Today’s News 26th October 2017

  • Volcano Experts To Monitor Canary Islands After Hundreds Of Earthquakes Recorded

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    It certainly seems like volcanoes are erupting all over the world right now, and the newest region to attract scientists’ attention, is the Canary Islands. 

    After hundreds of mini-earthquakes were this week, experts were called in to monitor a potential eruption.

    According to The Daily Mail UK, the situation could quickly become volatile. Seismic experts have been called in to carry out tests on the Canary Island of La Palma after fears that an active volcano may erupt. Hundreds of mini-earthquakes have been recorded on the island in the past few weeks, and scientists are now monitoring the seismic activity on La Palma 24 hours-a-day. Tests will be carried out on the slopes of the island’s active volcano, Cumbre Vieja, to attempt to calculate any potential risk of an eruption.

    Cumbre Vieja, on the volcanic ocean island of La Palma, near Tenerife, last erupted in 1971. But the hundreds of mini-earthquakes are prompting fears that it could go again – and soon. A slew of tiny tremors beneath the volcano’s surface in just a matter of hours this week have reportedly caused lava to rise up from beneath. Scientists will sample underground water, measure PH levels, conductivity, temperature, and radon dissolved gas activity, according to The Express. 

    All of this new testing was launched as a “hydrogeochemical monitoring program,”  will see tests conducted three times a week at four different points on the volcano. The 350 mini-earthquakes have prompted scientists to probe deeper into the volcanoes eruption potential. The National Geographic Institute (NGI) notes that a team is to be sent to La Palma to carry out CO2 profiles and structural studies of Cumbre Vieja.

    A majority of the tremors were so small, that they could not be detected by scientists and were not felt by any residents on La Palma. Between October 6 and 7, more than 40 tremors were recorded, with the most powerful hitting 2.7 on the Richter scale and located at a depth of 17.4 miles.  A few days without any tremors followed. Then, between October 10 and 13, seismographers on La Palma picked up another swarm of tremors, taking the total to 352 in just ten days. On October 13 alone, some 44 quakes were recorded at depths of between 9.3miles and 13.6miles, the most powerful at 2.1 on the Richter scale.

    In a report published on Saturday, the NGI adds that one of the reasons for the high number of tremors could be the three new monitoring stations in the area.

    The Director of the National Geographic Institute, María José Blanco, told Canarias7 that while "seismic swarms" are nmot abnormal, she added that they had "never recorded a similar swarm" since monitoring began.

  • CDC, IBM Announce Research Partnership Focused On Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence

    In what we imagine will become one of the most quickly realized use-cases for blockchain technology, the CDC and IBM have partnered to research how the former can develop a blockchain-based system to allow health-care providers to more easily share information about individual patients, and data about burgeoning pandemics.

    Since finding new possible applications for blockchain seemingly became the obsession of a legion of entrepreneurs and corporate technology chiefs in recent years, its potential to revolutionize the storage and dissemination of health records has received quite a bit of attention.

    While the partnership will focus on developing the technology for use by the federal government, the research will help aid in the creation of health-care solutions for the private market, said IBM’s chief science officer, Shahram Ebadollahi. Ebadollahi made the announcement alongside IBM’s chief health officer, Kyu Rhee, during Watson Health’s panel discussion at the Fast Company Innovation Festival.

    And by combining blockchain technology with breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, the creation of home units that perform diagnostic functions in lieu of a doctor may not be far off.

    Rhee said he believes AI applications in healthcare will eventually enable consumers to purchase a home health system as easily as they can now acquire a home security system. “Think about where we were with the internet in 1993,” he said. “That’s about where we are today with AI.”

    Rhee and Ebadollahi explained what many health insurers and health-care providers have already acknowledged: That blockchain is particularly well suited for sharing a patient’s sensitive medical records among multiple providers. Considering that most medical practices still store patient information in a paper chart that isn’t easily shared, many have identified medical records as an area ripe for blockchain disruption.

    “Blockchain is very useful when there are so many actors in the system,” Ebadollahi said. “It enables the ecosystem of data in healthcare to have more fluidity, and AI allows us to extract insights from the data. Everybody talks about Big Data in healthcare but I think the more important thing is Long Data.”

    As Rhee, who began his career practicing pediatric medicine, said healthcare professionals are swamped by data. “There are more than 8,000 healthcare publications each day,” he said.

    “Nobody can keep up. We need a system to translate all the data into key insights that can be applied to a patient, and that’s where AI systems can support a clinician.”

    And the security features of blockchain technology make it particularly well suited for storing sensitive health records.

    “Privacy and security come first,” Rhee said. “Patients own their data, and you can’t share data with people you don’t trust.”

    Of course, AI's potential stretches far beyond the health-care industry.

    “When a bunch of physicists collaborated and created this thing called the World Wide Web a few decades ago, nobody imagined Facebook and Google and Amazon,” he said. “With blockchain we can collect data and extract insights through AI, and the future will have an economy around that we can hardly even imagine right now.”

    However, anybody who expects these breakthroughs to arrive in the near term should probably reconsider. As we recently reported, some experts believe the hype surrounding AI and machine learnings is rapidly approach the “peak of inflated expectations…"

    …And as AI evangelists recognize that the technology could take decades to develop,  public expectations will soon move toward  the “trough of disillusionment."
     

  • China's Rise, America's Fall

    Via Golem XIV's blog,

    Will the rise of China mean the fall of America?  In a word, yes. Although decline might be more accurate.

    Why do I think this?  Because China is about to launch the PetroYuan and when it does the demand for dollars and for dollar denominated debt will shrink. When it does, I question whether the world will be so sanguine about the level of debt that America carries. If that happens then the value of the dollar is in question.

    At the moment no matter what level of debt America carries, other countries need dollars. Dollars to pay for oil, since oil is traded in dollars.  Dollars for their financial system so their banks can settle contracts for goods and services traded in dollars.

    But over the last few years China has been systematically putting in place everything it needs to launch the Yuan as not only a rival to the dollar in trading and settling oil contracts but as a rival to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  At the moment the only rival to the dollar is the Euro. I think it fair to say the relationship between the two currencies and their issuing powers, has been… ‘delicate’.  The news that Sadam Hussein was going to start trading his oil in Euros came just a few months before America and its lap dog GB, decided Sadam was a threat to world peace and went to war with him.  Something similar happened to Colonel Qaddafi.

    Under Qaddafi Libya’s currency was backed by the country’s large holdings of gold and silver. This had allowed Qaddafi to finance, for example, the entire construction of the Great Man Made River without going to Western banks for a single loan. Libya was debt free and owned its own resources and infrastructure. Obviously a very unsatisfactory state of affairs for any third world country to get ideas so far above their station.  Worse, he had a very public plan which he had laid before the Pan African Congress, to create a pan African currency backed by gold and silver to be launched by 2023. It was not too long before Hilary Clinton arrived in a freshly bombed Libya and crowed to CBS, “We came, we saw, he died.” Charming woman. I was only surprised she didn’t say “Mission accomplished.”

    Libya and Iraq were small enough, that their pretensions to threaten the hegemony of the dollar and have the jumped up arrogance to think they could trade their own resources in their own currency or a currency of their choice, could be dealt with by shock, awe and death. I think China might not be so easily dealt with.

    China’s plans for the replacement of the dollar and the positioning of their own currency are very like Libya’s. China too has had the idea to back its new settlement and perhaps one day its reserve currency, with gold.  And China is not alone. Russia has been a part of the BRIC group with an interest in the plan. Russia, like China has been a very large buyer of gold.

    As reported just a few weeks ago by the Irish Independent,

    …the Bank of Russia has more than doubled the pace of gold purchases, bringing the share of bullion in its international reserves to the highest of Mr Putin’s 17 years in power, according to World Gold Council data.

    In the second quarter alone, it accounted for 38pc of all gold purchased by central banks.

    The article goes on to explain how purchasing gold has meant that Russia has not had to buy foreign currencies.  For foreign currencies think Dollars.

    The gold rush is allowing the Bank of Russia to continue growing its reserves while abstaining from purchases of foreign currency for more than two years.

    China and Russia have very large holdings of gold between them. China actually produces 12% of the world’s gold and keeps much if not most of what it produces. The new Petro Yuan will be backed by Gold,  Something the IMF decades ago, said no paper currency should have.  A clear break with the Bretton Woods Dollar-world agreement.

