentator.

      Mark: Hello podcast listeners.

      Dave: Now, last month we talked about the major themes for 2018 and one of the phrases that came out of it was, Mark I think it was you that said it, is the idea of the “Everything Bubble” bursting. That’s the idea that we’re seeing concurrent bubbles in stocks, bonds, property markets, crypto-currencies, which is quite an usual phenomenon for financial markets, where nearly all asset classes are trending significantly higher. But at the same time markets seem to be complacent, volatility is low, they keep trending higher with low interest rates, with low inflation, unemployment numbers are good and we’ve seen big tax cuts in the U.S. Why are we going against the flow and calling this a bubble Steve?

      Steve: Yes, we are in what’s been termed a kind of a goldilocks economy where a lot of the underlying economic statistics are very supportive of the market and growth and confidence. No matter where you look, it’s looking very positive. But if you look at it from the trough to our current peak, the S&P500 has put in an incredible return of… I think it’s estimated at 270% and even in any historical analysis that is an incredible return.

      I don’t know if we’re at the peak of the bubble or not, but I do know that we’re in the bubble cycle because you can see it in the dialogue, in the narrative, in the market. There are an awful lot of people who are getting into the market on the basis of fear of missing out and I think that’s a part of a bubble cycle. And you’re also seeing it in the in the media as well and you’re also getting a lot of people talking about how this time it’s different. We have a massive tax stimulus package in the U.S. and therefore the fundamentals are different now and therefore we can justify higher valuations. I think that’s all part of historical bubbles. You see this narrative play through every other bubble in the past.

      So I think in 2018 we’re looking at a year where you’re going to see probably increased stock market height and it might blow off into a parabolic move before it gaps down and that’s not a healthy thing. You know, people need to invest in the long term and I think we’re going to discuss that in this Podcast.

      Dave: Mark why are we going against the trend here and calling this a bubble?

      Mark: I think if you look at the smart money, again the same people who warned about the first financial crisis are warning about this next coming financial crisis and there are just so many indications that we are in a bubble and the question is, what stage of the bubble are we in? Is this early, middle or late stage? Because these bubbles can go on much longer than people anticipate and sometimes people can be quite early in calling these things bubbles and the bubbles don’t actually burst, it can take a long time because momentum is a powerful thing.

      I think we all view it as a bubble and the question is where we are, and how the bubbles may burst….. the “everything bubble”, may burst. But when it comes to stocks, the U.S. stocks in particular, have had massive price appreciation. So if you just look purely in terms of price alone, I mean we’re up three times. I think from 2009 the S&P is up over 170% from below 1000 in 2009 up to 2700 which it is today.

      Last year alone the S&P was up more than 20% and just in the first two weeks of 2018, its up more than 5% in less than two weeks. So if you look at the returns of stock market over the long term, 50 to 100 years, they tend to return 7 to 8% per annum. We’re up 5% two weeks and we can get into the various figures that are there in terms of the technical, but……

      Dave: It’s been a kind of a sustained run as well. The S&P hasn’t had a 3% pullback since November, 2016 which is phenomenal. And one that I keep an eye on, I think most people would be familiar with is obviously, the Dow Jones average in the U.S. That’s up 30% in a year. I mean is that­­ warranted? What’s underpinning at 30% in the Dow in one year?

      Mark: I don’t think it is warranted, it’s due a very serious correction and potentially a crash.  I mean it’s gone up 1,000 points along just in seven or eight days from 25,000 seventy to 26,000.  And President Trump, the president of America is calling for Dow 30,000 and he’s trying to take credit for it. We’re getting all of these the warning signals, they are there.

      But the way to evaluate a bubble is actually in four ways; 1) rising prices without improving fundamentals. I think we have that. The fundamentals are fairly good, but there’s a lot of­… Superficially their very good but, if you look underneath the bonnet so to speak, it’s quite rusty and they’re on shaky ground. We’ll get into that.

      The next thing is 2) leverage; when you’ve got people using a huge amount of debt to the buy assets, that’s a factor that you need keep an eye on.

      3) Political and monetary interventions; so we’ve seen that in spades obviously with the central banks having decreased interest rates to 0% and engaging in quantitative easing. That’s what’s contributed in a huge way.

      And the fourth thing is 4)  sentiment, and we have irrational exuberance in spades today. That term irrational exuberance, I think it captures the moment of where we are at. That’s what Greenspan said in 1996 when the Dow Jones was at 6,000 then, and he was suggesting it was a bubble then and it subsequently went well above 10,000. And it didn’t burst till four years later. So, who knows this bubble really could go another two to three to four years.

      Steve: There was some research note there recently from one of the major investment banks calling it; “rational exuberance”, as opposed to; “irrational”, on the basis that they think it is historically very high, but it had a ways to run and they saw may be another 10% move this year.

      Dave: And what do they see as fundamentally underpinning that?

      Steve: God knows, I mean I suppose they’re on the sell side so they’re always going to talk it up and you know you have that bias inherently there. I think they’re looking at the debt markets and they’re looking at the overall consumer confidence and the manufacturing indexes are being very supportive, the housing market is very supportive as well. There’s a number of positive economic indicators that are leading to that goldilocks economy. So we’re not seeing the stresses yet, I think we’re going to see stresses coming out, we’re going to see some money coming off the table.

      One of the major things I’ve looked at before is the unemployment rate in the U.S. It’s at 4.1%  and every time, I think I said this last time, every time it hits that point it tends to be at a point of contraction and the market then sells off as assets come off the table. You’re at full employment and then you start having inefficiencies coming into the market and people begin to divest.

      Mark: Just one thing on that goldilocks economy, that 4% unemployment rate is quite bogus actually because if you look at the methodology of how they calculate the unemployment figures today, they’ve change radically compared to how they calculated those unemployment figures 20 or 30 years ago. There’s been a different incremental changes over the years in terms of the statisticians in the Bureau of Labour Statistics. In fact a number that I look at is the food stamps number….

      Dave:  What’s that, the number of people signing on for food stamps?

      Mark: Exactly, to feed themselves, in America it’s 15% of population.

      Dave: 15%!?

      Mark: 15% of the population, so what they’re calculating is people…. You actually fall off the statisticians numbers in terms of unemployment. They have all these statistical gimmickry where by you actually fall out of the employment numbers after 12 months, because they assume that…. They may say that you’ve gone and created a business or you’ve given up looking for work or you’re not actively trying to find work. They actually take you out of that number. They’re actually not….

      Dave: So they’re not accounting for long term unemployed.

      Mark: Exactly that 4.1% percent does not account for long term unemployed.

      Dave:  So, the 4.1% is only really a number that suggests or underpins short term unemployment.

      Mark:  Exactly and there’s a great guy,  we’ve covered him on many occasions; John Williams in Shadowstats, who looks a lot of these statistics and he shows how they’re manipulated in effect. So, it’s creating the impression of a goldilocks economy, but as I said when you look underneath, Goldilocks she’s not as pretty as you would think, shall we say.

      Dave: And obviously, the Goldilocks reference there, when it comes to the economy is – not too hot or not too cold.

      Mark:  Yes, just perfect.

      Dave: Just perfect. And talking about the unemployment numbers, I was reading something and you covered him; Stockman, in the Market Update yesterday and it was very interesting article. I was reading something that he wrote something in the Wall Street Journal and he was looking at various numbers, various figures and he talked about manufacturing jobs and that in the period of 2007 to 2010, there were 2.3million manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. and in the period of 2014 to 2017, only about 10% of those jobs lost have come back on stream.

      Mark: They’re losing the better paid jobs as well. So, you’re getting a lot of casual labour and part time work, McDonald’s jobs, low paid jobs, part time jobs. The quality of jobs are going down as well and that means actually the wages that people are getting for those jobs are not going up. That would be to sign of a true Goldilocks economy, people would feel the wealth effect, and the man in the street would feel wealthy. But the man in the street is not happy, is angry and you can see that with Trump being elected. And in the move… we covered this in the last podcast, in terms of move to the left or right the more extremes that we’re seeing you know people don’t feel wealthy at all and the rich are benefiting from the quantitative easing and the 0% interest because they own assets, but the man in the street doesn’t tend to own assets. They depend on their wage and they’re not seeing any increase in their wages…..and then more job insecurity in huge way.

      Dave: Steve, last time you talked about this wall of liquidity looking for a home and you talked about that in relation to basically the “everything bubble”. For those that may not have listened to episode one, can you just give us a refresher on that and tell us how it’s fuelling this stock market rise.

      Steve: Leading up to last financial collapse there was an awful lot of excess in the broader capital markets where a lot of debt was taken on in an unsustainable format, and obviously when the assets prices started to correct, and the debt was found to be completely unsupportable, the official sector stepped in and on the basis of trying to cure the market, they tried to cut out the cancerous debt overhang and what they did was, they took all that debt in and hid it away from the market and put it on off balance sheet vehicles, controlled by the central banks and they paid back out on the this debt 100cent on the dollar.

      So, they reinvigorated the market, they gave it fresh capital and fresh cash and they said let’s learn our lessons, let’s have safer banks, let’s put in new regulations. But here’s your money back and here, let’s hit the reset button and go again. And so an awful lot of this cash….

      Dave: Just to clarify that’s going to be an institution would have bought a bond, originally say for $100 and that bond has fallen in value down to 90, 80, 70, 60 or even lower and then the Central Bank is stepping back in and saying; “I’ll buy that back off you at 100”.

      Steve: Yes. So they basically allowed the banks to earn back the original face value of that debt, in the interests of recapitalizing the banks and injecting capital, much needed capital back into the into our into economies.

      Dave: Because if they didn’t do this then, subsequently we’re going to be looking at bank collapses. So they basically they had to do this.

      Steve: We were looking at a potential depression, which could have lasted for an awful long time and led to massive social problems right across the western world. And so this was unpalatable so, they decided to cure the market and cut out this this cancerous debt. And they did this through quantitative easing; so they would expand their balance sheets, they would issue money out of nothing on one side of the balance sheet and then they would sell it and take on liabilities on the other side – the debt, and they would give that cash… that cash would then make its way to those banks and those private equity firms and they would go out and invest that money.

      And the theory being is that once they invest that money, then those companies do well and the benefits of that will then wash down to lower part of the economy, to employment, there’s more employment, more spending, more wage growth and an economy gets back into a virtuous circle. But, really what’s happened is that the higher echelons of society, the asset ownership class, they saw a massive appreciation of their assets and they saw their liabilities dwindling and they paid back debt and they own assets and they rent those assets out and they haven’t necessarily been spending it in new capital projects and so we haven’t had a huge capital boom that you would expect to see an economic recovery. And you haven’t seen the kind of movement of money throughout the economy changing hands as you would expect to see in a recovering economy.

      In fact after most recessions you tend to see the velocity of money increasing as people become more confident and have more money in their pocket, but you haven’t seen that at all. In fact you’ve seen the velocity of money dropping to its lowest point in recent history and in fact it’s at 1.47 now if you look at the stats and it’s incredible. So, by injecting all this money into the economy it hasn’t trickled down, so the initial strategy didn’t work and what you’re seeing is one part of the population benefiting from higher asset prices and the other side the economy not getting a wage increase and not getting extra money to spend and more uncertainty as to their prospects.

      Mark: Yeah, Stephen’s hit the nail on the head. And that’s the fundamentals. He’s really going in to the fundamentals of the economy, where we are today and the bottom line when you look at the quantitative easing and what they did there, we had a credit crisis/debt crisis. I think it’s better to look at it almost as a debt crisis because, it’s the amount to the debt in the world in 2007/2008 at every strata of society contributed to the initial liquidity crisis and the solvency crisis. But today the debt is actually gone fromit was a 150 trillion pre-crisis, today it is 233 trillion. So it’s gone up over 80 trillion in less than 10 years in this so-called recovery.

      If you look at the chart it’s very interesting. And that’s the key thing, the debt to G.D.P ratio, that’s a key measurement of economic soundness and the fundamentals of the economy whether it is really Goldilocks economy, or not. So, Goldilocks is swimming in debt and she’s going to be foreclosed on and be put out of the house very soon and she’s going to be very cold indeed. A picture paints a thousand words, but it looks like when you look at the charts you could always see that the G.D.P. growth would outstrip the increase in the debt. It would be slightly higher and increase

      Dave: This suggests that you’re getting a return

      Mark: Yeah exactly, and recently it’s gone the other way where by the G.D.P. is sort of over the top of the hill and it’s sort of increasing very slowly, if not topping out, meanwhile the debt is going parabolic. And just in the last year alone, it’s gone up 16 trillion from Q one, the start of Q one 2017 to the end of Q three 2017. So another sixteen trillion in the debt, so it’s clearly unsustainable and that’s why we believe in this “everything bubble” and US stock markets in particular is a bubble. You have to look at different stock markets, some stock markets are undervalued, maybe there’s a reason they’re undervalued, whether in Syria or Venezuela or Russia, markets can be undervalued and they can stay undervalued. But the U.S market looks very overvalued indeed and that’s the key in terms of fundamental driving it.

      Steve: Two things on that; I remember a while ago we were talking Mark and you said you know for every dollar of debt that’s issued the amount of  economic return you’re getting is now gone negative. I think it’s like 60 or 70 cents. This is Ponzi scheme territory.

      Mark: Exactly we’re not getting a return on that debt.

      Steve: Yeah, it’s actually costing the real economy. I don’t have a problem with debt increasing as long as it has a purpose and a function, like when you’re building factories, you’re creating, you’re creating excellent products and services and efficiencies.

      Mark: Building capital

      Steve: Yeah, building stuff, helping people and bringing population into productive work and activity. But what we’re seeing now is kind of the financialization of our economies, where you have very creative financial products out there which are which are kind of creating a kind of volatility in our daily lives that we’re seeing in our house prices, we’re seeing it in our health care, we’re seeing in our educational costs and it’s transmitting through the economy risks and shocks and it shouldn’t. We should have buffers in our economy that stop this happening.

      But one of the main points in terms of all this debt, basically you can look at the debt amount that’s being produced by the central banks over the last years and I think that 20 trillion dollars has been just magic-ed out of nowhere. And you chart that and you look at the actual stock markets and it’s one for one. Literally every dollar of debt that the central banks of have produced has gone straight in to stock markets and that stock market growth really kind of benefits one sector of society, the top 5 to 10% of people and the rest don’t own stocks really. They are on salary, they’re salary slaves. They go from pay check to pay check, they don’t have assets, they rent everything and if they’re lucky at they have some sort of instability in their job.