    Who will use this new currency?  Over the past few years a network of bilateral agreements has been created around China and Russia. Back in 2012, in an article called   A new Reserve currency to challenge the dollar – What’s really going on in The Straits of Hormuz, I pointed out that not only had China and Russia agreed to bypass the dollar and trade direct in their own currencies but that,

    the India Times reported that India was talking to Iran about moving out of dollar settlements so as to be able to buy Iranian oil despite a US embargo. India said it was discussing settling in Gold. Remember, India has just signed a settlement agreement with China to use the Yuan.

    Remember also, Russia recently eclipsed Saudi as the number one supplier of China’s oil. And if I remember correctly Angola was number two. Promoting perhaps the recent state visit this year of Saudi’s King Salman to see Mr Putin. As The Guardian put it,

    Saudi king’s visit to Russia heralds shift in global power structures

     

    King Salman agrees new areas of cooperation with Vladimir Putin on first official trip by Saudi monarch to Moscow

    In addition Japan and China have agreed to trade in Yuan, by-passing the dollar, as has Iran. They are now trading their oil in Yuan or euros, but not the dollar. Ever wondered why Iran is ‘the axis of evil?  It’s because they don’t use the dollar.

    Then came the news in 2015 that Qatar had opened the first and so far only financial centre in the Middle East, for trading and clearing oil, gas and anything else, in Yuan. China’s ICBC is the central banking concern in the hub, allowing any Middle Eastern country to trade oil and gas and settle in Yuan. In the previous few years China’s trade with Qatar had tripled.  And now, guess what? Qatar has been declared by the US to be a sponsor of terrorism and US allies in the gulf , led by Saudi, have begun to blockade Qatar’s trade.  Hmm.  Any pattern emerging?

    The problem for the US is how much debt is too much for any country or business? Clearly it is not any magic figure or particular debt to GDP ratio. America and China carry huge debts and no one has balked…yet. How much debt you can carry is a function of debt to the estimated future productive  capacity of the country in question. That creates the demand for its currency and the demand for the currency creates a market and demand for debt denominated in that currency.

    At the moment the US can carry a huge debt load because everyone needs dollars to trade oil. And China can carry a huge debt because everyone needs yuan to buy the goods whose production was off-shored to China by our globalist leadership.

     

    But what happens to demand for Dollars and dollar debt when, not if, oil starts to be traded less and less in dollars?  I suggest the world’s appetite will diminish quite quickly. As it does so, the world will start to see US debt in a different light.  While the opposite will happen to China. And this is what interests me and makes me think China has a plan.

    At the moment China also has a very large debt load. I have argued that the Central Chinese authorities have not got the control they would like to have over the growth of that debt. Of course I have no inside information. But the on again/ off again attempts of the Chinese central authorities to deflate its housing-debt bubble and its quite out-of-control shadow banking lending suggests, to me at least, that the central authorities have not and can not control the level of debt being accumulated by provincial governments, their off-book, arm’s length financial vehicles, regional banks, property developers and the vast, largely unregulated trade in wealth management vehicles.

    Chinese debt already overflowed once back in the 90’s. Four companies were created to take the debt off the banks’ books and trade it away. Decades later these companies still exist and still have the bad debts from the 90’s hanging around. You will see headlines telling you how those companies have been doing well, making money. Suggesting their trade in bad chinese debt has been going well. The reality, if you dig a little deeper, is that those companies lobbied for and were given permission to engage in ‘proper’ banking activities. Which meant they began to make their own loans – to property developers.  As the property bubble continued to inflate over the last decade and a half they have ridden it and that, not trading the old bad-debt, is why they have made a profit.  But now those ‘bad’ banks, have themselves started to find some of their own loans going bad. In any hard-landing or financial paroxysm the ‘bad-banks’ will need to be rescued by a new bad banks. Bad banks for bad banks is not really a solution.

    I think the Chinese authorities can see this. It doesn’t take a genius after all.  What can they do?  Well if you already have a huge debt problem and know many of them are going to go bad and will do so overnight in the event of another global banking crisis, and know you are not able to reign it all in, then a very tempting alternative would be to get the world to agree that you can carry  more debt – a lot more.  And what could help convince the world? Well if your currency could become far more sought after, that would be peachy.

    And so I think the long standing Chinese goal of making the yuan an important international currency which China, and Hong Kong in particular, have been working towards for years, has now taken on a far greater import and urgency.  I think the Chinese central government’s  best way of avoiding a politically disastrous  domestic debt implosion is to get the Yuan to be used as a settlement currency for oil and not long after that to become a de facto rival to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    Recently I argued at length with a military analyst who disagreed that China would risk such a break with America. Too dangerous he felt. China, he pointed out has such huge holdings of American debt. He argued that the Chinese would prefer to work alongside the dollar.  I feel that even if the Chinese would prefer to ‘work alongside’ the dollar, this  will prove very difficult if not impossible. Once a flow of countries and trade moves away from the dollar there will be a momentum the Chinese will not be in control of.  Cooperation between dollar and Yuan as clearing and reserve currency, especially for oil, will be like trying to dock two super-tankers in a high sea.  In theory possible. In practice – not going to work.

    As for Chinese holdings of US debt – I think the advantages of avoiding a domestic debt implosion and projecting the Yuan to world centre stage, will outweigh the losses. I also think, If I were the Chinese, I would imagine a scenario where the dollar does begin to look vulnerable. Its value begins to be questioned, nations holding dollars and dollar debt will feel America’s profligate indebtedness is a global danger. They will blame America. How wonderful then, for China to arrive and say to a worried world, on the edge of a huge crisis, “Fear not, we have thought ahead and can offer you the use of a new currency – one backed by GOLD not paper debts. We are here to save you. To offer a ride on a sound ship as an alternative to the rotten and leaking ship you have been riding on.”  China will be able to position their rise not as an aggressive act, not as trying to destabilise the world, but as trying to save it, from the collapse of an internally divided, corrupt, aggressive and indebted America.

    America’s decline will be both financial and political. Financial due to the recalibration of what the world thinks of America’s debt load, and therefore their confidence in and need for the dollar. Political, because America has got used to being able to enforce its foreign policy through sanctions and embargoes. But once oil and other goods and the nations trading in them, no longer need the dollar for their trade, and do not have to use US clearing or custodial banks, then this power evaporates.

    Try to imagine the shift in power when Wall Street’s banks are no longer guaranteed top position as the world’s custodial banks and Manhattan’s Southern District Court (Wall Street’s court)  is no longer in a position to dictate to whole nations via decisions upon Wall Street Custodial banks, what debts those nations and their custodial banks must pay and to whom.  The whole edifice of Bilateral Investment Treaties and the trade agreements they sit inside, depends for enforcement upon the US banks being the custodial banks and the Southern District court’s rulings being able to tell those banks what they must do.  Take that power away, which will happen if the dollar is no longer pre-emininent, and America will no longer be able to enforce its foreign policy or world view via economic sanction.

    I think the main US banks will be positioning themselves to try to bridge this decline by having a major presence in Hong Kong. They are all already there but will be working to be part of the new Yuan-world of trade and clearing.

    Of course this is speculation. But it seems to me the underlying evidence of the previous decade makes it worth thinking about.

    If I am in any way correct then I think other things follow.

     I think the House of Saud knows it’s future is in question. I have written a lot about how I see Qatar rising to rival Saudi. Qatar not Saudi has the Yuan clearing house.  Saudi is late to the party.  Can Saudi risk being seen to move away from its traditional ally, America?  If it does, too quickly, and signs yuan trade deals it risks falling as soon as Americal turns its back.  If it doesn’t move quickly enough it risks being completely eclipsed by Qatar,  having to go to Qatar cap in hand to trade its oil with Russia and China.

    I see the political changes within the House of Saud as signs of the internal struggles to decide which way to go.  I personally think the House of Saud will fall.

    I also think the position of Israel under its present leadership is also very fragile.  Israel needs Saudi.  While they may seem to be on opposite sides, in many ways they are on the same side.  If the House of Saud falls or changes allegiances from America to Russia/China then Israel will become even more isolated than it is.  And of course if America is eclipsed and does enter a period of decline, then Israel will go with it.

    If any of the above is near the mark, will it mean the end of America? Of course not. American’s will still work and sleep and raise their children like everyone else.  But the pre-eminence of the dollar and American finance will decline as the stock of dollar denominated bonds and debt agreements expires, and with it the power and wealth of many of America’s elite. How that decline will sit alongside America’s still overwhelming military power I don’t know.

    Of course what I have suggested above is merely speculation but  personally I think another debt crisis will happen, because never ending QE and Central Bank debt buying cannot go one for ever, and what China does in the next few months could very well destabilise the whole unstable system.   Many people will suffer and lives will be blighted. But I wonder if, when we all look back from a decade or a generation after, if we won’t think it lucky the crisis did finally come and the system we have been slaving under since 2007 as well as those who have forced it upon us for their own enrichment, were called to account.