      Ever since 2000, the actual amount of individual prosperity, that you can measure an economy on, for workers has actually plateaued, it’s gone sideways. Whereas corporate profitability has kept rising. And all of this comes down to the intervention of the official sector in the economy trying to cajole or force the economy in to what they want it to be, to be successful, for political reasons.

      Dave: I’ll just interrupt you there for a second because we’re being very much focused on U.S. stock markets in the conversation so far, but just to say that this isn’t just a U.S. issue. This is happening—

      Mark: The “everything bubble”, affects everybody, but I think the U.S. stock market looks more of overvalued given the scale of the move up.

      Dave: But in terms of the quantitative easing that we’ve seen that’s not isolated just in the U.S.  That’s a global issue.

      Mark: Of course it’s not, no. The global debt to G.D.P. ratio is 320% and that’s a ratio that would bankrupt most nations. So the world is in effect bankrupt and  talking about the Goldilocks and she’s massively in debt and not only she massively in debt, she’s actually taking out loans to buy stocks and this is contributable, the margin debt is at all-time record highs and I think you’ve looked at some of those figures, Steve haven’t you?

      Steve: Yes, if you look margin debt, margin debt is measured and there are some great stats on New York Stock Exchange. It’s essentially the amount of debt that investors are taking out so they can participate in the marketplace and at the beginning of last year it was about 513 billion which is historical high. By the end of the year it is estimated to be around 580 billion, so massive growth just inside 12 months and it’s continuing to go higher.

      But even if you look at margin debt… inflation, that’s not inflation adjusted, that’s just beginning of inflation adjusted then you might be lower. But if you look at it as a proportion of the actual capitalization of the market it’s an all-time high and I think the metrics coming around 3% of the market is margin debt and historically it was around 1%/1 ½%. In the last financial crisis, it was just under 1½ % and now it’s at 3%.

      So, it double what was an incredible high the last time we had a collapsed. And that just shows a huge fervour, it’s very much part of the bubble cycle where people are fearing missing out and there’s a huge event, the media are talking it up like they’re talking it up in the quarter four 2017, C. N.B.C. and all these guys. There’s an awful lot of very positive commentary coming out of the markets and Trump’s economic stimulus and tax plans and it’s incredible to see and we’ve been here before, but you know we just don’t learn the lessons.

      I think for our listeners, where the most important things is to kind of acknowledged that this might be happening and then to decide what exactly what can they do about it and in order to prepare for it.

      Mark: Actually, just on the margin; it’s higher than 1929, it’s higher than 1987.

      Dave: And that would have been one of the things from the 1929 point of view. That was pin pointed as being the needle, or the pin that burst the bubble.

      Mark: Absolutely and I read some I don’t have the exact figures at hand, but I read recently that the move up in the Dow jones from 1924 to 1929 is comparable to the move up that we’ve seen in recent years in the Dow Jones again . There is a mini parabolic move going on and any time you see massive out size performs like that you tend to see a very sharp correction at the very least.

      But when you have this level of debt, not just in terms of the speculation using margin on stocks, but that’s a big factor and it’s important to look at that, but just at every strata of society that creates the real risk of a crash. And that’s why I think….. The thing to distinguish the U.S. stock market is that it’s the biggest stock market in the world and the M.S…… so all of the passive guys in the world who are allocated in wealth management firms around the world and financial advisers; they would use the M.S.C.I. World Index as their their way to allocate to stocks.

      Dave: A passive investor is somebody who buys all the stocks in an index.

      Mark: Exactly, a broadly balanced portfolio, he doesn’t buy and sell and time stocks and doesn’t pick individual stocks or individual sectors or geographies. So they buy the market in effect and that’s the way the M.S.C.I. World operates. More than 50% of that index is actually U.S. stocks so if the U.S. stock market has a very serious correction or crash, it’s going to impact pension funds around the world and they are already under pressure very significantly because of record low yields on their bonds and then the demographic time bomb that we’ve all been talking about for years.

      So there’s a confluence of all these factors coming together and we’re only covering some of them, but just to finish out that point. So it’s this “everything bubble”, as well, that’s in the back ground and then you’ve got the problems in the bond market and I do think that this is what creates one the biggest risk that we’ve seen in history, one of the greatest financial bubbles we’ve seen in history. The question is will it get bubblier in effect, before it crashes and the air comes out and then how does it crash, do we get one more wave of deflation and a crash and then the central banks print money and then we get massive inflation, hyper inflation which quite possible or do we go straight into a quite inflationary mode which would see stock markets go even higher.

      Dave: One question I’ll ask you guys at this point; from a fundamental point of view are people looking at the numbers coming out of these companies, how are these companies performing?

      Steve: This is the nub of the issue and this I think is where we differ from previous market cycles. We’ve gotten too smart for good and generally speaking. Since the development of exchange traded funds or through an E.T.Fs which mimics certain sectors of the stock market, we’ve made it really easy for people to get exposure to certain sectors and there’s been a lot of study done recently…..

      I actually when I worked in New York years ago, there were developing E.T.Fs on our desk at the time and it was… I think was called Trebble Q at that time the Spider E.T.F for the S&P500… and it went gangbusters out the door people couldn’t get enough of it. It was really easy and it was cheaper than the alternative which was active managers and these were paid stock market pickers who would go and try and beat the S& P500 index and people said; “you know what I’m happy just with the S& P500 index, so we’re going to buy this exchange traded fund that mimics it.”

      And ever since then the percentage of trading of the US stock market that comes from the passive indexers, which we just spoken about and the E.T.Fs has grown and grown and grown and active managers, the guys that are stock picking has fallen and fallen and in fact, I think about 90% of trading in 1990’s was active, now it’s fallen to about 70% and then E.T.Fs and passives have gone from about 10 or 15% up to around 30%.

      They reckon about 10% of the market is discretionary traders, fundamental discretionary traders. These are people who are buying and selling, duking it out on the bid offer in the market. And these are guys who are looking at the books; they’re looking at the companies

      Dave: They’re doing a bit of price discovery.

      Steve: They are trying to figure out and they are trying to price in that news, they’re doing arbitrage strategies, long-shorts whatever it is and they are living on the basis of their capital going up or going down and if it goes down it hurts them. That is a beautiful thing because the wisdom of the crowd comes to bear, there’s a price discovery mechanism there and then the passive guys would hang on those pricings and would trade along with them.

      So what we’ve had now is that, the official sector is coming in as a bad actor, I think I mentioned it before in the last podcast and they’re buying no matter what. The E.T.Fs guys are coming in and they’re buying no matter what because, it’s on the list of stocks in the S&P500 or M.S.C.I. and the passive guys are buying as well and so the fundamental guys are being driven out of the market and they’re no longer participating. So the market is just going up and up and they’ve done studies on this and they said; “if you have a company and you’re C.E.O., if you just get listed in the S&P50, the correlation, your growth will go with the index and start to be less about your company and more about your membership of the index.” So, you could be­ doing anything in your company or whatever it is, but it’s less important what you do day to day. It’s more important that you’re in that index and it surprising.

      Mark: And added to that the Algos, and the machines are actually following the momentum of all these guys and that’s feeding on itself as well. So that’s another factor that you could cover for a full podcast. It’s an amazing development that has very significant ramifications.

      Steve: They are all kind of blind following each other with the lights off.

      Mark: One thing on the sentiments just this week the headline came out. I wrote it down here. It was on Bloomberg and I’ve never seen a headline like this, but to me it was like classic sentiment warning indicator that we’re near the top. May not be, but I mean this is a classic. When you see headlines like this, it’s time to sort of reduce allocations. And the headline was; “stock market never goes down anymore”. This was a headline on Bloomberg. I mean the Bloomberg headlines have been getting a little bit more tabloid-like in recent years and I think that they’re trying to get bums on seats but there actually has been a host of others.

      I actually typed out Dow 30,000 in to Google News to see what I would come up with and they came up with; “Dow 30,000 by year end”, on Seeking Alpha. “Scent of Dow 30,000”, on The Street. “Dow 30,000, how to get there in 2018”, and indeed we also have President trump talking about Dow 30,000, so who knows, big round numbers they tend to migrate to these numbers and given the degree of irrational exuberance and the momentum that’s there. It could go higher before going to lower.

      Steve: I don’t know if we have the time to talk about when this might shift and what might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

      Dave: One thing that I want us just to address because, I know it can be on the minds of a lot of people who are listening to this. Because when they’re hearing this particularly whether it’s passive indexes, whether it’s algorithm trading, whether it’s potential of a bubble, they’re probably sitting there and thinking; “but I own Apple stocks, I own Google stocks, I own Facebook stocks, I own all the big ones surely they’re good stocks to continue to hold. They’re not going to be affected by what happens?”

      Mark: Well they are and they aren’t. This was the argument in 2007 and 2008 with some of the stockbrokers and people said; “well these are blue chip shares that will do well no matter what”. But all these stocks are massively correlated and if you get a massive correction or a new bear market in stocks, they will go down as well and similarly if the U.S. stock market sees a serious correction or a crash… when the U.S. gets a cold or when the U.S. sneezes, we all get a cold. And the other stock markets will be correlated and they will take lead from the S&P 500.

      Dave: So, the good the good follows the bad down.

      Mark: It does and that’s not a reason to say that should sell all your blue chip shares, but potentially if you are over-weighted or over-allocated to some of these blue chip shares, and  the tech sector does look quite frothy and the FANG stocks have been the sexy thing to own recent years. So if you do own them over allocated, I won’t say sell them.

      Dave: The FANG stock for those who don’t know are – Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Google.

      Mark: So I think you should possibly take some profits and rebalance your portfolio.  We’ll come to that now in terms of what the real important question here is not whether these markets are bubbles or not. We think they possibly are but we don’t have a crystal ball and they could become much bubblier. The question for people is what we should be doing in 2018 and the coming years to protect ourselves from these various risks that we’ve outlined.

      Dave:  When we’ve seen these corrections or crashes or even the crisis back in 07/08 Central Banks had powers in the form of being able to lower interest rates and move into the quantitative easing that Steve talked about. They also have the ability to cut taxes. Now we’ve got interest rates near record low. Some of them have increased slightly, but we’re still near record lows. They’ve got no room left, no fire-power left and that we’ve seen large tax cuts in the U.S. and there was a degree of reluctance to push those through.

      Is there much more room for further tax cuts? So, if we’re fiscally hand-cuffed from a monetary policy point of view we’re also hand-cuffed or limited. That really kind of sounds dangerous if we see some sort of correction

      Steve: I think they are just going to print money. The quantitative easing

      Dave: But can they do that indefinitely and if they do it indefinitely what does that do?

      Mark: QE forever!

      Dave: Is that massive hyperinflation?

      Steve: It’s a Pandora’s Box. If you start at process; it’s always going to be on the table as a politically expedient option. They’re going to go for it whenever there’s a correction and there are job losses, there’s going to people out for blood on the streets, they’re going to force the Central Banks, even if they’re supposed to be independent they’re going to force them to buy and monetize debt and print money. And essentially it will create more inequality, it’ll create more volatility, it will drive out the fundamentals from the market and it just becomes an official sector exercise.

      It’s almost socialism really at the end of the day. They are abandoning capitalist fundamentals and market based economies in favour of stability because, essentially they are micro-managing the markets. I will say one thing, another factor driving up the markets is also the search for yield the search for return and traditionally you would have had large sectors of the economy who would have been comfortable with the yield off bonds and fixed income, which were issued on a stable basis. And now you have bond yields negative in many regards, they’re beginning to go up a little bit now and that is the price of bonds so if the price of bonds goes up the yields goes down and vice versa.

      So, bonds have been rising in prices as people just throw money into them and they’re accepting less and less in return in fact negative. Some people say; “I don’t want to lose money on my bond investments or my money I’ve saved after tax”, so they start putting it into the stock market and that’s driving up demand for stocks as well.

      Mark: cryptocurrency as well, people are speculating to get that return.

      Steve: Yes there is a theory that as this wall of money that’s being printed begins to come down into the street inflation is going to rise and interest rates are going to rise as well. And as interest rate rise, there will be less of a reason to own stocks and suddenly stocks will start looking very overvalued and expensive and if they do start to look expensive then you have the smart money will start driving out of those stocks very fast. That could create a run on the market and suddenly you have a freefall.

      So now we’ve just turned a corner, suddenly bond interest rates are starting to rise. The 10 year had started to rise, it’s at 2½% percent or more now, it’s going up again and you’re beginning to have original patterns reassert themselves and so if that happens this market looks so incredibly expensive.

      Dave: Another way to look at this quantitative easing, the idea of just printing money. If they start to see correction of printing currency

      Mark: They can’t print money, gold is money. They’re printing fiat currencies and I said printing money myself, its funny the language we use and that’s important distinction.

      Dave: When you talk about printing currency, there’s the way that I like to look at it because if they do print currency and a lot of that money is going to flow back into the stock market potentially, perpetuating this bubble and you’ll have people sitting on the side lines saying; “look at the Dow blowing through 30,000, 35,000 to 40,000”, and really the way to look at it is rather than seeing stocks appreciating effectively what’s happening is you’re able to buy less stocks for your dollar or your euro. So effectively what you’re doing is you’re devaluing the currency and I suppose to bring it back to what we do here. You’ve got a finite amount or an infinite amount of potential stocks and shares, but you’ve a finite amount of gold and silver. So in a situation like that, where there is continuous or perpetual printing of money, you’ll find that your dollar buys the less and less gold or less silver. The other way of looking about is the prices over rises consistently and considerably and the price of gold rises consistently and considerably

      Mark: Yeah absolutely, you can have potentially infinite currencies and that’s potentially we’re going in terms of Q.E to infinity and beyond and Q.E forever. There are all sorts of wags who come up with different titles for it and that’s the real risk. And therefore if the Dow 30,000, Dow 40,000, Dow 50,000….. stocks are a hedge against inflation so therefore,  that is likely to happen, people put money into companies that survive and that will try and generate profit. Zimbabwe was the best performing stock market when they had their hyperinflation in whatever year it was, 2010 I think it was.

      We have the bank notes, we’re in here in the Vault Room. The banks notes are up there which have the Zimbabwe hyperinflation notes up as much as one trillion Zimbabwe dollars. Their stock market was the best performing stock market in the world that year last year. I think Venezuela was the best performing stock market in the world and the Venezuelans were in hyperinflation.

      So, stocks are a hedge against inflation, gold is an even better as against inflation particularly when your fiat currency is being devalued in a massive way. And you get into a hyperinflation scenario. It speaks to the importance of having an allocation to actual physical gold in your portfolio and given these risks I think our rule of thumb was always put 10% of  your wealth in gold and you hope to God it doesn’t work. I think today given these risks, I think it merits higher allocations.  If you can put 40% of your portfolio into stocks and forty percent into bonds why wouldn’t you potentially put 20, 30, and 40% into precious metals? You might put 20% to25% on the gold and 5% to 10% on the silver and then to 2½% in platinum or palladium or something like that.

      I believe in higher allocations to precious metals in this environment– that might be on the high side and it won’t be for everybody.  I mean you have to look at people and their age profile, their risk appetite and all these things are very important and take financial advice. Take financial advice in particular, from a financial adviser who understands gold and advises people to own precious metal, because there’s lot of financial adviser who simply don’t understand it and don’t want to understand it.

      Steve: As you we’re talking there Mark I was just remembering, I’ve talked an awful lot of clients recently and there they’ve been talking about the cashless society and how that’s going to underpin huge demand for gold because, you won’t to have to a form of money that you can put under a mattress any more. We will be all in with the system and the system is fairly corrupt.

      Mark: All your eggs in that one basket

      Steve: Yes and if you think about thatwe’ve talked about this word Q.E. But essentially what quantitative easing is or the printing of money by central banks, it’s actually taxation and it’s actually them taxing the money that you have. It’s like a percentage on your pay check. But it’s much more insidious. It is hidden away and you don’t see it and the interesting thing is the people who are doing this and making these decisions are not elected; they’re not elected at all. We don’t have a conversation a debate in the media about what the interest rates going to be or how much you know bond buying is going to happen this month. It’s just kind of delivered to us on a plate and we’re told to accept it and we don’t see it, we don’t feel it right away.

      But then when we see the stock market rising and we see the asset rising, house prices going up and we see the cost of mortgages changing and we see volatility coming into our economy based on something happening in Europe or America, that’s the cost of this. I think with  cash leaving the system, or physical cash leaving the system the actual case for gold is a physical form of money that you can hold out of the system and protect yourself has never been stronger and it’s going to increase, the case going to get stronger every day.

      Mark: Absolutely, the cashless society… they’re trying to corral everybody into this sort of digital economy and every day we hear news scandal about cyber this, cyber that and hacking here. The most recent one or even the most fundamental thing, that Intel chips that is paramount for most computers and on our devices are vulnerable in some form of malware; Spectre and Meltdown or Meltdown Spectre, whatever it was. And Equifax in the US one of  the biggest companies that actually held the data, very sensitive data of  U.S people in terms of their Social Security, their payment, details of dates of birth, their addresses, they were hacked and every month there’s’ a new instance of this.

      It’s showing the vulnerability of this digital economy and digital finance and digital currencies and therefore forcing everybody to have all their money and all the wealth in the system, it’s not prudent actually. You need an ecosystem and by having that diversified ecosystem it actually protects companies and individuals. By corralling us all into this one little system it increases the systemic risk because you don’t have that diversity and that diversification.

      Steve: I don’t know if we have time to talk about what people can do with a bubble as it’s forming and how they should invest and the tool kit available to investors. So, I think some of the standard advice we have and we give to clients every day is that you know you do need to have an allocation to gold and precious metals.

      Untypically as I said it could be anywhere from 5% to 20% or more if it’s deemed prudent for you and your circumstance. I think you need to be a little bit sceptical about what’s happening out there, you need to be a bit sceptical about what the media is saying, take it with a pinch of salt and ask yourself questions; is it underpinned, is it fundamentally based, watch what you’re hearing and reading about it.

      And also the in terms of your own personal self, you should invest in yourself, invest in your education, invest in your job or your company whatever you doing. You should have that specialist expertise about you that makes you very valuable as a member of our economy and that in its own self will help you ride out any kind of extreme volatility in the marketplace. So investing in yourself, in your education you should be diversified in your portfolio as Mark said, some bonds, some equities, some real estate as well as your home. They’re all very important.

      Keep an eye on costs, very important in terms of whatever you invest in you know you want to be somebody who Nickel and Dimes. I think it’s something that comes easy to Americans. In Europe it’s something we don’t do as much. We’re a little bit more accepting and when we should really be focusing on costs and getting value for money every time. That’s why a lot of one of our customers come to Goldcore because we are extremely good value for money.

      And you also should stay out of cash. Cash is something that people look to in times of crises. It’s not always the best place to be because again you have inflation, you have the money printers and the tyrannical Central Bankers who are depreciating our cash and savings and so cash is not necessary the place to be, hard assets are probably where you want to be and then the allocation to them should adjust up and down depending where you believe we are in the economic cycle. But also read widely, read well and listen to podcasts like ours. And again go back to the very first point educate yourself, constantly the educate yourself.

      Mark: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more and just on the education point it’s key because the world is changing so fast you really have to keep up to date with that you know and there’s is so much noise out there and you’re just bombarded with all sorts of information and much of it is disinformation it’s disempowering and it’s all about fear and unfortunately we have to look at these big scary numbers and the ramifications thereof, but we’re not doing it to scare people. We’re trying to empower people and then tell people you know this is how you protect yourself and this is how you will actually protect the grow your wealth and come out the other side.

      Our mission statement when we set up the company in 2003 was to protect and grow our clients’ wealth and we’ve done that fairly well over the years and that’s why we talked like this.

      One thing on cash, I think, it’s traditionally financial advisers and wealth management they would suggest 5% to 10% allocation to cash. I think in the current climate given the bubble that’s in bonds and stocks you could have a slightly higher allocation to cash, but the key thing is be aware of inflation If it looks like it will take off it own stage and then with the risk of bail-ins and the deposit confiscation which is something we’ve covered quite frequently over the years and a lot of our clients are concerned about that, you need to be very careful about which bank. So, looking at the counterparty risk of individual banks and potentially, some of our clients do this, and I see the merits of increasing this, take some actual physical cash, a small amount, not a huge amount, some physical cash out of your bank, put it into a safe deposit box or vault or someplace safe. A small amount.

      Steve: Three months of your expenditure that you would have as a family, you’d have in cash

      Mark: I never thought I’d see myself say that on the podcast, I’ve had this view for 2 or 3 years but the more I think about it just gives me certainty it makes absolute sense.

      Steve: I think it’s been a fascinating conversation in terms of bubbles and where we are in the stock market and what you can do as an investor going forward. One thing is very important for ourselves is that we get as much feedback from clients who might be listening to the podcast. We are always looking for ideas for the next month as well.  So do feel free to reach out to myself or Mark with your thoughts and suggestions for any future podcasts.

      Mark: We had a little bit of feedback on the last YouTube video which was great. The podcast is on YouTube obviously. And whatever way, either you can send us emails or post comment on YouTube or even on the podcast channels. All feedback is greatly welcomed and it will very much guide as tol what topics we cover.

      Dave: Great. Gents, that seems like a perfect place to wrap this up for this month as usual I’ve learnt an awful lot from you two yet again. And so as we’ve said before subscribe to the podcast, the Goldnomics podcast on iTunes, on YouTube on SoundCloud and give us your feedback and your comments, anything that you’d like us to talk about in future episodes. We will be delighted to hear anything that you have to say.

      So from me Dave Russell, Steve, Mark, thank you all very much for listening.

      Mark: Thanks guys.

      Steve: Thank you very much.

    • John Kerry In Secret Communications With Palestine For "Alternative Initiative" Circumventing Trump

      During the middle of last week a bombshell report hit Israeli media but was largely ignored in major international press. According to the Jerusalem Post former Secretary of State John Kerry has been actively undermining President Trump through his own back channel communications with representatives of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

      This reportedly included Kerry telling Abbas to “hold and be strong” and to not “yield to President Trump’s demands” until Democrats are able to kick Trump out of office, and even included the suggestion that Kerry himself would seriously consider running for president in 2020.


      Then US Secretary of State John Kerry, right, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a 2014 photo. Via ABC News

      The report comes amidst what has developed into a complete disconnect in relations between the White House and the Palestinian Authority after Trump’s early December move to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which includes plans to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by the end of 2019. This was also followed by repeat threats from Trump to cut US aid to the Palestinian territories, reiterated as recently as Thursday before reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Trump indicated he might cut $700 million in annual U.S. aid “unless they sit down and negotiate peace.”

      But it appears, according to the Jerusalem Post relying on revelations sourced to the Israeli outlet Maariv, that Kerry is one among the “previous administration” which has “maintained contact with PA officials” and is seeking to secretly jump start a separate peace plan which circumvents the current US administration, and which presumably would come to maturity once Trump is out of office.

      The claims center around a recent meeting between John Kerry and a close associate of Abbas named Hussein Agha, who is considered the most senior and veteran negotiator with Israel concerning the peace process. 

      The Jerusalem Post reported of the London meeting

      Maariv reported that former US secretary of state John Kerry met in London with a close associate of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, Hussein Agha, for a long and open conversation about a variety of topics. Agha apparently reported details of the conversation to senior PA officials in Ramallah. A senior PA official confirmed to Maariv that the meeting took place.

      And the alleged plans discussed at the meeting, if confirmed, are explosive: 

      Kerry asked Agha to convey a message to Abbas and ask him to “hold on and be strong.” Tell him, he told Agha, “that he should stay strong in his spirit and play for time, that he will not break and will not yield to President Trump’s demands.” According to Kerry, Trump will not remain in office for a long time. It was reported that within a year there was a good chance that Trump would not be in the White House.

      Kerry offered his help to the Palestinians in an effort to advance the peace process and recommended that Abbas present his own peace plan. “Maybe it is time for the Palestinians to define their peace principles and present a positive plan,” Kerry suggested. He promised to use all his contacts and all his abilities to get support for such a plan. He asked Abbas, through Agha, not to attack the US or the Trump administration, but to concentrate on personal attacks on Trump himself, whom Kerry says is solely and directly responsible for the situation.

      If true it means Kerry may have effectively co-opted and quietly taken control of a key diplomatic channel at the heart of American Middle East diplomacy, creating “an alternative peace initiative” which would garner “international support” outside of White House channels.

      While Kerry himself has yet to comment publicly on the claims, an unidentified associate said be close to the former secretary of state told Boston Magazine a day after the Israeli media report that “The story is simply wrong” and further, “Those aren’t Secretary Kerry’s views or positions on the Middle East peace process, nor would anyone in their right mind send political trial balloons through foreign emissaries.” Boston Magazine further noted, “Agha has also denied that such a discussion took place, according to a source close to him,” while not quoting the Abbas aide directly. 

      One of the other shocking elements of the Israeli media report relates to the ‘deep state’ war against Trump. According to the Jerusalem Post:

      According to the report, referring to the president, Kerry used derogatory terms and even worse. Kerry offered to help create an alternative peace initiative and promised to help garner international support, among others, of Europeans, Arab states and the international community.

      Kerry hinted that many in the American establishment, as well as in American intelligence, are dissatisfied with Trump’s performance and the way he leads America. He surprised his interlocutor by saying he was seriously considering running for president in 2020. When asked about his advanced age, he said he was not much older than Trump and would not have an age problem.

      This set off some speculation last week over whether 74-year old Kerry would be too old for the job by 2020 and after. The report added Kerry as saying that even establishment Republicans “didn’t know what to do with Trump and are very dissatisfied with him and that patience and breathing time are needed to get through this difficult period.”

      Though confirmation from either the Abbas or Kerry side will likely never come, the reported reference to Kerry urging Abbas to “hold and be strong” until Trump is out of office echoes Obama’s infamous hot mic incident with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in March 2012, where Obama in a whispered message intended for incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin said of a controversial US missile defense plan and other difficult issues, “After my election I have more flexibility.”

    • Paul Craig Roberts Warns "In the Western World Lies Have Displaced Truth"

      Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

      Last year I was awarded Marquiss “Who’s Who In America’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

      This did not prevent a hidden organization, PropOrNot, from attempting to brand me and my website along with 200 others “Putin stooges or agents” for our refusal to lie for the corrupt, anti-American, anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, warmonger police state interests that rule the Western World.

      The only honest, factual media that exists in the Western World today are the names on the PropOrNot list of “Putin agents.”

       

      The purpose of PropOrNot is to convince Americans that freedom of speech must be halted by destroying fact-based Internet media, such as this website and 200 others that provide factual information at odds with Big Brother’s universal brainwashing as delivered by CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest of the utterly corrupt presstitute media, a collection of scum devoid of all integrity and all respect for truth.

      https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180128_tyranny3.jpg

      A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling interests, and media acting on behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived reality as it is described in George Orwell’s book, 1984, and in the film, The Matrix.

       

      Controlled perception-based reality is only a Facebook “like” away from killing one person or one million or elevating a liar or the warmonger responsible for the killing to hero status or to the control of the CIA or FBI or the US presidency.

      Here on OpEdNews is an article by George Eliason that reports on who exactly PropOrNot is and who is underwriting the disinformation that is PropOrNot.

      A little over a year ago, the deep-state graced the world with Propornot . Thanks to them, 2017 became the year of fake news. Every news website and opinion column now had the potential to be linked to the Steele dossier and Trump collusion with Russia. Every journalist was either with us or against us. Every one that was against us became Russia’s trolls.

      Fortunately for the free world, the anonymous group known as Propornot that tried to “out” every website as a potential Russian colluder, in the end only implicated themselves.

      Turnabout is fair play and that’s always the fun part, isn’t it? With that in mind, I know the dogs are going to howl this evening over this one.

      The damage Propornot did to scores of news and opinions websites in late 2016-2017 provides the basis of a massive civil suit. I mean huge, as in the potential is there for a tobacco company-sized class-action sized lawsuit. I can say that because I know a lot about a number of entities that are involved and the enormous amount of money behind them.

      How serious is this? In 2016, a $10,000 reward was put out for the identities of Propornot players. No one has claimed it yet, and now, I guess no one will. There are times in your life that taking a stand has a cost. To make sure the story gets out and is taken seriously, this is one of those times.

      If that’s what it takes for you to understand the danger Propornot and the groups around them pose to everyone you love, if you understand it, everything will have been well worth it.