    It is difficult to accept that such historic changes could occur.  But history has not ended despite what some have claimed.

    Rumours of History’s end have been, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated. History is very much alive and happening to us, now. We are, as the Chinese saying goes, living in interesting times.

  • Einstein's Scribbled Theory On Happiness Sells For $1.6 Million – 195x Highest Expectations

    Normal
    0
    false

    false
    false
    false

    EN-GB
    X-NONE
    X-NONE

    Normal
    0
    false

    false
    false
    false

    EN-GB
    X-NONE
    X-NONE

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-priority:99;
    mso-style-parent:””;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin-top:0in;
    mso-para-margin-right:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
    mso-para-margin-left:0in;
    line-height:107%;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
    mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;}

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-priority:99;
    mso-style-parent:””;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin-top:0in;
    mso-para-margin-right:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
    mso-para-margin-left:0in;
    line-height:107%;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
    mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
    mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
    mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
    mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;}

    A scribbled note by Albert Einstein which described his theory on the key to happy living was sold at auction in Jerusalem for $1.56m.

    According to The Telegraph, the winning bid for the note far exceeded the pre-auction estimate of between $5,000 and $8,000, according to the website of Winner's auction house.

    "It was an all-time record for an auction of a document in Israel," Winner's spokesman Meni Chadad told AFP…Bidding in person, online and by phone, started at $2,000. A flurry of offers pushed the price rapidly up for about 20 minutes until the final two potential buyers bid against each other by phone. Applause broke out in the room when the sale was announced.

    The newspaper reports that Einstein was on a lecture tour of Japan in 1922 and had recently been awarded the Nobel prize. Einstein didn’t have cash to pay a tip to a bellboy in the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo, so he gave him two notes, predicting they would be worth more than a tip. He is reported have said.

    “Maybe if you're lucky those notes will become much more valuable than just a regular tip.”

    The Telegraph continues, Einstein dedicated his life to science, but suggested in the notes that fulfilling a long-term ambition doesn't necessarily guarantee happiness. 

    The note said.

    “A quiet and modest life brings more joy than a pursuit of success bound with constant unrest.”

    The anonymous buyer was from Europe.

    The notes were sold by an anonymous Hamburg resident who commented "I am really happy that there are people out there who are still interested in science and history and timeless deliveries in a world which is developing so fast."

    On the second note was written “where there’s a will, there’s a way”. It sold for $240,000.

     

  • The United States Of Toxins

    Via Priceonomics.com,

    Every year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires most large industrial facilities to report the volume of toxic chemicals they release into the environment. 

    The EPA takes this data and consolidates it into the Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI), which is then used to set environmental policies in place.

    We analyzed this data along with Priceonomics customer, Ode, a company that creates environmentally-conscious cleaning products. So, we got interested in the information buried in these massive, hard to understand reports. What are the most commonly released toxins? In which states and cities are the most chemicals emitted? Which industries contribute the most to this pollution?

    Summary of findings:

    • As a state, Alaska produces the most toxins (834 million pounds)
    • Zinc and lead compounds (common products of the mining industry) are the most common toxins
    • Metal mining accounts for 1.5 billion pounds of toxins, while chemicals (515 million) ranks second
    • On a county level, the Northwest Arctic of Alaska leads the list, but multiple Nevada counties round out the top 5
    • Kotzebue, AK produces the most toxins as a city (756 million pounds), and Indianapolis, IN (10.9 million) produces the most out of the top 100 most populous cities

    A note on methodology

    For this analysis, we looked at the EPA’s most recent TRI report, looking at data from 2016.

    This includes data reported from more than 18,000 facilities across the U.S., spanning major industries like manufacturing, mining, chemicals, and utilities. It includes total releases (in pounds) of roughly 650 different toxins which are determined to have a significant adverse effect of humans and/or the environment. And in this report, “release” means that a chemical was “emitted to the air or water, or placed in some type of land disposal.”

    More information about the report and the methodology used by the EPA can be founds here.

    The United States of Toxins

    We began by tallying total toxin releases by state. This includes all toxins across all industries. In the map below, darker colors indicate a higher total volume of toxins (in pounds).

    Original source: Ode

    On the mainland, we can see that Nevada and Utah facilities are especially detrimental to the environment — but a strip of states in the Rust Belt (Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio), along with Texas and Louisiana, are also major players.

    Alaska, though, handily outranks every other state by nearly 3x.

    Original source: Ode

    A closer look, at a county level, reveals that 91% of Alaska’s toxin releases come from one county: Northwest Arctic, AK:

    Original source: Ode

    In fact, taking this one step further, we see that nearly all of these toxins originate from one city: Kotzebue, AK — a tiny town that is home to 7,500 people.

    Original source: Ode

    Why? Just 90 miles from Kotzebue is Red Dog Mine, the largest source of zinc in the world, and a significant source of America’s lead. In operation since 1987, the mine is estimated to contain 77.5 million tons of zinc, lead, and silver — and each year, its activities release 756 million pounds of toxins into the environment.

    But these county and city lists have other stories to tell.

    Three of the top 5 cities — Humboldt, Lander, and Eureka — are in Nevada. All are known to contain multiple, active gold mines that collectively release hundreds of millions of pounds of toxins.

    The 50 most populous cities

    It’s likely you haven’t heard of a lot of the cities on these lists — and that’s because most of the major industrial facilities in the U.S. are set up outside the limits of most major cities, far from large populations.

    So, let’s take a look just at the 100 most populous cities in the U.S. (according the Census data). The list below is sorted by population size.

    Original source: Ode

    Interestingly, you’ll see that two of the largest cities in the U.S. — New York and San Francisco — have no data listed. Only certain “qualifying” facilities are required to submit data (those that release over a certain threshold of particular toxins), so we hypothesize that this is either because: A) These cities don't have qualifying facilities within city limits, since real estate is so valuable there, or B) The facilities that exist there just don't meet the minimum emissions required to report data.

    In any case, of the 50 most populous cities, Indianapolis, IN leads the pack with 10.9 million pounds. The city has long been cited for its poor air quality, a result of steel mills, auto plants, and numerous coal-powered power plants that spew out arsenic, lead, and mercury at alarming rates.

    But some of these cities are bigger than others, so it makes sense that they’d produce more toxins. Sticking with the 100 most populous cities, let’s look at toxins per square mile.

    Original source: Ode

    Baton Rouge, Louisiana tops the list here, partly thanks to Exxon Mobile’s massive oil refinery there — the second largest in the country, and one of dozens of plants that skirt the outer limits of the city.

    Henderson, Nevada, which ranks second here, was once a wastewater dump that took 18 years and more than 500,000 environmental tests to get building approval for.

    Per capita, we see the same cities top the list, with a few extra additions (Cleveland, Wichita).

    Original source: Ode

    The biggest aggressors

    Looking over the lists above, you’ll notice that most of the top cities and counties are in areas known for mining. It comes as no surprise then, that mining is the industry responsible for the highest percentage of toxins released in the United States.

    Original source: Ode

    At 1.52 billion pounds, metal mining produces triple the next category, the broadly-defined “chemicals,” which includes such toxins as sulfuric acid, propylene, and sodium carbonate. (The EPA exhaustively lists its industry classifications here).

    Electric utilities (368 million pounds), paper (170 million), and hazardous waste (146 million) also contribute large amounts of toxins industry-wide.

    But how does this break down on a more specific scale?

    Original source: Ode

    Zinc compounds (739 million pounds), and lead compounds (650 million) — both products of mining — dominate the list of top individual toxins released. Nitrate compounds, which are a common byproduct of fertilizers and human excrement, rank in at 193 million pounds, and another water pollutant, Ammonia (163 million), also ranks high.

    Certain companies, we find, are also largely to blame for mass percentages of the toxins released in the United States.

    Original source: Ode

    Metal mining corporations dominate this list, but we also see a number of larger holding corps here (Koch Industries, Berkshire Hathaway), as well as government operations (U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority).

    *  *  *

    Collectively, industries in the United States released more than 3.54 billion pounds of toxins into the environment in 2016. That’s the equivalent weight of about 25.3 million American adults — or roughly 8% of the entire U.S. population. Nearly half of all Americans live in a county with unhealthy levels of air pollution, and 46% of America's lakes are too polluted to fish or swim in.