      In this article, you’ll meet some of the people staffing Propornot. You’ll meet the people and publications that provide their expenses and cover the logistics. You’ll meet a few of the deep-state players. We’ll deal with them very soon. They need to see this as the warning shot over the bow and start playing nice with regular people. After that, you’ll meet the NGOs that are funding and orchestrating all of it.

      Eliason’s article is long and documented. It demonstrates the organized conspiracy against truth that exists in the Western World. Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts.

      Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth.

      Peoples in the United States, Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the various vassal states, such as Japan, all live day in, day out, an orchestrated lie that serves interests directly opposed to the interests of the peoples.

      Governments that do not rest on truth rest on tyranny.

    • Lindsey Graham Says Firing Bob Mueller Would "End" Trump's Presidency – And He Knows That

      After helping to blow the lid off “shitholegate” by dropping coy hints about Trump’s foul language during a meeting with a bipartisan group of senators, South Carolina Senator and perennial Trump frenemy Lindsey Graham appeared on the Sunday shows today to defend his erstwhile rival.

      In an interview with ABC’s “This Week”, Graham asserted that President Trump’s presidency would end if he did indeed fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, something the New York Times  reported earlier this week almost happened – but White House Counsel Don McGahn III allegedly stymied the president by threatening to resign.

      Graham and fellow Republican “moderate” Senator Susan Collins also urged Congress should move forward on bipartisan legislation preventing a president from firing a special counsel.

      Graham’s remarks – which are sure to once again alienate the diminutive senator from the president – show the senator has the “utmost confidence” in Mueller, basically repudiating evidence of Mueller’s conflicts and what some perceive to be suspicious overzealousness that was not applied to Trump’s former rival, Hillary Clint. Read the full transcript.

      Oh, yeah, if he fired Mueller without cause — I mean, Mueller is doing a good job. I have confidence in him to get to the bottom of all things Russia. And Don McGahn, if the story is true in The New York Times, did the right thing, and good news is the president listened.

      I don’t know if the story is true or not, but I know this Mueller should look at it. I have complete confidence in Mr. Mueller. When he found two FBI agents had a bias against President Trump, he fired them. So, all this stuff about the FBI and DOJ having a bias against Trump and for Clinton needs to be looked at. But I have never believed it affected Mr. Mueller.

      So I will do whatever it takes to make sure that Mr. Mueller can do his job. We’re a rule of law nation before President Trump, we’re going to be a rule of law nation after President Trump. I have never any — I haven’t yet seen any evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians, but the investigation needs to go forward without political interference and I’m sure it will.

      Furthermore, Graham said that the NYT story – which the White House has vociferously denied – is something that “Mueller should look at,” suggesting the special counsel will likely include the question of whether Trump intended to fire him as part of an investigation that has pivoted to focusing on obstruction of justice, not the collusion issue that was long ago proven to be an obvious dead-end.

      I don’t know. I believe it’s something that Mueller should look at. We’re not just going to say it’s fake news and move on. Mueller is the best person to look at it, not me opine about something I don’t know. I’m sure that there will be an investigation around whether or not President Trump did try to fire Mr. Mueller. We know that he didn’t fire Mr. Mueller. We know that if he tried to, it would be the end of his presidency.

      Trump’s critics like to portray his sometimes boorish behavior as unprecedented in the history of the presidency. But in a thoughtful rebuttal, Graham pointed out that many previous American presidents – and not just Richard Nixon – have tried to discredit or silence their critics. Presidents including Bill Clinton.

      GRAHAM: I think every president wants to get rid of critics. I mean, I remember the Ken Starr investigation, and Bill Clinton came out and said this guy spent millions of dollars and nothing to show for it.

      Graham also said the American people are smart enough not to convict the president based on a news article, which…though that might be unreasonably optimistic.

      GRAHAM: This is for Mr. Mueller to determine. We’re not going to stop looking at the president because he claims The New York Times’ was fake news. And we’re not going to convict him based on a news article. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Mueller is the perfect guy to get to the bottom of all of this. And he will. And I think my job, among others, is to give him the space to do it. I intend to do that. I have got legislation protecting Mr. Mueller. And I’ll be glad to pass it tomorrow.

      * * *

      As is often the case given the administration’s preoccupation with television news, more than one Trump ally showed up this weekend to answer the networks’ most pressing questions.

      Another one this week was White House Legislative Director Marc Short, who appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to flat out dispute the NYT report, which dominated the political news cycle during a week that also saw Trump impress his fellow leaders with a widely praised speech in Davos.

      White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short said the president never “intimate that” he intended to fire Mueller – not to Short, or any of Short’s colleagues.

      President Trump ordered the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller last year, saying at no time did the president “intimate that” to Short or any of his colleagues, according to a transcript.

      MARC SHORT: Well, Nancy, the president’s never intimated to me in any way the desire to fire Mueller. I think that there’s been a lot of sensational reporting on that. Let’s keep in mind a few things. That report dates to some June conversation allegedly. We’re now in January. Mueller’s still special counsel. Don McGahn is still running the White House Counsel’s Office. Millions of dollars- of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on an investigation that so far has proven no collusion with the Russians.

      Short then set his sights on the investigation, accusing Mueller of deliberately dragging out the process, and criticizing the prosecutor for overreaching by straying so far from the investigation’s stated goal.

      Of course it’s not because it’s continuing to drag on. And it’s dragged on for a long time at a great expense with yet no evidence of Russian collusion. And so the reality is that Mueller’s still special counsel. McGahn is still head of the White House Counsel’s Office. The president’s never intimated to me in any way a desire to fire Robert Mueller.

      * * *

      With Trump set to deliver his first State of the Union on Tuesday (last year’s speech to Congress wasn’t technically considered a “State of the Union ” address, just an address to a joint session of Congress, as is tradition for first-year presidents. So it’s likely that will dominate the Sunday shows next week, along with the political brinksmanship over the immigration-bill compromise that’s threatening to once again shutter the government.

      With all this going on, can you believe it’s not even February yet?

       

    • Chris Cole: "The Coming Crash Will Be Like 1987…But Worse"

      In this week’s MacroVoices podcast, host Erik Townsend interviews Chris Cole of Artemis Capital Management, who famously earned a profile in the New York Times last year after publishing an influential paper about the looming surge in volatility that looks set to upend eight years of relatively sleepy prosperity in financial markets…

      In his paper, Cole famously compared financial markets to the ouroboros – the Greek symbol depicting a snake eating itself, which Cole leverages as a metaphor for the contemporary state of financial markets…

      ouroboros

      As Cole explains, there’s a dangerous feedback loop involving ultra-low interest rates, data expansion, central bank stimulus, and asset volatility. This in turn feeds into a system where funds embracing “risk parity”, “vol rebalancing” and other trend-following strategies can create a vicious feedback loop where rising volatility begets rising volatility until it snowballs into a Black Monday-style 20% crash.

      Volatility across asset classes is at multi-generational lows. But there is now a dangerous feedback loop that exists between ultra-low interest rates, data expansion, central bank stimulus, and asset volatility. And then financial engineering that’s allocating risk based on that Volatility.

      This is leading into a self-reflexive loop where lower volatility feeds into lower vol. But, in the event that we have the wrong type of shock to the system, I believe this can reverse violently where higher volatility then reinforces higher vol.

      This is a much bigger risk in today’s market environment, and it’s one that is not being correctly discounted.

      As Cole told the New York Times back in September, he has calculated that, globally, there is some $2 trillion in short volatility trades.

      As traders sell volatility, it creates a kind of short gamma effect, whereby other traders must sell even more to get the same bang for their buck.

      A few weeks ago, Goldman derivatives strategist Rocky Fishman pointed out that net positioning of VIX ETPs had become short during the preceding weeks for only the second time in their eight year history, prompting Fishman to ask – rhetorically, of course – should we worry?

      ShortVol

      The obvious answer is “of course we should” as such lopsided positioning means even a three-point jump in the VIX could trigger a cascading short squeeze, as these funds are forced to cover by piling into long-vol trades, potentially crashing the market.

      As Cole explains:

      This is all great as long as volatility is low or dropping, as long as markets are stable. But, in the event that we have a reversal in this, there’s two trillion dollars of equity exposure that self-reflexive-driving lower vol can reverse in a quite violent way. And this is just equity vol, mind you:

      Moving on to another topic that Coletouched on in a paper he published entitled “Reflexivity in the Shadows of Black Monday 1987”Townsend asks him about corporate buybacks, and their presences as a type of “long-vol” influence on the market. As it happens, these buybacks are just one piece of a large, global “short vol” trade.

      Townsend asks Cole to elaborate, and Cole explains that explicitly betting on short volatility by buying an inverse-VIX ETF, or directly shorting the underlying options yourself, is only one small component of the $2 trillion figure mentioned above.

      The short-vol trade – if you look at short volatility and you think about what volatility really isit’s a bet on stability. And when you’re betting on stability, that’s a myriad of different bets.

      Part of that is the expectation that markets remain low volatility or low realized volatility. Part of that is short Gamma – so there is this implicit short Gamma exposure.

      Part of that is a bet that correlations remain stable. Or that different market relationships remain anti-correlated with one another. Or that implied correlations are dropping. Or realized correlations are dropping.

      And the other aspect of the short-volatility bet is that interest rates remain low or go lower.

      So if we look at each of these different factors, these are the risk exposures that you will have when you own a portfolio of short options. And, if you own a portfolio of short options you are short Vega, you’re short Gamma, you’re short correlation, you’re short interest rates.

      What we’ve seen now with this short-vol trade, explicitly and implicitly, is that various financial engineering strategies out there that have become dominant in the marketplace – we’re talking about the largest hedge funds in the world employ these strategies – that are just replicating the exposures of a short-options portfolio.

      And of course the VIX trade gets a lot of attention, but it’s the smallest portion of the short-vol trade. This is what we call explicitly shorting volatility. This is where you’re literally going out and you’re shorting an option. Or you’re shorting a volatility future.

      But in the VIX space, that’s only about $5 billion worth of short exposure. You have about $8 billion of vol-selling funds, according to Bloomberg. And then about $45 billion (estimated) in pension over-writing strategies, these short-port or short-call strategies the pensions are doing.

      So, in total, there’s about $60 billion of explicit short volatility. Which is big. But that’s not the most concerning aspect.

      The bigger aspect is this $1.4 trillion in implicit short volatility strategies. These are replicating the exposures of a portfolio of short options, even though they may not be directly selling derivatives or directly selling optionality.

      Among these implicit strategies are the $600 billion worth invested in risk-parity strategies. $400 billion in volatility-control funds. And about $250 billion of risk premium strategies…

      Gamma

      …and then there’s the equity exposure of the CTAs…

      …Then, at the bottom of the short-vol pyramid, are corporate buybacks, which have helped prop up the market by BTFDing at every turn.

      Vega

      And it makes sense: How else can a CEO directly influence a company’s EPS? You can’t magically increase sales – there are too many factors that go into that.

      But you can pick up the phone and call your broker.

      But let’s think about what share buybacks do. If you’re a corporate CEO, you don’t have the ability to generate growth. You can’t generate sales. And you want to get your bonus. So if you can’t generate earnings, if you can’t help your top of the line, what you can do is reduce the number of shares. And this will artificially increase the EPS so you can hit your bonus target.

      You go out and you issue debt and you buy back your shares. You’re leveraging the company up – which means that you’re exposed to interest rates, you’re exposed to market stability.

      And then you’re buying back your shares, resulting in a price-insensitive buyer that is always underneath the market, resulting in this price-insensitive buyer always buying on market dips.

      So, the result of this is that you’re artificially reducing realized volatility. The strategy is always to buy on dips. That is part of the replication strategy of the short-variance swap. Literally it’s
      part of the replication of shorting vol.

      When you add all of this exposure together, we have this self-reflexive short straddle of financially-engineered strategies in the market. And this really comes out to about $2 trillion worth of implicit and explicit short-volatility strategies. And then you can tack on the share buybacks. To some effect that is resulting in this.

      Cole adds one more chilling fact:

      Back in 1987, these strategies made up just 2% of the market.

      Today, anywhere between 6% and 10% is held in these self-reflexive implicit and explicit short vol strategies.

      Infer from that what you will…

      Listen to the whole interview below:

    • US Ambassador Urges Russia To React "Calmly" To "Corrupt Oligarchs" List Due Monday

      The US Ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to react “calmly” to the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of “corrupt oligarchs” due Monday. The list is designed to “name and shame” elite Russians into thinking twice before engaging in business with Putin’s government. It will be up to Congress to decide whether the list should be published.

      “I urge to take this report, based on its real and not a contrived essence and without emotions, because relations between our countries are far from being exhausted by this one legal act, and I was reminded about it in Washington, where I was two weeks ago,” – US Ambassador John Huntsman via –newsru (translated)

      Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters two weeks ago that Russia will react to any punitive measures against its businessmen, stating “The principle of reciprocity remains,” suggesting that Putin would employ a commensurate response to a U.S. crackdown on oligarchs. 

      As we previously reported, the list was created pursuant to an August, 2017 law requiring the Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by “their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth” in order to penalize the Kremlin for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election.

      The report is intended to “name and shame” Russia’s elite who prop up Putin, and to send a message “that Putin’s aggression in terms of Russian interference in our elections will be very costly to them,” said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of State who led the State Department Russia sanctions office.

      It is likely to signal to Russia’s political and business classes that they’d be better off maintaining a distance from the Putin government, and it could lead to further sanctions against individuals who participate in corruption, Fried said.

      The Russian elite reacted with something between anxiety and panic about the prospect of this list,” Fried said. “They focused on this immediately, and they’re very worried about it.” –USA Today

      The list will include “indices of corruption with respect to those individuals,” along with any foreign assets they hold. According to Bloomberg, this sent Russian fat cats into a liquidation frenzy – with many scrambling to contact D.C. lobbyists in order to buy their way off the list. 

      Some people who think they’re likely to land on the list have stress-tested the potential impact on their investments, two people with knowledge of the matter said. Others are liquidating holdings, according to their U.S. advisers.

      Russian businessmen have approached former Treasury and State Department officials with experience in sanctions for help staying off the list, said Dan Fried, who previously worked at the State Department and said he turned down such offers. Some Russians sent proxies to Washington in an attempt to avoid lobbying disclosures, according to one person that was contacted. –Bloomberg

      Corruption Index

      The Treasury’s report must include “indices of corruption,” which will list any foreign assets next to an oligarch considered corrupt. “Because of the nervousness that the Russian business community is facing, a number of oligarchs are already beginning to wind back businesses, treating them as if they are already designated, to stay ahead of it,” said Daniel Tannebaum, head of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s global financial sanctions unit. 