  • "Of Course It's A Bubble" – Ethereum Founder Says He's Not Worried About Digital Currency Valuations

    As technology stocks and securitized mortgages have demonstrated all too recently, just because a bubble pops doesn’t mean it’s the end of the market. Hell, it doesn’t even necessarily preclude that another bubble won’t emerge years later.

    Wall Street analysts trying to figure out if JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio are right about bitcoin – i.e. that digital currencies are frauds doomed to fail – should consider this phenomenon as they try to game out different scenarios for the future of the digital-currency market, said Ethereum co-founder Joe Lubin.

    When asked by Quartz about his thoughts on whether digital currencies are in a bubble, Lubin responded with an unequivocal yes.

    “Of course it’s a bubble. Hopefully it’s one in a series of increasingly larger bubbles,” Lubin said. “These bubbles bring attention, they bring value into the ecosystem. That value is recognized by software developers and business developers, and they create fundamental value and projects that grow the new architecture.”

    The popularity of Ethereum’s platform, which is widely celebrated for pioneering the development of smart contracts, has helped grow the digital currency’s valuation and market capitalization. It has also helped attract a legion of volunteer developers who help maintain and update Ethereum’s code, helping to make Ethereum the de facto industry standard for ICOs, many of which are built atop Ethereum’s platform.

    Lubin says that a Gartner analyst recently pegged Ethereum’s developer base at 30 times larger than the IBM-backed Hyperledger project, a competitor in the blockchain space that enjoys all the benefits of having the support of a legacy computing company that has already won the trust of business.

    Turning the conversation toward the volatility in digital currencies, Lubin said it will continue to subside as bitcoin becomes more widely used.

    Speaking to the volatility of cryptocurrencies, Lubin says that it’s just a matter of fewer people using them compared to traditional currency systems, and that it’s an addressable problem.

    “As they get a larger and larger monetary base, I think the volatility will decrease significantly. There are many state-issued currencies on this planet that are as volatile or more volatile than bitcoin or ether,” he said.

    As Quartz points out, analysts from Credit-Suisse have found that bitcoin is 11 times more volatile than the post-Brexit exchange rate between the British pound and US dollar, and three times more volatile than the price of oil.

    Of course, this hasn’t prevented bitcoin from rocketing to a fresh all-time high above $6,000 a coin earlier this week. Even a third hard-fork of the bitcoin blockchain has had only a marginally negative impact on the price.

    Ethereum hasn’t reclaimed an all-time high reached early in the summer, but has managed to hold on to most of its year-to-date gains.
     

  • The Time Has Come: Venezuela May Be In Default In Under 48 Hours

    This past weekend, Venezuela failed to make $237 million in bond coupon payment, blaming “technical glitches” when in reality it simply did not have the money (or wish to part with it). Adding the $349 million in unpaid bond interest accumulated over the past month as of last Friday, that brings Caracas’ unpaid bills to $586 million this month, just days before the nation must make a critical principal payment. And, as BofA sovereign debt analyst Jane Brauer writes, while the bank’s base case assumption is that Venezuela will make its debt service payments this year, “the probability of a short term default has increased substantially with coupon delays” and it could come as soon as this Friday, when an $842 million PDVSA principal plus interest payment is due, and which unlike typical bond payments does not have a 30 day grace period but instead is followed by a second $1.1 billion PDVSA coupon on Nov 2, also without a 30 day grace period.

    As Brauer writes, Venezuela has been in as similar situation of payment uncertainty in the recent past, with bond prices plummeting right before a big payment. For example, just before a big principal payment was due in April 2017 Venezuela received a $1bn loan from Russia just one week before the due date. At that time Ven 27s dropped 16% in a month (from $52 to $45) and recovered completely within a month.  Ven 27 has fallen to $35, as Venezuela has demonstrated that it will be a challenge to make all payments on time.  The difference between now and April is that coupon payment delays then came after, not before the payment.

    Meanwhile, Venezuela has managed to redefine the concept of payment “on time” which now means “by the end of the grace period”

    As we keep track of missed payments, the 5 missed payments, so far totaling $350mn all have a 30 day grace period, as did the $237mn payments over the weekend.

    The concern is that the principal payments coming up have:

    • No grace period in the bond indenture for an event of default
    • Three business day grace period before triggering CDS

    The concerning principal due dates are coming up, the first of which is this coming Friday, which means in less than 48 hours Venezuela could be in default unless it can find $842 million:

    • Friday, Oct 27 PDVSA 2020 $842mn
    • Thursday Nov 2 PDVSA 17N $1,121mn

    The collateral against the first bond is PDVSA’s Houston-based refining and retail subsidiary, and in just a few hours, the bondholders may be the (un)happy new ownders of said subsidiary.

    This weekend, there’s either going to be a lot of bond holders and traders drinking champagne, or there’s going to be a lot of stressed fund managers,” said Russ Dallen, managing partner at Caracas Capital Markets

    And to help everyone involved, here are some key tables, courtesy of BofA:

    1. Table 1. Ordered by due dates, missed payments and payments due today for Venezuela sovereign and wholly-owned quasi sovereign issuers.
    2. Table 2. Sorted by grace period end dates for missed payments and those due today
    3. Table 3. Debt service due dates for the next 9 months
    4. Table 4. Bond Attributes and face needed to block CACs

    Table 1

    Table 2

    Table 3

    Table 4

  • The FBI's Forgotten Criminal Record

    Authored by James Bovard via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    President Trump’s firing of FBI chief James Comey on May 9 spurred much of the media and many Democrats to rally around America’s most powerful domestic federal agency.

    But the FBI has a long record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that “the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” This has practically been the Bureau’s motif since its creation in 1908.

    The bureau was small potatoes until Woodrow Wilson dragged the United States into World War I. In one fell swoop, the number of dangerous Americans increased by perhaps twentyfold. The Espionage Act of 1917 made it easy to jail anyone who criticized the war or the government. In September 1918, the bureau, working with local police and private vigilantes, seized more than 50,000 suspected draft dodgers off the streets and out of the restaurants of New York, Newark, and Jersey City. The Justice Department was disgraced when the vast majority of young men who had been arrested turned out to be innocent.

    In January 1920, J. Edgar Hoover – the 25-year-old chief of the bureau’s Radical Division – was the point man for the “Palmer Raids.” Nearly 10,000 suspected Reds and radicals were seized. The bureau carefully avoided keeping an accurate count of detainees (a similar pattern of negligence occurred with the roundups after the 9/11 attacks). Attorney General Mitchell Palmer sought to use the massive roundups to propel his presidential candidacy. The operation took a drubbing, however, after an insolent judge demanded that the Justice Department provide evidence for why people had been arrested. Federal judge George Anderson complained that the government had created a “spy system” that “destroys trust and confidence and propagates hate. A mob is a mob whether made up of government officials acting under instructions from the Department of Justice, or of criminals, loafers, and the vicious classes.”

    After the debacle of the Palmer raids, the bureau devoted its attention to the nation’s real enemies: the U.S. Congress. The bureau targeted “senators whom the Attorney General saw as threats to America. The Bureau was breaking into their offices and homes, intercepting their mail, and tapping their telephones,” as Tim Weiner recounted in his 2012 book Enemies: The History of the FBI. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was illegally targeted because the bureau feared he might support diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia.

    Hoover, who ran the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972, built a revered agency that utterly intimidated official Washington. The FBI tapped the home telephone of a Supreme Court clerk, and at least one Supreme Court Justice feared the FBI had bugged the conference room where justices privately discussed cases. In 1945, President Harry Truman wrote in his diary, “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction…. This must stop.” But Truman did not have the gumption to pull in the reins.

    The bureau’s power soared after Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950, authorizing massive crackdowns on suspected subversives. Hoover compiled a list of more than 20,000 “potentially or actually dangerous” Americans who could be seized and locked away at the president’s command. Hoover specified that “the hearing procedure [for detentions] will not be bound by the rules of evidence.” “Congress secretly financed the creation of six of these [detention] camps in the 1950s,” noted Weiner. (When rumors began circulating in the 1990s that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was building detention camps, government officials and much of the media scoffed that such a thing could never occur in this nation.)

    From 1956 through 1971, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program conducted thousands of covert operations to incite street warfare between violent groups, to get people fired, to portray innocent people as government informants, and to cripple or destroy left-wing, black, communist, white racist, and anti-war organizations. FBI agents also busied themselves forging “poison pen” letters to wreck activists’ marriages. The FBI set up a Ghetto Informant Program that continued after COINTELPRO and that had 7,402 informants, including proprietors of candy stores and barbershops, as of September 1972. The informants served as “listening posts” “to identify extremists passing through or locating in the ghetto area, to identify purveyors of extremist literature,” and to keep an eye on “Afro-American type bookstores” (including obtaining the names of the bookstores’ “clientele”).

    The FBI let no corner of American life escape its vigilance; it even worked to expose and discredit “communists who are secretly operating in legitimate organizations and employments, such as the Young Men’s Christian Association and Boy Scouts,” as a 1976 Senate report noted. The FBI took a shotgun approach to target and harass protesters partly because of its “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of an act which might be criminal,” the Senate report observed. That report characterized COINTELPRO as “a secret war against those citizens [the FBI] considers threats to the established order.” COINTELPRO was exposed only after a handful of activists burglarized an FBI office in a Philadelphia suburb, seized FBI files, and leaked the damning documents to the media. The revelations were briefly shocking but faded into the Washington Memory Hole.

    FBI haughtiness was showcased on national television on April 19, 1993, when its agents used 54-ton tanks to smash into the Branch Davidians’ sprawling, ramshackle home near Waco, Texas. The tanks intentionally collapsed 25 percent of the building on top of the huddled residents. After the FBI pumped the building full of CS gas (banned for use on enemy soldiers by a chemical-weapons treaty), a fire ignited that left 80 children, women, and men dead. The FBI swore it was not to blame for the conflagration. However, FBI agents had stopped firetrucks from a local fire department far from the burning building, claiming it was not safe to allow them any closer because the Davidians might shoot people dousing a fire that was killing them. Six years after the assault, news leaked that the FBI had fired incendiary tear-gas cartridges into the Davidians’ home prior to the fire’s erupting. Attorney General Janet Reno, furious over the FBI’s deceit on this key issue, sent U.S. marshals to raid FBI headquarters to search for more Waco evidence. From start to finish, the FBI brazenly lied about what it did at Waco — with one exception. On the day after the Waco fire, FBI on-scene commander Larry Potts explained the rationale for the FBI’s final assault: “These people  had thumbed their nose at law enforcement.”

    Terrorism

    FBI counterterrorism spending soared in the mid to late 1990s. But the FBI dismally failed to connect the dots on suspicious foreigners engaged in domestic aviation training prior to the 9/11 attacks. Though Congress had deluged the FBI with almost $2 billion to upgrade its computers, many FBI agents had ancient machines incapable of searching the web. One FBI agent observed that the bureau ethos is that “real men don’t type…. The computer revolution just passed us by.” The FBI’s pre–9/11 blunders “contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists,” according to a 2002 congressional investigation. Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft groused that “the safest place in the world for a terrorist to be is inside the United States; as long as they don’t do something that trips them up against our laws, they can do pretty much all they want.” Sen. Richard Shelby in 2002 derided “the FBI’s dismal recent history of disorganization and institutional incompetence in its national security work.” (The FBI also lost track of a key informant at the heart of the cabal that detonated a truck bomb beneath the World Trade Center in 1993.)

    The FBI has long relied on entrapment to boost its arrest statistics and publicity bombardments. The FBI Academy taught agents that subjects of FBI investigations “have forfeited their right to the truth.” After 9/11, this doctrine helped the agency to entrap legions of patsies who made the FBI appear to be protecting the nation. Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, estimated that only about 1 percent of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. Thirty times as many were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest.

    In the Liberty City 7 case in Florida, FBI informants planted the notion of blowing up government buildings. In one case, a federal judge concluded that the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles” in order to make a “terrorist” out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”

    The FBI’s informant program extended far beyond Muslims. The FBI bankrolled a right-wing New Jersey blogger and radio host for five years prior to his 2009 arrest for threatening federal judges. We have no idea how many bloggers, talk-show hosts, or activists the FBI is currently financing.

    The FBI’s power has rarely been effectively curbed by either Congress or federal courts. In 1971, House Majority Leader Hale Boggs declared that the FBI’s power terrified Capitol Hill: “Our very fear of speaking out [against the FBI] … has watered the roots and hastened the growth of a vine of tyranny…. Our society cannot survive a planned and programmed fear of its own government bureaus and agencies.” Boggs vindicated a 1924 American Civil Liberties Union report warning that the FBI had become “a secret police system of a political character” — a charge that supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would have cheered last year.

    The FBI has always used its “good guy” image to keep a lid on its crimes. The controversy swirling about Comey’s firing should spur the American people, media, and Congress to take the FBI off its pedestal and place it where it belongs – under the law. It is time to cease venerating a federal agency whose abuses have perennially menaced Americans’ constitutional rights. Otherwise, the FBI’s vast power and pervasive secrecy guarantee that more FBI scandals are just around the bend.

  • Here's How Much Your Obamacare Rates Are Going Up In 2018 (Hint: It's A Lot And It's All Trump's Fault)

    A new study conducted by Avalere and released earlier today found that Obamacare rates will surge an average of 34% across the country in 2018.  Of course, this is in addition to the 113% average premium increase from 2013 and 2017, which brings the total 5-year increase to a staggering 185%.

    Meanwhile, and to our complete shock no less, Avalere would like for you to know that the rate increases are almost entirely due to the Trump administration's "failure to pay for cost-sharing reductions"…which is a completely reasonable guess if you're willing to ignore the fact that 2018 premium increases are roughly in-line with the 29% constantly annualized growth rates experienced over the past 4 years before Trump ever moved into the White House…but that's just math so who cares?

    New analysis from Avalere finds that the 2018 exchange market will see silver premiums rise by an average of 34%. According to Avalere’s analysis of filings from Healthcare.gov states, exchange premiums for the most popular type of exchange plan (silver) will be 34% higher, on average, compared to last year.

     

    “Plans are raising premiums in 2018 to account for market uncertainty and the federal government’s failure to pay for cost-sharing reductions,” said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. “These premium increases may allow insurers to remain in the market and enrollees in all regions to have access to coverage.”

     

    Avalere experts attribute premium increases to a number of factors, including elimination of cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, lower than anticipated enrollment in the marketplace, limited insurer participation, insufficient action by the government to reimburse plans that cover higher cost enrollees (e.g., via risk corridors), and general volatility around the policies governing the exchanges. The vast majority of exchange enrollees are subsidized and can avoid premium increases, if they select the lowest or second lowest cost silver plan in their region. However, some unsubsidized consumers who pay the full premium cost may choose not to enroll for 2018 due to premium increases.

    Of course, not all residents are treated equally when it comes to premium hikes.  So far, Iowa is winning the award for greatest percentage increase at 69%, with Wyoming, Utah and Virginia close behind. 

    On an absolute basis, Wyoming wins with the average 50 year old expected to drop nearly $1,200 per month (or roughly the cost of a mortgage) on health insurance premiums. 

    So what say you?  Have we finally reached the tipping point where enough full-paying Obamacare customers will simply forego insurance that they can no longer afford and cause the whole system to come crashing down?

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 25th October 2017

  • India 'Elites' Mimic Washington: Claim Russian 'Twitter Troll' Is Backing Opposition Party

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The US-Indian Strategic Partnership has rapidly evolved to such a point that the Indian government is now obliquely hinting that Russian twitter trolls are backing the country’s opposition leader, showing that New Delhi is willing to say and do anything in order to further ingratiate itself with Washington even if this means demolishing its decades-long relationship with Moscow.

    Indian Information and Broadcasting Minister Smriti Irani sent shockwaves through the diplomatic community over the weekend when she indirectly accused Russian “Twitter trolls” of supporting opposition leader Rahul Gandhi.

    The government official tweeted an article from ANI Digital which purports that Gandhi’s Twitter popularity is partly due to automated bots located in Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and Russia, snidely remarking in her post that “Perhaps @OfficeOfRG planning to sweep polls in Russia, Indonesia & Kazakhstan ??” The report in question is nothing more than unfounded speculation, but the strong symbolism behind it in trying to capitalize on the US’ anti-Russian hysteria shouldn’t be overlooked. Furthermore, the very fact that a high-ranking member of the Indian government, a woman who plays an indispensable role in the projection of the country’s soft power within its borders and beyond, would publicly retweet such a ridiculous claim and even add her own snarky commentary to it is very scandalous, to say the least.