      Russia’s well-connected billionaires have hired law firms to try to keep them off the list, said Ariel Cohen, a Russia analyst at the Atlantic Council think tank. Russians believe the list is a first step toward increasing the current 29 Russians under U.S. sanctions by adding 40 to 400 names, Cohen added. –USA Today

      Vladimir Putin has warned wealthy nationals over worsening U.S. sanctions, and provided them with a capital amnesty program designed to allow oligarchs to repatriate some of their overseas assets. Meanwhile, Putin has issued special bonds which will allow the wealthy to hold assets outside of the reach of the U.S. Treasury. 

      Separate sanctions handed down

      As we reported earlier in the month, Treasury officials are concerned that people will confuse Monday’s list of corrupt oligarchs with separate sanctions handed down to Russians over the Ukraine crisis. 

      On Friday, the Treausry Department added 11 individuals to a “blacklist” which now contains 21 Russian or Ukraainian nationals and nine companies – most of which are power or energy firms. The Treasury’s announcement reads in part: 

      WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) today designated 21 individuals and 9 entities under four Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to Russia and Ukraine, including three individuals and two entities related to Russia’s transfer of four turbines made by a Russian-German joint venture to Crimea.  Today’s action is part of Treasury’s continued commitment to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia until it fully implements its commitments under the Minsk agreements.  This action underscores the U.S. government’s opposition to Russia’s occupation of Crimea and firm refusal to recognize its attempted annexation of the peninsula.  These sanctions follow the European Union’s recent extension of sanctions and reinforce our continued unity in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

      As a result of today’s action, any property or interests in property of the designated persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be blocked.  Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons involving these persons are generally prohibited.

      “The U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin.  “Those who provide goods, services, or material support to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions.”

      Today, OFAC also identified 12 subsidiaries that are owned 50 percent or more by previously sanctioned Russian companies to provide additional information to assist the private sector with sanctions compliance.

      Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, sparking the conflict in Ukraine. Diplomatic ties have worstened between the two nuclear superpowers, with Washington accusing Moscow of interfering in the 2016 US presidential election. 

      In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for “hacking the election,” expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on  August 2 – stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations.

      Days after the Senate vote, Russia responded by expelling 755 US diplomats – to which President Trump thanked Putin for having “cut our payroll.” 

      “I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States,” Trump said, adding “we’re going to save a lot of money… there’s no real reason for them to go back.”

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

      Several weeks later in August 2017, the Trump administration “thanked” Russia again – giving them 72 hours to vacate three more diplomatic facilities in San Francisco, Washington DC, and New York City. 

      Towards the end of 2017, Washington took a series of steps to further vilify Russia, branding the country a “rival power” and “revisionist power,” while imposing new sanctions on several individuals linked to the Kremlin. 

      Trump’s Executive Order

      Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury’s “indices of corruption” are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt

      In fact, anyone in the world who has “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services” to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt.

      As such, tomorrow’s release of “corrupt oligarchs” by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States. 

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 28th January 2018

    • Trump Ignores DOJ Warning, Notifies Sessions He Wants FISA Memo Released

      President Trump broke with the Department of Justice last week by calling for the release of a four-page “FISA memo” purportedly summarizing widespread surveillance absues by the FBI, DOJ and Obama Administration, reports the Washington Post.

      The President’s desire was relayed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions by White House Chief-of-Staff John Kelly last Wednesday – putting the Trump White House at odds with the DOJ – which said that releasing the classified memo written by congressional republicans “extraordinarily reckless” without allowing the Department of Justice to first review the memo detailing its own criminal malfeasance during and after the 2016 presidential election. 

      The decision to release the memo ultimately lies with congress.

      Somehow WaPo knew that Kelly and Sessions spoke twice last Wednesday – once in person during a “small-group afternoon meeting” and again that night over the phone. 

      Trump “is inclined to have that released just because it will shed light,” said a senior administration official who was speaking on the condition of anonymity to recount private conversations. “Apparently all the rumors are that it will shed light, it will help the investigators come to a conclusion.”

      The memo, written by staffers for House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), was made available for all Congressional House members in mid-January for viewing in a secure room. Lawmakers who have seen the document have called for its release to the general public, as it is said to contain “jaw dropping” revelations of extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team during and after the 2016 presidential election.

      “I have read the memo,” tweeted Rep. Steve King (R-IA), adding “The sickening reality has set in. I no longer hold out hope there is an innocent explanation for the information the public has seen. I have long said it is worse than Watergate. It was #neverTrump & #alwaysHillary. #releasethememo.”

       “It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News. “It’s troubling. It is shocking,” North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.

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

      Meanwhile, The Washington Post is spinning Trump’s desire to release the memo as yet another example of the President’s “year-long attempts to shape and influence an investigation that is fundamentally outside his control,” pointing to reports that he wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller III last summer (which Trump denies). WaPo also points to Trump’s complaints over Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for not properly supervising the Mueller probe, and the President’s alleged comments to former FBI Director James Comey demanding loyalty and asking him to back off the investigation into former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, who was fired for misleading Vice President Mice Pence over his contact with Russians. 

      In other words, Trump has been resisting an active investigation which has yet to prove any collusion, and which has experienced significant mission creep into the personal finances of the Trump team – and The Washington Post is spinning it as Trump once again interfering with an investigation. 

      So now the President is calling for the release of the four-page FISA memo, which will reportedly put an end to the Russia investigation while quite possibly setting the stage for the criminal prosecution of those involved in trying to frame Trump. 

      That said, the Washington Post article appears to be nothing more than an exercise in pearl clutching over Trump’s demands for loyalty – as the paper notes that nothing the President has done is likely to lead to criminal charges. 

      To prove obstruction of justice, Mueller would have to show that Trump didn’t just act to derail the investigation but did so with a corrupt motive, such as an effort to hide his own misdeeds. Legal experts are divided over whether the Constitution allows for the president to be indicted while in office. As a result, Mueller might seek to outline his findings about Trump’s actions in a written report rather than bring them in court through criminal charges. It would probably fall to Rosenstein to decide whether to submit the report to Congress, which has the power to open impeachment proceedings.

      As Trump faced growing questions about everything from his June directive to fire Mueller to his more recent grousing about Rosenstein, the White House was largely silent. In response to several specific queries, White House spokesman Hogan Gidley offered a written statement that addressed few of them. –WaPo

      “The president has been clear publicly and privately that he wants absolute transparency throughout this process,” Gidley said in the statement. “Based on numerous news reports, top officials at the FBI have engaged in conduct that shows show bias against President Trump and bias for Hillary Clinton. The president has said repeatedly for months there is no consideration of terminating the special counsel.”

      So future leaders of the free world take note; you’re not allowed express dissatisfaction when a federal agency allegedly colludes with the previous administration and an establishment candidate to rob you of an election using unverified evidence from Russian officials; it is also frowned upon to have a problem with a kangaroo-court witch hunt launched to push the invented narrative. 

    • Foss: "Is The Trump Revolution Over?"

      Authored by Paul-Martin Foss via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

      A year after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, analysts and commentators are assessing both his performance in the first year of his presidency as well as the outlook for the remainder of his first term. Entering office as a surprise winner and a political neophyte, many people didn’t know just what to expect from Trump. Would he do what he pledged to do as a candidate, or was his campaign rhetoric just a lot of hot air to bamboozle enough people into voting for him?

       

      One of Trump’s most popular promises was to “drain the swamp” and, while the President has tried to make some strides in that respect over the past year, there are concerning signs that any swamp draining may be coming to an end.

      Personnel Is Policy

      One of the primary rules in politics is “personnel is policy.” What a politician says he’ll do is less important than who he hires to implement his policies. In many cases, the people he hires may not agree with his policies and may work to surreptitiously (or not so surreptitiously) undermine and co-opt him. We certainly see this on Capitol Hill all the time, where class after class of freshman Congressmen enters Congress pledging to fix the way Congress works. Yet time after time they get corrupted by the system in Washington. Why is that? It’s because of the people they hire.

      Coming into office often with no experience of how things operate in DC, they rely on their respective party apparatuses to staff their offices. They’ll hire Hill veterans as their chiefs of staff and legislative directors, staffers who are more concerned with the future of their careers and who consequently do everything they can not to upset party leadership so that they can maintain their ability to work on the Hill and work the government/lobbying revolving door. We’re seeing much the same thing happening in the White House today too, as Trump continues to hire establishment Republicans who wouldn’t be out of place in a Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or John McCain White House.

      A prime example of that was Reince Priebus, President Trump’s first White House chief of staff. Trump’s initial appointment of Priebus as chief of staff was a confusing one, as Priebus’ establishment credentials all but guaranteed that he would try to bring as many establishment operatives to the White House as possible. By all accounts there was a civil war of sorts within the White House regarding appointments both within the White House and at cabinet agencies, as the pro-Trump insurgent wing fought things out with the establishment and its cadre of opportunistic former never-Trumpers.

      While rumors of Priebus’ ouster were at first thought to be a promising sign that the insurgents were winning, Trump’s appointment of Secretary of Homeland Security and former Marine Corps general John Kelly as Priebus’ successor dashed any hopes of that occurring. Kelly immediately cracked down on access to the President, appointing himself as the gatekeeper through whom all information to and from the President was to flow. In less than a month Kelly had forced Steve Bannon out of the White House, and he slowly began to purge the White House of Trump loyalists. Anyone who wasn’t going to go along with Kelly’s organizational plans wasn’t going to last long.

      One of the more recent loyalist departures was that of Omarosa Manigault, the former The Apprentice contestant who served as Director of Communications for the White House Office of Public Liaison and who reportedly enjoyed direct access to President Trump. By all accounts Omarosa bristled at Kelly’s attempts to control staffers’ access to the President, and attempted to continue contacting the President directly. Kelly obviously couldn’t handle what he viewed as insubordination and, after a series of scathingly negative articles in the media about Omarosa’s personality and job performance, she was forced out too.

      Trump Supporters Replaced With Establishment Figures

      It isn’t just the White House that has seen departures either. Cabinet agencies have witnessed similar incidents, such as Tom Price’s resignation as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In Price’s case, as with Omarosa and others, his departure fell into a familiar pattern. The official is targeted for removal, either by disgruntled insiders or outside political opponents, a series of negative articles in the vehemently anti-Trump media ensues, the media continue to fan the flames as long as they can, and eventually the target either resigns or is forced to quit.

      In many cases the replacements after these resignations are retreads from previous administrations, or candidates favored by the establishment. For instance, the nominee to succeed Price at HHS, Alex Azar, served as General Counsel and Deputy Secretary at HHS during the George W. Bush Administration before becoming the top lobbyist for pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and later President of the company’s US operations. Kelly’s replacement as Secretary of Homeland Security was his chief of staff while at DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, another veteran of the George W. Bush Administration.

      Trump’s replacement for Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser was LTG H.R. McMaster, an Army general whose 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty, was critical of Vietnam-era military leaders for not questioning and criticizing the strategy they received from civilian leaders. McMaster’s deputy national security adviser was Dina Powell, a former managing director and partner at Goldman Sachs, and his pick to replace her is Nadia Schadlow, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

      The policies these appointees pursue, too, are nothing more than a continuation of some of the worst violations of our freedoms, such as pushing for reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA and forcing states to comply with the REAL ID Act. These appointees and their policies wouldn’t be out of place under any other establishment administration, so how exactly does Trump expect to drain the swamp by appointing these people and why is he doing it?

      Foreign Policy Is the Canary in the Coal Mine

      President Trump is increasingly hemmed in by the people he has chosen to staff his administration. Kelly is doing his best to control the flow of information to the President so that he can control what ideas Trump can choose from. Kelly’s relationship with Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, a former Marine Corps general, and National Security Adviser McMaster is said to be a close one, meaning that Trump’s foreign policy will essentially be controlled by generals who have fully embraced the mindset and world view of the military-industrial establishment. Given the trust Trump has placed in “his generals,” it is unlikely that we’ll see a sensible foreign policy coming from the White House any time soon.

      Trump’s ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has taken a far more hawkish line than candidate Trump ever did, and has been doing that since day one with no repercussions. Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, recently announced a “new” US policy towards Syria that is committed to the overthrow of Syrian President Assad, a policy whose outcome would have a severe destabilizing effect on the Middle East and whose execution would continue the risk of provoking a war with Russia. The US Senate has increasingly become emboldened in standing up to President Trump too, questioning some of his anti-establishment appointments or, in the case of former Congressman Scott Garrett, Trump’s nominee to head up and reform the Export-Import Bank, rejecting them outright. Establishment figures finally sense that the populist wave that swept Trump into office is subsiding, and they are beginning to feel their oats.

      Many in Trump’s electoral base are unaware of the political machinations that are going on to isolate and co-opt the President. They see passage of a tax reform bill, withdrawal from TPP, and continued movement towards building a border wall as signs that Trump is still “winning.” But recent comments from Kelly, who called Trump’s previous stances on immigration and the border wall “not fully informed” make it clear that the cabal encircling the President has its own ideas and will continue working to bring them to fruition. They’ll chip away at Trump and his policy ideas piece by piece until they are able to substitute their own ideas for his.

      The establishment’s ideal is to surround the President with policy experts who present him with a limited range of policy options which have the establishment’s stamp of approval, excluding any non-interventionist or outside-the-box thinking. They hope to then get the President to claim their ideas for his own when doing his victory laps, making him think that he was responsible for what are actually the same doomed-to-fail policies that have circulated throughout DC for decades. When things inevitably go belly up, it will be Trump taking the blame in the media while the establishment figures advising him slink back to their think tanks, law firms, or lobbying firms to await the next President they can hijack.

      The establishment isn’t averse to using the media to nudge Trump towards their side either, as Kelly’s latest interview indicates. Although there have been some reports that Trump is getting fed up with Kelly, he recently took to Twitter to support his chief, capitulating to the establishment to ensure the appearance of a unified front within the White House. One thing is for sure, there won’t be any changes in the direction of White House policy until Kelly leaves or is fired. But even then, Trump may be so hopelessly encircled by now that he’ll end up picking another establishment chief of staff, perhaps even at the recommendation of those closest to him.