    What it isn’t, however, is surprising, since India already launched a failed infowar against Russia a little over a year ago when it spread the fake news that the first-ever joint military drills between Russia and Pakistan were cancelled by Moscow due to Indian pressure. The author wrote about this in depth at the time in an article titled “India’s First-Ever Infowar Against Russia Was A Failure”, which concluded that New Delhi decided to crudely backstab its partners in Moscow due to American pressure and the vindictive sentiment prevalent in the Indian capital nowadays to “pay Russia back” for its game-changing rapprochement with Pakistan. What the ruling BJP party apparently fails to understand is that India’s much-trumpeted policy of “multi-alignment” isn’t exclusive to their country, and that other states could also seek to rebalance and diversify their foreign partnerships as the Multipolar World Order progressively becomes a reality. Leading the way on the Russian front are the foreign policy “progressives,” like Moscow’s top Afghan envoy Zamir Kabulov, who strongly believe that Russia must pioneer non-traditional geopolitical partnerships in order to fulfill its 21st-century grand strategic vision in functioning as the supreme balancing force in Eurasia.

    On the Indian side, though, there doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for practicing “multi-alignment” in the manner that it was publicly presented as, since New Delhi has lately been pivoting away from multipolar Eurasia and towards the unipolar Atlantic in decisively furthering the an unprecedented military-strategic partnership with the US. The author chronicled all of India’s moves in this direction in a series of articles listed under his 2017 Forecast for South Asia, and the reader is encouraged to skim through them if they’re unfamiliar with the pace and magnitude of what happened in this regards all across last year. The highlight event of this year was the artificially manufactured Donglang Drama that India and the US both exploited in order to “justify” New Delhi’s de-facto membership in the Washington-led “China Containment Coalition”. The US hasn’t made a secret out of this either, despite some Indian voices trying to downplay it in an unsuccessful attempt to “save face” before the eyes of the anti-imperialist “Global South”, as the American Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proudly boasted right before departing for his first South Asia trip that India is his country’s preferred partner for the 21st century.

    This pivotal announcement only formalized what was already known for some time, but it seems to have encouraged the Indian government to do away with its erstwhile halfhearted attempt to hide its newfound pro-American policies behind the slogan of “multi-alignment”. After all, it was right after Tillerson’s declaration of the 21st-century US-Indian military-strategic partnership that Indian Information and Broadcasting Minister Smriti Irani felt confident enough to publicly imply that Russian trolls are supporting an opposition candidate in order to swing the 2019 elections. This, of course, is a categorically false suggestion which was only made in order to smear Russia and demonstrate India’s fealty to its new American overlord. It also deliberately fails to acknowledge the billions of dollars in military and nuclear energy deals that the Modi government has signed with Moscow, and it also doesn’t recognize the reasons why Russia has more warmly embraced India in recent years in spite of its fast-moving and comprehensive strategic partnership with China. Such deceptive information warfare is typically the domain of the “ModiMob”, or government-backed ultra-jingoist trolls, and usually directed against non-state targets, but this is the first time that an Indian state actor employed such tactics against a seemingly friendly state.

    Bearing in mind the pro-American backdrop in which this anti-Russian Twitter troll accusation was made, it shouldn’t be seen as a coincidence that reports also started streaming in over the weekend around the same time stating that India was thinking about abandoning its planned $10 billion fifth-generation fighter jet deal with Russia. There’s been talk about this for a while, but the revival of these reports in the current context of Tillerson’s proclamation of a century-long military-strategic partnership, the Indian Information and Broadcasting Minister’s false suggestions that Moscow is coordinating a social media bot operation to unseat the BJP in 2019, and now the talk that India might pull out of what was supposed to have been the cornerstone deal of its partnership with Russia altogether indicate that New Delhi no longer views Moscow as the “brother” (“bhai”) that it claimed it was during the Old Cold War. Instead, India sees Russia as being no different than any other partner aside from the US, which has now replaced Moscow as New Delhi’s preferred patron given the paradigm-changing geopolitics of the New Cold War.

    The New Delhi-initiated “normalization” of what was hitherto regarded as the “special relationship” between India and Russia is further proof that India has agreed to become the US’ main proxy force for “containing China”, breaking BRICS, and dismantling multipolarity. Furthermore, this negative trend in bilateral relations and the unfriendly moves against Russia over the weekend also point to India’s desire to “play hardball” against its former ally, in that it no longer has any reservations about resorting to crude measures in order to squeeze as beneficial of a deal as possible from Moscow. India is infuriated that Russia won’t transfer high-end and ultra-classified military-technical information to it as part of any forthcoming weapons deals, something which is mandated by its “Make In India” policy, so it’s apparently decided to employ dirty tricks against its negotiating partner in the hopes that it can intimidate Moscow into complying. To the contrary, however, no matter if the jet deal ultimately goes through or not, Russia isn’t likely to forget what has happened, and this unpleasant experience will surely be used as an instructive example which will powerfully influence the course of the country’s future South Asian policy, most likely to Pakistan’s comparative benefit.

    The recent appointment of master strategist Nikolai Kudashev as the new Russian Ambassador to India will be very useful in helping Moscow navigate this uncertain period of relations with New Delhi, and the envoy’s prior history of working with China should help Russia become the consummate geopolitical balancer that it desires to be in Eurasia. It will probably be impossible to repair the damage that India’s ultra-jingoist BJP government has wreaked to the bilateral relationship over the past year, but that doesn’t mean the two Great Powers can’t pragmatically find some common ground between them even in the context of the US’ domineering influence over Indian policy nowadays. At the end of the day, the maintenance of cordial ties with Russia is important to India because it needs access to Russian resources and overland trade routes to Europe (the North-South Transport Corridor), and New Delhi also wants to establish a “soft” presence in the Russian Far East in order to give off the perception that it’s “strategically flanking” China. That said, the fact that an Indian minister would publicly mimic the US’ slanderous accusations against Russia by implying that Moscow is using Twitter bots to support the opposition is worrisome and suggests that pro-American sentiment in New Delhi is even stronger than the most vocal critics imagine it to be.

  • Democrats Distance Themselves From Hillary: "New" DNC Denies Knowledge Of Trump Dossier Funding

    Following the shocking (to some) revelations from WaPo with regard Hillary Clinton and the 'old' Democratic National Committee's financing of the infamous "Trump Dossier," the 'new' DNC has rushed out a press release denying any involvement as Democrats begin rapidly distancing themselves from this un-fake news.

    In a brief statement from DNC Comms Director Xochitl Hinojosa,

    "Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion-GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization."

    Of course, the DNC then added – for good measure…

    "But let's be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened."

    All of which is quite ironic following Perez' comments during the week:

    “We have the most dangerous president in American history and one of the most reactionary Congresses in American history,” Democratic Chairman Tom Perez said during his speech.

     

    Perez also labeled Trump an “existential threat” with no apparent worry that his words could be taken, along with those by Waters and other liberals in the media, as ammunition for a crazy leftist to once again attack Congress or even the White House.

    And even more ironic in light of the increasing evidence and investigation surrounding Hillary Clinton's dealing with the Russians over Uranium One.

    But back to the Hillary Clinton crisis of the night, Fox News' Brooke Singman noted:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As The 'New' DNC itself said: "the American people deserve to know what happened."

    While it is unclear whether CNBC's John Harwood, or anyone on MSNBC, will touch this topic, The White House is already asking questions…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    …which must mean "it's a vast right wing conspiracy."

  • A $500bn Mega City – Saudis Try To Turn Country Into Dubai 20 Years Too Late

    A promotional video released on Tuesday features a lifestyle so far unavailable in Saudi cities. It showed women free to jog in leotards in public spaces, working alongside men and playing instruments in a musical ensemble. (Bloomberg – see below)

    Today the Saudi regime took another step forward in its effort (Vision 2030) to save itself by launching a $500bn project to build a futuristic mega city spanning three countries. From an Al Arabiya report:

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) announced the launch of NEOM on Tuesday, a project that aspires to be the “safest, most efficient, most future oriented, and best place to live and work” in the kingdom.

     

    NEOM’s land mass will extend across the Egyptian and Jordanian borders, rendering NEOM the first private zone to span three countries.

     

     

    The project will be backed by more than $500 billion over the coming years by Saudi Arabia. Wind and solar power will allow NEOM to be powered solely by regenerative energy, while 70 percent of the world’s population will be able to reach it within eight hours.

    Like us, you might have been wondering why such an uninspiring name was chosen? Fortunately, Al Arabiya had the answer to that one.

    From the moment Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced the launch of NEOM project on Tuesday, a project representing the next generation city and global center for innovation, trade and creativity in the kingdom, people wondered what does the project’s name stand for. According to Al Arabiya the first three characters "NEO" comes from the Latin word which means “new”. The fourth character "M" is the abbreviation of the Arabic word “Mostaqbal” which means “future.”

    We can’t argue with the Saudis needing a new future.