      Parallels Between Trump and Reagan

      Trump’s current situation brings back memories of President Reagan’s first term, when chief of staff James Baker, a former Democrat and Bush family friend, was able to put his allies in key positions, ensuring that he was largely successful in keeping President Reagan from enacting any real conservative policies or appointing conservatives to key positions such as the Supreme Court. Another poor personnel pick, Treasury Secretary (and later White House chief of staff) Don Regan, chaired the US Gold Commission and was instrumental in neutering the nascent movement to return the US dollar to a commodity standard, thus completely sidelining a policy that was important to Reagan.

      What the Reagan Revolution could have accomplished was nipped in the bud, replaced by what we have now come to know as neoconservatism – a focus on hawkish and interventionist foreign policy, making peace with the welfare state, and economic views that pay lip service to free markets while continuing a policy of big government and crony capitalism. Large budget deficits and a series of proxy wars all over the world were the Reagan legacy, and set the pattern for the actions of future Presidents.

      Had it not been for the Soviet Union’s collapse and the post hoc ergo propter hoc assignation of the collapse to the Reagan Administration’s military spending, Reagan’s stature would not be nearly what it is today. Unfortunately the timing of that collapse, even though it was economically inevitable, provided neoconservative foreign policy with a shot in the arm that it has continued to ride for the past quarter of a century in an attempt to maintain its veneer of legitimacy.

      We’re facing a similar, Reagan-like situation with President Trump now, as the voters who put him into office intending to give Washington the middle finger have found their man stymied at every turn. If Trump supporters fail to understand what is going on and reflexively support everything coming out of the White House because they view it as originating from President Trump, then their ability to actually effect a change in Washington’s policies will be virtually nil.

      The policy establishment surrounding the President knows what it wants and has a strategy to achieve it. They believe that dangling red meat issues like the border wall in front of Trump supporters, or occasionally rattling sabers against North Korea or Iran, giving those in the base just a taste of what they want, is enough to keep them placated while the establishment pursues its own ambitions. Trump supporters are still in the honeymoon phase right now, so that strategy may work, at least for the present.

      If Trump supporters don’t wake up and recognize what is transpiring very soon, by the time they realize that they’ve been hoodwinked and that Trump has become the establishment’s Manchurian President it will be too late. Any possibility for good that could have come out of the Trump White House will have been squandered and it may take another generation or more before a similar opportunity presents itself.

    • CNN Turkey Fake News Goes Viral: 'American Sniper' Star Killed In Syria, Pentagon Forced To Deny

      On Friday a Middle East regional CNN network reported that American Sniper Chris Kyle had been killed while embedded with US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria by invading Turkish troops, and the story went viral. Or maybe they meant to say actor Bradley Cooper?

      Though priding itself for its brand recognition in setting the agenda for accurate mainstream news and top notch investigative journalism around the globe, CNN has once again embarrassed itself as its sister network, CNN Turk, fell for what should have been an easy to recognize prank. At the end of this week false reports that two US Special Forces members had been killed in Syria while embedded with American-backed Kurdish units fighting in the northwest Aleppo district of Afrin in Syria spread wildly through major Turkish media after CNN Turk reported it.


      Bradley Cooper as SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle in “American Sniper” via NPR

      The only problem is that the identified US soldier purported to be featured in a photo circulating on social media which is the basis of CNN Turk’s story was actually none other than “American Sniper” actor Bradley Cooper. That’s right, as one classic and sadly all too literally serious headline from Newsweek reads – CNN Turkey Reports ‘American Sniper’ Bradley Cooper Killed In Syria, U.S. Military Denies.

      And yes, the Pentagon was forced to issue a quick and urgent denial of the story through US Coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dillon, who said Friday: “Reports of two US-Coalition members killed in Afrin are FALSE. Completely UNTRUE.”

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

      CNN Turkey, which is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System Europe and Doğan Media Group, was fooled into believing the satirical report which appears to have started among pro-Kurdish social media.

      However, the prank should have been easy to recognize considering all early social media reports were based on a photograph said to be a US Special Forces member named Eddie Bragdon who went by the Kurdish nom de guerre “Zana Rizgar”. But the photograph was so obviously a shot from the 2014 film, American Sniper, based on the life of the late Navy SEAL veteran Chris Kyle.

      According to Newsweek, the fake story began circulating when a pro-YPG account called “Bird Person” tweeted the following on Thursday:

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

      Newsweek: “In what’s believed to be the original claim, an account supportive of the Kurdish YPG reported the death of U.S. Special Forces member Eddie Bragdon, a.k.a. Zana Rizgar, instead of the actual individual pictured: U.S. actor Bradley Cooper in the film ‘American Sniper.’ The user later claimed that the post was intended to be satirical and criticized Turkish media for picking it up literally.”

      Amidst the propaganda war now raging between Turkish and pro-Kurdish media as Turkey continues its ‘Operation Olive Branch’ inside northwest Syria, both Turkish nationalists – who celebrated the supposed “deaths” of US troops embedded with Syrian Kurds – and Kurdish sources, promoted the story on social media.

      Yet from the moment the story spread social media users were quick to point out the obvious origins of the photo. But not before CNN Turk featured the story.

      The story of “Eddie Bragdon’s” death was featured briefly on CNNTurk.com but was quickly taken down:

      And here’s the story tweeted out by CNN Turk’s verified account: The headline reads “Former US Special Forces military was killed in the ranks of the YPG”

      It appears a number of Turkish military analysts also promoted the story, which also gave it momentum before it landed on CNN Turk’s homepage. 

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

      Many of the dozens of articles which were subsequently written by Turkish and regional outlets based on the CNN reporting have now since taken offline. 

      The initial pro-Kurdish social media account from which the fake news originated is now celebrating the fact that it successfully trolled CNN and other mainstream outlets, again tweeting the original Bradley Cooper photo but now with the caption (in Turkish), “Smile for the camera!” 

      We give it a 10 for some top notch trolling. For CNN it’s about par for the course. 

    • Visualizing Real Inflation – A Decade Of Grocery Prices For 30 Common Items

      Over the span of 2000-2016, the amount of money spent on food by the average American household increased from $5,158 to $7,203, which is a 39.6% increase in spending.

      Despite this, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, for most of the U.S. population, food actually makes up a decreasing portion of their household spending mix because of rising incomes over time. Just 13.1% of income was spent on food by the average household in 2016, making it a less important cost than both housing and transportation.

      That said, fluctuations in food prices can still make a major impact on the population. For lower income households, food makes up a much higher percentage of incomes at 32.6% – and how individual foods change in price can make a big difference at the dinner table.

      FLUCTUATING GROCERY PRICES

      Today’s infographic comes from TitleMax, and it uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show the prices for 30 common grocery staples over the last decade.

      Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

      We’ve summarized the statistics in the following table to show the grocery prices in 2007 and 2017, as well as the total percentage change.

      Only prices of three items fell: chicken breasts (-6.4%), whole milk (-7.4%), and eggs (-14.9%).

      However, the average price increase for all items was 22%, buoyed especially by meats like bacon (58.2%), ground beef (44.6%), top round steak (40.6%), frozen turkey (38.3%) and sirloin steak (35.2%).

      THE FUTURE OF FOOD

      As we’ve previously noted, technology is being applied to agriculture and food in really interesting ways – and the future of food could be very different than what we see today.

      How will the grocery prices of everyday staples be affected by growth in automated vertical farms, aquaponics, in vitro meats, and artificial animal products?

      With shifting consumer preferences towards more local and sustainable products, it will be interesting to revisit this data in the coming years.

    • "It Just Gets Worse And Worse": A Record 32% Of Used Car Trade-Ins Are Underwater

      We have frequently written about the unsustainable trends in new car sales in the United States created by the combination of lower rates, easing underwriting standards and voracious demand for new securitizations by wall street and pension funds that will do just about anything for an extra 20bps of yield. 

      This week we find that according to the latest Edmunds’ data, many of the same problems also afflict the used auto market.  The most startling takeaway from the report is that the percentage of used cars being traded in with negative equity values – which means that dealers lenders are willing to accept an immediate loss for new transactions – continues to rise and currently stands at an all-time high 32.4%, up from under 20% in 2009.  Moreover, the average balance of the negative equity also continues to rise and stood at a record $5,130 last year, up over a quarter from $4,075 a decade earlier.

      This confirms that banks and finance companies are making riskier loans to keep up revenue as vehicle sales slow. and here’s why.

      The record percentage of underwater loans on trade-ins suggests that car owners are trading in their vehicles sooner than they had previously. According to Bloomberg, “a consumer is often the most underwater on his or her auto loan in the first few years of ownership, because the value of the vehicle drops fastest over that time. By the fourth year, for example, the borrower has paid down a big chunk of the loan, catching up to the depreciation they took in the first few years.”

      As Bloomberg explains, for borrowers who do trade in their underwater cars, lenders are essentially giving them the money to pay down their loan. The dealer sells the used car, and whatever balance remains on the old loan is folded into the new loan. The borrower might get a longer-term loan than he or she had before to help keep monthly payments manageable. That means that loan balances are getting bigger relative to the value of the new car, and the debt will be paid off slower.

      Confirming this, Moody’s analyst Jason Grohotolski notes that the growing proportion of underwater trade-ins means that at least some borrowers are getting deeper and deeper in debt with every car they buy. This will – eventually – translate to bigger and bigger losses on loans for finance companies whenever the economy heads south, the same way lower down payments slammed mortgage lenders after the credit and housing bubbles burst.

      “It’s this cycle that just continually gets worse and worse,” Grohotolski said. “It has to stop, and it doesn’t have a favorable outcome.”

      Meanwhile, the average used car price continues to rise and stood at $19,400 as of Q3 2017. This suggests that, since most people simply roll their negative equity into their new loans, many used car buyers are likely sitting on loans where ~15-20% of their outstanding balance simply reflects their negative equity from their previous car.

      But wait, there’s more.

      Despite rising average used car prices and rising negative equity, average monthly payments for used cars have managed to stay pretty much flat since Q3 2011.  Obviously, monthly payments are determined by 3 variables: beginning loan balance, interest rate and term.  While interest rates have (at least until recently) come down since 2011, they haven’t declined nearly enough to offset a $2,800 increase in starting principal balance which indicates that, like new car loans, used car loan terms are getting stretched out further and further to manage monthly payments.

      * * *

      Record “underwater” trade-ins are just one of the many facets of the deteriorating US auto market, which has been slowing down in the past year, and in 2017 new vehicle sales fell 1.8% to 17.2 million in 2017, the first decline since 2009…

      … even as loan volumes for new and used car purchases was on track to be higher than ever. Suggesting more trouble lies ahead, Moody’s said that the growth in the average amount financed for a new car outpaced median income growth between 2013 and 2016, suggesting borrowers are getting more strained.

      This can be quantified directly by observing surging delinquency and default rates for subprime auto loans. With few ways to keep the business flowing as demand slows, one staple remains which, of course, is to reach out to less creditworthy borrowers. As a result, delinquencies are soaring for subprime auto loans and in the third quarter reached the highest rate in more than seven years, according to New York Fed data from November.

      While few deny that the US auto segment, and especially its financing subset is in a bubble, there is broad consensus that unlike subprime mortgages, the bursting of the auto loan bubble will not have dire consequences. In fact, according to a surprisingly rosy take by Bloomberg, “any pain from car-loan trouble will likely be just a shadow of the housing bubble collapse, because the auto debt market is much smaller.” There were around $9 trillion of mortgages outstanding at the end of the third quarter, compared with $1.2 trillion of auto debt, the New York Fed said.

      And so far, many of the bonds backed by subprime auto loans are performing well thanks to built-in protections for investors. Wells Fargo analysts said in a note Wednesday that bonds issued by two of the biggest subprime auto lenders — Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. and General Motors Co.’s finance arm — have room to reach prices not seen since before the financial crisis.

      Of course, where this analysis falls short is assuming a linear deterioration once the bubble pops; as the last financial crisis demonstrated, once the waterfall effect of bursting asset bubbles is in play, the fallout quickly turns exponential, and no rational assessment will do the ensuing collapse justice. As such, the real question is whether auto loans will be the trigger for the bursting of the next consumer debt bubble, or just one of the many dominoes to fall.

      Meanwhile, Wall Street is back to its usual antics. Since auto loans performed relatively well during the financial crisis, it encouraged new lenders to step into the space, according to Dan Zwirn, chief investment officer of Arena Investors. Rrisky car loans can be bundled into bonds and sold to yield-starved investors, who are eager to buy them, and as the chart below shows, that’s precisely what is going on.

      And, according to Zwirn, that also gives cheap funding to finance companies to reach out to riskier borrowers.

      “The same sorts of excesses are happening in car loans that happened in residential mortgages,” Zwirn said. “Ultimately, when the overall fixed-income market has an issue, even if this is not the cause, car loan debt will likely suffer greatly.”

      And since Zwirn’s hedge fund had to shutter a decade ago precisely because it did not envision this particular scenario, Zwirn’s caution deserves particular attention..

      For now, the stable economy and low interest rates are helping keep borrowers afloat for now said Moody’s Grohotolski. But once there is a slowdown, and rates start rising aggressively, lenders will face a reckoning.

      “We could be in a continued state of risk-building on lenders’ balance sheets,” Grohotolski said. “You may not necessarily recognize all of that risk until an unexpected downturn. There could be a meaningful increase in losses.”

      * * *

      For now, besides the modest decline in total sales and surging delinquencies among subprime borrowers, there are few signs of an imminent storm in the new or used auto markets. However, chaos in the used-car market – once it accelerates – will hurt OEMs.

      As we pointed out in June, Morgan Stanley recently predicted that the surge in used-car inventory – driven by a flood of off-lease vehicles – would saturate the market, resulting in as much as a 50% crash in used car prices over the next couple of years which would, in turn, put further pressure on the new car market, which has already resorted to record incentive spending to maintain volumes.

      Used Car Prices

      What can borrowers do when prices inevitably crash? Last year, the New York Times reported that lenders are increasingly taking delinquent borrowers to court, and winning – garnishing their wages for years for cars that were, in many cases, worth far less than the amount they’re paying.

      For working-class borrowers who are struggling in an economy with stagnant wages, this burden could create serious problems for the household budget, and beyond. It also means that once the current low-rate, credit funded sugar high ends, it will be the middle class that pays for it, as usual.