    The Crown Prince also announced that Bilderberg Steering Committee member, Klaus Kleinfeld, former CEO of Siemens and Alcoa, had been appointed CEO of NEOM.

    Al Arabiya provided a handy, bullet point summary of the project.

    • NEOM aspires to be the safest, most efficient, most future oriented, and best place to live and work
    • NEOM is developed independent of the Kingdom’s existing governmental framework with investors, businesses, and innovators consulted at every stage of development
    • NEOM's unique location connects Asia, Europe, and Africa, will include the world’s most significant and promising economic sectors
    • NEOM land expands over 26,500 km2; its location will facilitate NEOM's rapid emergence as a global hub that has the potential to bring together the best of Arabia, Asia, Africa, Europe and America
    • NEOM will be backed by more than $500 billion over the coming years by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, local as well as international investors

    It seems that, unlike some of his predecessors, Crown Prince MbS has a high opinion of “human capital”.

    Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said on Tuesday that the kingdom’s human capital will represent the kingdom’s biggest element to the success of NEOM…”the NEOM project is a huge economic undertaking and it is only meant for dreamers. Our human capital will be the biggest element to its future success. We want to secure our place in the future of the world and we'll bring together creative, talented people from all over the world to make something unique,” the crown prince told the conference on Tuesday…Softbank Group CEO Masayoshi Son said at an investment conference in Riyadh on Tuesday that Saudi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had asked him to get involved.

    This was Bloomberg’s take:

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced plans to build a new city on the Red Sea coast, promising a lifestyle not available in today’s Saudi Arabia…The new project will likely surprise investors still trying to take stock of a series of major announcements made by the prince during his meteoric rise to power as he seeks to prepare Saudi Arabia for the post-oil era. In less than two years, he’s revealed plans to sell a stake in oil giant Saudi Aramco and create the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, and has ended a long-standing ban on female drivers. The prince, 32, made a rare public appearance at the conference to promote the project, telling the bankers and economic policy makers in attendance that the kingdom is moving to a “new generation of cities.” NEOM will be powered by clean energy, he said, and will have no room “for anything traditional.” It will likely be met with the same mixture of optimism and doubt that has greeted his previous headline-grabbing announcements. His supporters can be expected to cheer what they see as a bold drive to transform the kingdom, while others will point to past failed attempts to overhaul the Saudi economy that also included industrial cities in the desert.”

    We know which side of that debate we’d be on. Where are we on that $10bn project to create a financial district in Riyadh, again?

    Here are some more details on the project courtesy of Bloomberg.

    International Connections

    The ambitious plan includes a bridge spanning the Red Sea, connecting the proposed city to Egypt and the rest of Africa. Some 10,000 square miles (25,900 square kilometers) have been allocated for the development of the urban area that will stretch into Jordan and Egypt. The project “seems to be broadly modelled on the ‘free zone’ concept pioneered in Dubai, where such zones are not only exempt from tariffs but also have their own regulations and laws, hence operating separately from the rest of government,” said Steffen Hertog, a professor at the London School of Economics and longtime Saudi-watcher. “In Dubai, this has worked well, but attempts to copy it have done less well in the region.”

    Conservative Clerics

    A promotional video released on Tuesday features a lifestyle so far unavailable in Saudi cities. It showed women free to jog in leotards in public spaces, working alongside men and playing instruments in a musical ensemble. The one woman wearing a hijab had her head covered with a patterned pink scarf. The kingdom has already announced a plan to transform hundreds of kilometers of Red Sea coast into a semi-autonomous world-class tourism destination and governed by laws “on par with international standards.”  

    Details Needed

    “Saudi Arabia has announced a number of mega-projects recently, but what investors will ultimately look for is greater details, progress with plans and initial investment,” said Monica Malik, chief economist of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank. And while the planned, more liberal, regulatory framework for the city “could be positive for streamlining investment,” it didn’t gain traction with previous economic cities developed in the kingdom…Hertog said investors will want to see whether “circumventing some of the slow mainline bureaucracy and general social restrictions in Saudi Arabia in a special zone” can work. “If this is to be an international hub, it needs to offer something better than Dubai, which is a high bar to cross,” he said.

    The crown prince indicated he understood the challenge. “Dreaming is easy, achieving it is difficult,” he said. Charlie Munger has an expression for that.

    They also released this lovely emblem…

  • Paul Craig Roberts To The American Left: R.I.P.

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Once upon a time the leftwing of the political spectrum was committed to the advancement of the working class and its protection from political and economic abuse by the owners of the means of production. Consequently, the leftwing was politically potent and reached a pinnacle of power when Henry Wallace was selected by Franklin D. Roosevelt as his third term vice president. Despite his wealth from the company he founded, Wallace stood for the farmer and the working class.

    The Democratic Party power brokers refused to accept Wallace as the vice president candidate until FDR told them he otherwise would decline the presidential nomination.

    Wallace was Roosevelt’s and the Democratic voters’ choice for vice president in Roosevelt’s fourth term. But Wallace’s progressive views had alienated the party bosses, Wall Street bankers, anti-union businesses, and America’s British and French allies with his support for labor unions, women, minorities, and victims of colonialism. When he called for the emancipation of colonial subjects and for working with the Soviet Union in the cause of peace and working class justice, he sealed his fate. Despite a Gallup Poll released during the Democratic national convention in July 1944 showing that Wallace was the favorite with 65% of the vote and Roosevelt’s announcement that if he were a delegate, he would choose Wallace, the party bosses chose Harry Truman who was preferred by only 2% of Democratic voters.

    This was a turning point in US politics and world history. If the people had prevailed over the corrupt Democratic party bosses, Wallace instead of Truman would have become the first postwar US president. Most likely, there would have been no Cold War, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no NATO, and no decades of mutual distrust between the US and Russia that today threatens life on earth.

    Moreover, in place of today’s highly skewed income and wealth distribution toward the very rich fraction of one percent, there would be an equitable distribution that would support a strong consumer market instead of declining real incomes and debt expansion that threatens economic growth, business profits, employment, and high equity values.

    Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick in their best seller, The Untold History of the United States, describe the Clinton-style Democratic Party corruption that was used to block Wallace as the vice presidential candidate:

    Party insiders made sure they had an iron grip on the convention. Yet the rank-and-file Democrats would not go quietly, staging a rebellion on the convention floor. The groundswell of support for Wallace among the delegates and attendees was so great that despite the bosses’ stranglehold over the proceedings and strong-arm tactics, Wallace’s supporters almost carried the day as an uproarious demonstration for Wallace broke out on the convention floor. In the midst of the demonstration, Florida Senator Claude Pepper realized that if he got Wallace’s name into nomination that night, Wallace would sweep the convention. Pepper fought his way through the crowd to get within five feet of the microphone when the nearly hysterical Mayor Kelly, purporting that there was a fire hazard, got the Chairman, Senator Samuel Jackson, to adjourn the proceedings. Had Pepper made it five more feet and nominated Wallace before the bosses forced adjournment against the will of the delegates, Wallace would have become president in 1945 and the course of history would have been dramatically altered.”

    The next day Senator Jackson apologized to Senator Pepper:

    “I had strict instructions from Hannegan not to let the convention nominate the vice president last night. So I had to adjourn the convention in your face.”

    Thus was the power of interest groups to prevail over democracy 73 years ago when there was still a press that would on occasion speak for the people. Dave Kranzler and Brett Arends describe the power of the interests and the degeneration of the media today:

    “It’s been my view since circa 2003 that [the oligarchs] would hold up the system with printed money and credit creation until every last crumb of middle class wealth was swept off the table and into the pockets of those in position to do the sweeping.

     

    “Obama delivered nothing on his original campaign promises. He was going to “reform” Wall Street.  But the concept of Too Big To Fail was legislated under Obama, and Wall Street indictments/prosecutions fell precipitously from the previous Administration.

     

    “Obama left office and entered into a world of high six-figure Wall Street-sponsored speaking engagements and to live in a $10 million estate in Hawaii paid for by the Chicago elite (Pritzkers etc).  Now Obama will be paid off $10’s of millions for his role in aiding and abetting the transfer of trillions from the middle class to the elitists. Look at Bill and Hillary – need I say more?  Trump has reversed course on his campaign promises twice as quickly as Obama.  Almost overnight after his inauguration, Trump became a war-mongering hand-puppet for the Deep State’s ‘Swamp’ creatures.