    • "Even Orwell And Huxley Couldn't Imagine The Threat Posed By Facebook And Google"

      Authored by Jake Johnson via TheAntiMedia.org,

      In addition to warning that U.S. President Donald Trump represents an immense “danger” to civilization, billionaire George Soros used the spotlight of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Thursday to urge the international community to take seriously the threats posed by Facebook and Google, which he said could ultimately spawn “a web of totalitarian control” if they are not reined in.

      Particularly alarming, Soros said, is the prospect of Facebook and Google – which he scathingly deemed a “menace” to society – teaming up with “authoritarian states” to “bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developed system of state-sponsored surveillance.”

      Such “unholy marriages” could result in a strain of authoritarianism “the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined,” the billionaire investor cautioned.

      Soros went on to compare the tech giants’ impact on the internet – and social media in particular – to the effects of fossil fuel giants on the environment.

      “Mining and oil companies exploit the physical environment; social media companies exploit the social environment,” Soros said, warning that the days of internet monopolies like Facebook and Google “are numbered.”

      “They claim they are merely distributing information,” Soros added of the tech giants that are frequently denounced by critics of corporate power for abusing their market dominance.

      “But the fact that they are near-monopoly distributors makes them public utilities and should subject them to more stringent regulations, aimed at preserving competition, innovation, and fair and open universal access.”

      If tech companies are permitted to retain overwhelming control over information, “far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy” could result, Soros concluded.

      “The power to shape people’s attention is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few companies,” Soros said.

      “It takes a real effort to assert and defend what John Stuart Mill called ‘the freedom of mind.’ There is a possibility that once lost, people who grow up in the digital age will have difficulty in regaining it.”

      Below is a short clip of Soros’s speech.

      Full Transcript of his speech below:

      The current moment in history

      Good evening. It has become something of an annual Davos tradition for me to give an overview of the current state of the world. I was planning half an hour for my remarks and half an hour for questions, but my speech has turned out to be closer to an hour. I attribute this to the severity of the problems confronting us. After I’ve finished, I’ll open it up for your comments and questions. So prepare yourselves.

      I find the current moment in history rather painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of dictatorships and mafia states, exemplified by Putin’s Russia, are on the rise. In the United States, President Trump would like to establish a mafia state but he can’t, because the Constitution, other institutions, and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it.

      Whether we like it or not, my foundations, most of our grantees and myself personally are fighting an uphill battle, protecting the democratic achievements of the past. My foundations used to focus on the so-called developing world, but now that the open society is also endangered in the United States and Europe, we are spending more than half our budget closer to home because what is happening here is having a negative impact on the whole world.

      But protecting the democratic achievements of the past is not enough; we must also safeguard the values of open society so that they will better withstand future onslaughts. Open society will always have its enemies, and each generation has to reaffirm its commitment to open society for it to survive.

      The best defense is a principled counterattack. The enemies of open society feel victorious and this induces them to push their repressive efforts too far, this generates resentment and offers opportunities to push back. That is what is happening in places like Hungary today.

      I used to define the goals of my foundations as “defending open societies from their enemies, making governments accountable and fostering a critical mode of thinking”. But the situation has deteriorated. Not only the survival of open society, but the survival of our entire civilization is at stake. The rise of leaders such as Kim Jong-Un in North Korea and Donald Trump in the US have much to do with this. Both seem willing to risk a nuclear war in order to keep themselves in power. But the root cause goes even deeper.

      Mankind’s ability to harness the forces of nature, both for constructive and destructive purposes, continues to grow while our ability to govern ourselves properly fluctuates, and it is now at a low ebb.

      The threat of nuclear war is so horrendous that we are inclined to ignore it. But it is real. Indeed, the United States is set on a course toward nuclear war by refusing to accept that North Korea has become a nuclear power. This creates a strong incentive for North Korea to develop its nuclear capacity with all possible speed, which in turn may induce the United States to use its nuclear superiority preemptively; in effect to start a nuclear war in order to prevent nuclear war – an obviously self-contradictory strategy.

      The fact is, North Korea has become a nuclear power and there is no military action that can prevent what has already happened. The only sensible strategy is to accept reality, however unpleasant it is, and to come to terms with North Korea as a nuclear power. This requires the United States to cooperate with all the interested parties, China foremost among them. Beijing holds most of the levers of power against North Korea, but is reluctant to use them. If it came down on Pyongyang too hard, the regime could collapse and China would be flooded by North Korean refugees. What is more, Beijing is reluctant to do any favors for the United States, South Korea or Japan– against each of which it harbors a variety of grudges. Achieving cooperation will require extensive negotiations, but once it is attained, the alliance would be able to confront North Korea with both carrots and sticks. The sticks could be used to force it to enter into good faith negotiations and the carrots to reward it for verifiably suspending further development of nuclear weapons. The sooner a so-called freeze-for-freeze agreement can be reached, the more successful the policy will be. Success can be measured by the amount of time it would take for North Korea to make its nuclear arsenal fully operational. I’d like to draw your attention to two seminal reports just published by Crisis Group on the prospects of nuclear war in North Korea.

      The other major threat to the survival of our civilization is climate change, which is also a growing cause of forced migration. I have dealt with the problems of migration at great length elsewhere, but I must emphasize how severe and intractable those problems are. I don’t want to go into details on climate change either because it is well known what needs to be done. We have the scientific knowledge; it is the political will that is missing, particularly in the Trump administration.

      Clearly, I consider the Trump administration a danger to the world. But I regard it as a purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner. I give President Trump credit for motivating his core supporters brilliantly, but for every core supporter, he has created a greater number of core opponents who are equally strongly motivated. That is why I expect a Democratic landslide in 2018.

      My personal goal in the United States is to help reestablish a functioning two-party system. This will require not only a landslide in 2018 but also a Democratic Party that will aim at non-partisan redistricting, the appointment of well-qualified judges, a properly conducted census and other measures that a functioning two-party system requires.

      The IT monopolies 

      I want to spend the bulk of my remaining time on another global problem: the rise and monopolistic behavior of the giant IT platform companies. These companies have often played an innovative and liberating role. But as Facebook and Google have grown into ever more powerful monopolies, they have become obstacles to innovation, and they have caused a variety of problems of which we are only now beginning to become aware.

      Companies earn their profits by exploiting their environment. Mining and oil companies exploit the physical environment; social media companies exploit the social environment. This is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.

      The distinguishing feature of internet platform companies is that they are networks and they enjoy rising marginal returns; that accounts for their phenomenal growth. The network effect is truly unprecedented and transformative, but it is also unsustainable. It took Facebook eight and a half years to reach a billion users and half that time to reach the second billion. At this rate, Facebook will run out of people to convert in less than 3 years.

      Facebook and Google effectively control over half of all internet advertising revenue. To maintain their dominance, they need to expand their networks and increase their share of users’ attention. Currently they do this by providing users with a convenient platform. The more time users spend on the platform, the more valuable they become to the companies.

      Content providers also contribute to the profitability of social media companies because they cannot avoid using the platforms and they have to accept whatever terms they are offered.

      The exceptional profitability of these companies is largely a function of their avoiding responsibility for– and avoiding paying for– the content on their platforms.

      They claim they are merely distributing information. But the fact that they are near- monopoly distributors makes them public utilities and should subject them to more stringent regulations, aimed at preserving competition, innovation, and fair and open universal access.

      The business model of social media companies is based on advertising. Their true customers are the advertisers. But gradually a new business model is emerging, based not only on advertising but on selling products and services directly to users. They exploit the data they control, bundle the services they offer and use discriminatory pricing to keep for themselves more of the benefits that otherwise they would have to share with consumers. This enhances their profitability even further – but the bundling of services and discriminatory pricing undermine the efficiency of the market economy.

      Social media companies deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes. They deliberately engineer addiction to the services they provide. This can be very harmful, particularly for adolescents. There is a similarity between internet platforms and gambling companies. Casinos have developed techniques to hook gamblers to the point where they gamble away all their money, even money they don’t have.

      Something very harmful and maybe irreversible is happening to human attention in our digital age. Not just distraction or addiction; social media companies are inducing people to give up their autonomy. The power to shape people’s attention is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few companies. It takes a real effort to assert and defend what John Stuart Mill called “the freedom of mind.” There is a possibility that once lost, people who grow up in the digital age will have difficulty in regaining it. This may have far-reaching political consequences. People without the freedom of mind can be easily manipulated. This danger does not loom only in the future; it already played an important role in the 2016 US presidential elections.

      But there is an even more alarming prospect on the horizon. There could be an alliance between authoritarian states and these large, data-rich IT monopolies that would bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developed system of state-sponsored surveillance. This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined.

      The countries in which such unholy marriages are likely to occur first are Russia and China. The Chinese IT companies in particular are fully equal to the American ones. They also enjoy the full support and protection of the Xi Jingping regime. The government of China is strong enough to protect its national champions, at least within its borders.

      US-based IT monopolies are already tempted to compromise themselves in order to gain entrance to these vast and fast growing markets. The dictatorial leaders in these countries may be only too happy to collaborate with them since they want to improve their methods of control over their own populations and expand their power and influence in the United States and the rest of the world.

      The owners of the platform giants consider themselves the masters of the universe, but in fact they are slaves to preserving their dominant position. It is only a matter of time before the global dominance of the US IT monopolies is broken. Davos is a good place to announce that their days are numbered. Regulation and taxation will be their undoing and EU Competition Commissioner Vestager will be their nemesis.

      There is also a growing recognition of a connection between the dominance of the platform monopolies and the rising level of inequality. The concentration of share ownership in the hands of a few private individuals plays some role but the peculiar position occupied by the IT giants is even more important. They have achieved monopoly power but at the same time they are also competing against each other. They are big enough to swallow start-ups that could develop into competitors, but only the giants have the resources to invade each other’s territory. They are poised to dominate the new growth areas that artificial intelligence is opening up, like driverless cars.

      The impact of innovations on unemployment depends on government policies. The European Union and particularly the Nordic countries are much more farsighted in their social policies than the United States. They protect the workers, not the jobs. They are willing to pay for re-training or retiring displaced workers. This gives workers in Nordic countries a greater sense of security and makes them more supportive of technological innovations than workers in the US.

      The internet monopolies have neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions. That turns them into a menace and it falls to the regulatory authorities to protect society against them. In the US, the regulators are not strong enough to stand up against their political influence. The European Union is better situated because it doesn’t have any platform giants of its own.

      The European Union uses a different definition of monopoly power from the United States. US law enforcement focuses primarily on monopolies created by acquisitions, whereas EU law prohibits the abuse of monopoly power irrespective of how it is achieved. Europe has much stronger privacy and data protection laws than America. Moreover, US law has adopted a strange doctrine: it measures harm as an increase in the price paid by customers for services received – and that is almost impossible to prove when most services are provided for free. This leaves out of consideration the valuable data platform companies collect from their users.

      Commissioner Vestager is the champion of the European approach. It took the EU seven years to build a case against Google, but as a result of her success the process has been greatly accelerated. Due to her proselytizing, the European approach has begun to affect attitudes in the United States as well.

      The rise of nationalism and how to reverse it

      I have mentioned some of the most pressing and important problems confronting us today. In conclusion, let me point out that we are living in a revolutionary period. All our established institutions are in a state of flux and in these circumstances both fallibility and reflexivity are operating at full force.

      I lived through similar conditions in my life, most recently some thirty years ago. That is when I set up my network of foundations in the former Soviet empire. The main difference between the two periods is that thirty years ago the dominant creed was international governance and cooperation. The European Union was the rising power and the Soviet Union the declining one. Today, however, the motivating force is nationalism. Russia is resurgent and the European Union is in danger of abandoning its values.

      As you will recall, the previous experience didn’t turn out well for the Soviet Union. The Soviet empire collapsed and Russia has become a mafia state that has adopted a nationalist ideology. My foundations did quite well: the more advanced members of the Soviet empire joined the European Union.

      Now our aim is to help save the European Union in order to radically reinvent it. The EU used to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the people of my generation, but that changed after the financial crisis of 2008. The EU lost its way because it was governed by outdated treaties and a mistaken belief in austerity policies. What had been a voluntary association of equal states was converted into a relationship between creditors and debtors where the debtors couldn’t meet their obligations and the creditors set the conditions that the debtors had to meet. That association was neither voluntary nor equal.

      As a consequence, a large proportion of the current generation has come to regard the European Union as its enemy. One important country, Britain, is in the process of leaving the EU and at least two countries, Poland and Hungary, are ruled by governments that are adamantly opposed to the values on which the European Union is based. They are in acute conflict with various European institutions and those institutions are trying to discipline them. In several other countries anti-European parties are on the rise. In Austria, they are in the governing coalition and the fate of Italy will be decided by the elections in March.

      How can we prevent the European Union from abandoning its values? We need to reform it at every level: at the level of the Union itself, at the level of the member states and the level of the electorate. We are in a revolutionary period; everything is subject to change. The decisions taken now will determine the shape of the future.

      At the Union level, the main question is what to do about the euro. Should every member state be required to eventually adopt the euro or should the current situation be allowed to continue indefinitely? The Maastricht Treaty prescribed the first alternative but the euro has developed some defects that the Maastricht Treaty didn’t foresee and still await resolution.

      Should the problems of the euro be allowed to endanger the future of the European Union? I would strongly argue against it. The fact is that the countries that don’t qualify, are eager to join, but those that do qualify have decided against it, with the exception of Bulgaria. In addition, I would like to see Britain remain a member of the EU or eventually rejoin it and that couldn’t happen if it meant adopting the euro.

      The choice confronting the EU could be better formulated as one between a multi-speed and a multi-track approach. In a multi-speed approach, member states have to agree in advance on the ultimate outcome; in a multi-track approach, member states are free to form coalitions of the willing to pursue particular goals on which they agree. The multi-track approach is obviously more flexible but the European bureaucracy favored the multi-speed approach. That was an important contributor to the rigidity of the EU’s structure.

      At the level of the member states, their political parties are largely outdated. The old distinction between left and right is overshadowed by being either pro or anti-European. This manifests itself differently in different countries.

      In Germany, the Siamese twin arrangement between the CDU and the CSU has been rendered unsustainable by the results of the recent elections. There is another party, the AfD further to the right than the CSU in Bavaria. This has forced the CSU to move further to the right in anticipation of next year’s local elections in Bavaria so that the gap between the CSU and the CDU has become too great. This has rendered the German party system largely dysfunctional until the CDU and CSU break up.

      In Britain, the Conservatives are clearly the party of the right and Labor the party of the left, but each party is internally divided in its attitude toward Brexit. This complicates the Brexit negotiations immensely, and makes it extremely difficult for Britain as a country to decide and modify its position towards Europe.

      Other European countries can be expected to undergo similar realignments with the exception of France, which has already undergone its internal revolution.

      At the level of the electorate the top-down initiative started by a small group of visionaries led by Jean Monnet carried the process of integration a long way but it has lost its momentum. Now we need a combination of the top-down approach of the European authorities with the bottom-up initiatives started by an engaged electorate. Fortunately, there are many such bottom-up initiatives; it remains to be seen how the authorities will respond to them. So far President Macron has shown himself most responsive. He campaigned for the French presidency on a pro-European platform and his current strategy focuses on the elections for the European Parliament in 2019 – and that requires engaging the electorate.

      While I have analyzed Europe in greater detail, from a historical perspective what happens in Asia is ultimately much more important. China is the rising power. There were many fervent believers in the open society in China who were sent to be re-educated in rural areas during Mao’s Revolution. Those who survived returned to occupy positions of power in the government. So the future direction of China used to be open-ended; but no more.

      The promoters of open society have reached retirement age and Xi Jinping, who has more in common with Putin than with the so-called West, has begun to establish a new system of party patronage. I’m afraid that the outlook for the next twenty years is rather bleak. Nevertheless, it is important to embed China in institutions of global governance. This may help to avoid a world war that would destroy our entire civilization.

      That leaves the local battlegrounds in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. My foundations are actively engaged in all of them. We are particularly focused on Africa, where would-be dictators in Kenya, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo have perpetrated electoral fraud on an unprecedented scale and citizens are literally risking their lives to resist the slide into dictatorship. Our goal is to empower local people to deal with their own problems, assist the disadvantaged and reduce human suffering to the greatest extent possible. This will leave us plenty to do well beyond my lifetime.

    • Illinois Unveils Another Shocker: Sell A Record $107 Billion In Debt To Fund Insolvent Pensions

      If there is such a thing as financial hell, it is probably Greece… with Illinois coming in close second.

      For those unfamiliar, here’s a quick recap: Illinois (rate just one notch above junk) is drowning under a mountain of debt, unpaid bills and underfunded pension liabilities and it’s largest city, Chicago, is suffering from a staggering outbreak of violent crime not seen since gang wars engulfed major cities from LA to New York in the mid-90’s, while rising taxes have prompted a mass exodus with the state lost 1 resident every 4.3 minutes in 2017. 

      Here is just a small taste of some of our recent posts on Illinois’ challenges:

      Seen in this light, any irrational actions undertaken by the near-insolvent state would almost make sense, if not be expected. Actually make that irrational and utterly bizarre, such as a proposed offering of a mind-blowing $107 billion in debt – a never before attempted amount in the world of munis – to “fund” the state’s insolvent pension system, which would also assure that Illinois would default (even faster) in the very near future.

      According to Bloomberg, Illinois lawmakers are so desperate to shore up the state’s massively underfunded retirement system that “they’re willing to entertain an eye-popping wager: Borrowing $107 billion and letting it ride in the financial markets.

      If that number sounds oddly large, is because it is: an offering of this size would be by far the biggest debt sale in the history of the municipal market, and amount to roughly 50% more debt than bankrupt Puerto Rico accumulated in the run up to its record-setting insolvency.

      Putting the proposed deal in context, Illinois had $26.3 billion of general-obligation bonds as of July and the state sold $750 million of bonds in November to pay down unpaid bills that had accumulated during its two-year budget impasse. The state still has $8 billion of unpaid bills even after that issuance, according to the comptroller’s office.

      An Illinois Democrat came up with the perfect soundbite framing this head-scratching proposal:

      We’re in a situation in Illinois where our pension debt is just crushing,” Martwick, a Democrat who chairs the committee, said in a telephone interview. “When you have the largest pension debt in the world, you probably ought to be thinking big.”

      In other words, with left nothing to lose, Illinois may as well go big. So big, in fact, it’s never been seen before.

      What is just as shocking is that not even $107 billion would be enough to fully fund the Illinois pension system, which owes $129 billion after years of failing to make adequate annual contributions.

      And since the state’s constitution bans any reduction in worker retirement benefits, the government’s pension costs will continue to rise as it faces pressure to pay down that debt, a squeeze that pushed Illinois’s bond rating to the precipice of junk over the summer when the state avoided a historic downgrade below investment grade with a last minute budget deal.

      To be sure, Illinois wouldn’t be the first state to issue debt to shore up its pension system: the state did so again back in 2003, when it issued a record $10 billion of them. New Jersey also tried it with catastrophic consequences, seeing its pension shortfall soar again after the state failed to make adequate payments into the system for years. And then there is Detroit’s now infamous pension-fund borrowing in 2005 and 2006 helped push it into bankruptcy.

      Will Illinois gamble with a bond offering that – in one deal – could reprice the entire muni bond market? According to Bloomberg, the state legislature’s personnel and pensions committee plans to meet on January 30 to hear more about a proposal advanced by the State Universities Annuitants Association.

      The group wants Illinois to issue the bonds this year to get its retirement system nearly fully funded, on one condition: Illinois will pursue the deal assuming that the state can make more on its investments than it will pay in interest.

      Ah yes, ye olde IRR: will it be positive or negative?

      Naturally, the association which is advocating the plan says it will save the state $103 billion by 2045. That’s because Illinois’s current debt to its pensions grows at the rate that the retirement system expects to earn on its investments, which may be – shall we say – aggressive, and is much higher than the interest rates governments pay to issue municipal bonds.

      There is just one problem: whereas Illinois universities expect total returns to keep rising well in the double-digit category, others, such as GMO, forecast real stock returns of -4.7% annually for the next 7 years, while bonds lose 1% in real terms as Mish notes. Offsetting this is the cost of debt, which for the near-junk bonds will likely come out around 6-7% – unless of course the ECB decides to backstop these too – and Illinois Pensions are looking at annual losses of 8%+ every year for the next 7 years.

       

      On the surface, the plan appears to be sheer mathematical idiocy, guaranteeing that Illinois pensions are depleted even faster, but that never stopped Illinois before.

      According to the abovementioned democrat Robert Martwick, “if it makes sense, we’ll do it, and if it doesn’t we won’t.” Of course, he also said that Illinois has to be “thinking big” and there literally hasn’t been a bigger municipal bond sale ever.

      As for the rating agencies, they will be thinking just how deep into junk territory to downgrade Illinois. Indeed, as Bloomberg notes, municipal-bond investors would likely frown upon such a massive sale, to say the least.

      “Those types of deals are not typically positively received by the rating agencies or investors,” said Eric Friedland, director of municipal research in Jersey City, New Jersey, for Lord Abbett, which holds about $20 billion of municipal debt, including Illinois’s. “That type of issuance could definitely be a credit negative.”

      Needless to say, this kind of issuance contemplated by the association would significantly increase the state’s debt burden, and “will not go over well in the bond market,’” said Richard Ciccarone, Chicago-based president of Merritt Research Services LLC, which analysts municipal finance.

      “It absolutely increases default risk. There’s no cushion” Ciccarone said.

      But that’s not Illinois problem: at this point the state’s default is only a matter of time, and as such it may as well accelerate it if it means a faster transfer of cash from willing idiots debt investors to the state’s retirees. And considering that Illinois’ general obligations were trading back at par just a few months ago after tumbling in late 2016…

       

      df

      … the presence of numerous idiots debt investors who are willing to gamble with other people’s money just to beat treasuries is guaranteed.

    • Introducing The "Polar Silk Road" – China's Latest Arctic Power Grab

      China is expanding its “One Belt, One Road” initiative to satisfy a long-sought geopolitical objective: A claim to the Arctic.

      It has been nearly five years since China was granted permanent observer status on the Arctic Council, an international organization set up in the 1990s to protect the Arctic region from the destabilizing exploitation of its resources.

      The council has eight permanent members made up of the five coastal Arctic countries, Norway, Russia, Canada, US and Denmark, and three non coastal members, Finland, Iceland and Sweden.

      Arctic

      The Arctic

      Membership won’t help China exploit the Arctic’s oil deposits and other natural resources – to do that, it must negotiate extraction concessions on a country-by-country basis.

      But it will allow China to have a say when countries try to lay claim to sections of the Arctic, a process that is accelerating as warming temperatures have caused the ice to break apart, opening the region to exploration.

       

      China

      As one might expect, China is planning to expand shipping routes as it bolsters its case for a territorial claim.

      In a white paper released on Friday, the project’s managers said they expect to play a “major role in expanding the network of shipping routes” adding that “as a result of global warming, the Arctic shipping routes are likely to become important transport routes for international trade,” according to RT.

      According to the White Paper, China would encourage enterprises to build infrastructure and conduct commercial trial voyages, paving the way for Arctic shipping routes that would form a “Polar Silk Road.”

       

      China

      The Arctic has about 8 million square kilometers of land and 12 million square kilometers of water where countries share maritime rights and interests under international law.

      According to the white paper, China – which already has a stake in at least one large Russian natural gas project in the region – is also eyeing the development of oil, gas, mineral and other non-fossil resources, while also boosting fishing and tourism in the region. The report’s authors vowed to work “jointly with Arctic states, while respecting traditions and cultures of the Arctic residents, including the indigenous peoples and conserving natural environment.”

      “China, as a responsible major country, is ready to cooperate with all relevant parties to seize the historic opportunity in the development of the Arctic, to address the challenges brought by the changes in the region,” it said.

      Focused on boosting trade through infrastructure projects along the path of the ancient Silk Road, the “One Belt, One Road” initiative aims to strengthen China’s connections to Europe, the Middle East and beyond.

    • Hugh Hendry On "The Arrogance And Conceit Of A Well-Formed Argument"

      In his latest interview with RealVision’s Grant Williams, former Eclectica asset management co-founder Hugh Hendry delineates what he calls the “arrogance and conceit of a well-formed argument,” using examples from his own career, which has recently taken a difficult turn.

      In September, Hendry shuttered Eclectica after 15 years, angrily declaring that “markets are wrong” after a badly timed long-vol bet resulting in some of the worst monthly P&Ls of his career back in July and August…

       

      Hendry

      At the time, the 9.8% YTD loss triggered massive redemptions, which left the fund – which as recently as a few years ago managed billions – with just $30.6 million as of Aug. 31. At the time, an exasperated Hendry declared it wasn’t supposed to be like this…

      Eclectica’s final P&L:

       

      PL

      But a few months distance has clearly helped rejuvenate Hendry. In the interview, he shared some of the lessons he learned from one of the biggest defeats of his career:

      He started by recounting a bet on Readers’ Digest magazine, an iconic American brand, Hendry said. He described his thought process at the time thusly: Because of its stature and its utility to working-class people, Hendry said he “bought in to the story” that the magazine would endure…but he was wrong…

      “…So Reader’s Digest, you know here’s something where it’d been around forever. Dee Witt and Lionel Wallace had set this up were unbelievably rich, and you were just taking newspaper clippings, putting it together, and there are all these stories about after the Berlin wall came down. For so many people were trapped on the wrong side of the wall, except with communism, Reader’s Digest was like Coca-Cola; if only. I really bought into the story that Reader’s Digest was this iconic everything about America…”

      Hendry ended up booking a 50% loss. Later on, the magazine went out of business, prompting Hendry to engage in some valuable introspection…

      ….Ultimately, Hendry learned to question reductive narratives, instead of letting them guide his investment decisions…

      “…What is it like to lose 50% in a position, that’s the one you go back over again and again and that Reader’s Digest was one that I kept going back over again. What did you learn from it? I learned that the… how you become hostage to the clever, you can be hostage to the clever narrative, that the narrative has to have the legitimacy of a downtrend. That things don’t happen just because you’ve come across some wizzy theory, and back to that notion of inventory management, by all means come up with these ideas. You know, monitor them. But it’s the diligence and the wisdom to apply them only when they become relevant. I mean, that thing, it went bankrupt…”

      Circling back to the circumstances that precipitated Eclectica’s collapse, Wynn explains that his doomed long-vol trade was the result of putting his faith in an incredibly complex strategy that many of his investors were unfamiliar with.

      The experience, Hendry said, reminded him from a famous scene from the movie “Margin Call” (in our opinion, one of the greatest Wall Street movies ever made).

      In the scene, actor Jeremy Irons – who plays the CEO of a Lehman Brothers-like investment bank as the first stirrings of the financial crisis began to unfold – advises one of his analysts, who was the first to discover the preciousness of the nearly worthless mortgage-backed assets on the bank’s balance sheet – to explain the problem to him “as if he were a young child, or a golden retriever” adding “it wasn’t brains that got me here, I can assure you of that.”

      The trade was a bet that a sudden surge in equity prices could push volatility higher. Of course, Hendry got crushed as volatility slumped over the summer – eventually touching record lows during the early fall.

      And we were looking for like a very rough 2000 point move and the vol ramifications, yeah I spent, it was very hard to try and explain the intricacies of what we were doing so it definitely failed the complexity… it was a complex trade, and that was ultimately it’s failing, on top of that we ended up being long volatility, long stock volatility, equity stock volatility in a world where quantitative easing, where love it or otherwise, vol comes down. But there was a joy, and that’s what I miss, its that but what if we’re right? What if Santa comes? What’s gonna be under the tree? It’s the intellectual challenge of putting this puzzle
      Together.

      But in an irony that we imagine isn’t lost on Hendry, his thesis proved correct – he was just six months too early – as we explained in a post entitled “This Is What Market Madness Looks Like”.

      Vol has risen along with stocks in 2018…

      Vol

      Driven by a euphoric-buying of levered long stock positions…

      The urge to swing for the fences – the 50% return, as Hendry puts it – is a powerful one, and it drives traders and analysts to scour trade ideas until they find one that warrants absolute conviction…

      “I think we were discussing the… what’s it like, making 50% or whatever, or what’s it like managing money, the great thing, the thing I remember most clearly was, it was like a child on Christmas Eve, like when you create some of these convex trades and you think “what if we’re right? Just… what if we’re right? You’re not the, oh my god we’re going to make 10 million dollars…”

      And that’s the game, really. Opening these incredibly convex positions is incredibly gratifying…until it’s not.

      And that, really, is the lesson here…

       

    Digest powered by RSS Digest