     

    “The media has been willingly complicit in this big charade. Much to my complete shock, Brett Arends has published a commentary on Marketwatch which, from an insider, warns about the media:

     

    ‘Do you want to know what kind of person makes the best reporter? I’ll tell you. A borderline sociopath. Someone smart, inquisitive, stubborn, disorganized, chaotic, and in a perpetual state of simmering rage at the failings of the world. Once upon a time you saw people like this in every newsroom in the country. They often had chaotic personal lives and they died early of cirrhosis or a heart attack. But they were tough, angry SOBs and they produced great stories.

     

    ‘Do you want to know what kind of people get promoted and succeed in the modern news organization? Social climbers. Networkers. People who are gregarious, who “buy in” to the dominant consensus, who go along to get along and don’t ask too many really awkward questions. They are flexible, well-organized, and happy with life. And it shows.’

     

    “This is why so many reporters are happy to report that U.S. corporations are in great financial shape, even though they also have surging debts, or that a ‘diversified portfolio’ of stocks and bonds will protect you in all circumstances, even though this is not the case, or that defense budgets are being slashed, when they aren’t, or that the U.S. economy has massively outperformed rivals such as Japan, when on key metrics it hasn’t, or that companies must pay CEOs gazillions of dollars to secure the top ‘talent’ when they don’t need to do any such thing and such pay is just plunder.” 

    The American leftwing has been transmogrified. The left, which formerly stood for “peace and bread,” today stands for Identity Politics and war. The working class has been redefined as “the Trump deplorables” and splintered into separate “victim groups”—women, racial minorities, homosexuals, transgendered. The oppressors are no longer oligarchs who own the means of production. The oppressor is the sexist, misogynist, homophobic, heterosexual, fascist, white supremacist male working class.

    The rise of Identity Politics has brought with it politically controlled speech. Primarily white people, especially heterosexual white males, are subject to this control. The limits on their free speech are growing ever more severe, and no one has to be concerned about white heterosexual males being offended by offensive or threatening speech. White males can be called anything and they are.

    By splintering the working class into victim groups, Identity Politics has made opposition to war and income inequality impossible. In place of unity, Identity Politics has dismembered the working class and directed its energies into internal disputes. We now have fistfights in London’s Hyde Park between radical feminists and transgendered activists.

    Diana Johnstone has shown how Antifa, the violent arm of Identity Politics, has turned the leftwing into a suppressor of free speech and a supporter of war.

    A splintered society cannot recognize or resist its oppression by a ruling elite.

    Feminism turns wives and husbands from complements into rivals. Indeed, Sarah Knapton, science editor for the London Telegraph, reports on the rise of “bromance,” strong emotional relationships between heterosexual men. Feminist attacks on men and political correctness have reduced millennial heterosexual males’ relationships with women to sex only. Their emotional commitments are to their male friends.  This doesn’t seem like a victory for women.

    The cultivated hyper-sensitivity of political correctness, which arises from Identity Politics, is destroying language, history, and free speech. The UK government opposes the term “pregnant woman” because it excludes and offends transgender people.

    The British Medical Association has issued guidelines that doctors should not use the word “mother” to refer to a pregnant woman as the term could offend transgender people. Instead, the term “pregnant people” should be used. This has led to more conflict between feminists and the transgendered. Feminists see it as a plot to make “women” unmentionable.  British National Health Service doctors are no longer to use the term “expectant mother” because it is “non-inclusive.”

    Identity Politics, together with the rising American police state, have just about destroyed the First Amendment. A professor at one of America’s research universities told me that he was dressed down by a dean because he used the word “girls” in class and a woman was offended. Google fired one of its senior software engineers because he wrote a memo that men and women have different traits that make them suitable for different kinds of jobs. This statement of ordinary common sense got the engineer fired for “gender stereotyping.”

    Economic commentator Marc Faber was removed from the board of the investment company, Sprott, and banned from CNBC and the Fox Business Network for expressing his views against monument removal and that white Americans have done a better job of building an economy than black Zimbabwe.

    Free speech is not supposed to be limited to words that give no offense to anyone. What this definition of free speech does is to eliminate all criticism of wrong or criminal activity and all dissent against war, police brutality, and political, social, and economic programs. In other words, political correctness silences a population. Silencing is permitted regardless of whether the “offensive” statement is true or false. Just expressing a truth, as the Google engineer did, can destroy a person’s career. There is no freedom in such a system. As George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

    Universities themselves, traditionally dependent on free speech, are now themselves banning free speech. Controversial speakers likely to offend some “victim group” are simply prevented from speaking at universities. For example, speakers in favor of multiculturalism are welcomed even though the speech might offend those who believe the US is a white Christian society, but a white supremacist, whose speech at the University of Florida could not be blocked, caused the Florida governor to declare a state of emergency.

    It seems simple enough that if a person doesn’t want to be offended by a speaker, don’t go to the speech. On the other hand, if a person wants to learn what the opposition is up to, why miss the chance? In the end, political correctness is about regulating what can be said and controlling explanations, not about protecting the hyper-sensitive from hurtful words.

    What Identity Politics and political correctness are doing is demonizing white people and heterosexual males. Only white people are racists. Only heterosexual males – essentially white gentile ones except for Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein – commit sexual violence. As David Rosen writes in CounterPunch, “Male sexual violence: as American as cherry pie.”

    Rosen defines sexual abuse as “a form of sexual terror, an all-American male sport” that is “as old as the country.” In other words, all or most American males practice sexual terror on women. We have reached the point where a wife who gets angry at her husband can accuse him of rape and have him imprisoned, a far departure from the days when husband and wife were legally regarded as one and neither could testify against the other. When the most intimate personal relationship is subject to outside intervention, how does marriage prosper?

    It doesn’t. According to the American Psychological Association, “about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.”

    If husband and wife, mother and father, can’t stay together, how does society stay together?

    How does society stay together when Identity Politics teaches hate and inflames social divisiveness?

    How does society stay together when thugs claiming to be offended offend others by destroying historical monuments that are associated with the memory or identity of others?

    How does society stay together when its history is erased, its schools, streets, and public buildings are renamed?

    As George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” The next monuments to be removed are those of the Founding Fathers, racists all who adopted a Constitution that permitted slavery, an inherited institution that they had no power to reform.

    In the United States history is being rewritten and language corrupted in order to foster hatred of white “oppressors,” especially white heterosexual males.

    Little wonder Russia responds diplomatically to Washington’s aggression. No need to reply in kind when an enemy is destroying itself.

  • More Real-Estate Insanity: Owner Asking $800,000 For Burned-Out San Francisco Home

    A ‘fixer upper’ is a charitable term for what this is.

    In a story that exposes just how obscenely overvalued San Francisco’s housing market has become, Business Insider reports that one motivated real estate agent in San Francisco is seeking a buyer for a home in the tony Bernal Heights neighborhood that was completely gutted in a fire last year, and needs to be demolished and completely rebuilt – a project that would likely run into the millions of dollars.

    The asking price? A not-unreasonable $800,000. And that’s a bargain, according to real estate agent Jim Laufenberger, who is seeking a buyer for the home at 121 Grant Street, because in all likelihood, the paucity of new housing stock in the city means it will likely sell for more – not less – than the ask.

    121 Grant Street, a one-bedroom, one-bathroom house in the desirable Bernal Heights neighborhood, hit the market in late October. The home was "completely gutted" in a fire in 2016, and the new owners will need to demolish what's left, according to realtor Jim Laufenberg.

     

    "I suspect it will sell for more than what I'm asking," Laufenberg told Business Insider, adding that the seller listed the property below market value to incite interest in the first few weeks.

     

    The price tag attached to the 1,700-square-foot lot shows the extent of the housing bubble in San Francisco, where tech workers create demand faster than the city can build new housing.

    While rebuilding the home would be a massive hassle, Laufenberger suggested that 121 Grant Street's location just north of Cortland Street — a main drag populated by small markets, cafes, restaurants, and nail salons — would make it worth the effort.

    Bernal Heights, like the rest of San Francisco, has seen housing prices soar to unprecedented heights driven by demand from well-compensated tech employees.

    As we’ve reported previously, the lack of affordable housing is affecting the local economy in profound ways. Data from California’s Employment Development Department show the Bay Area lost nearly 5,000 jobs in September – its worst month for employment since 2010, and the second straight month that jobs disappeared from a region that was formerly an engine of labor market growth.

    "It's the location, it's the land, it's the opportunity to build," Laufenberg said.

    As Axios noted, jobs are disappearing not for want of work, but because employers are finding it hard to fill positions due to limited housing and sky-high prices. Housing prices in the city are so out of whack, that a couple earning nearly $140,000 a year (more than double the median income for American families) qualifies for affordable housing.

    “The economy in the Bay Area has pushed up against the physical limits of a lack of housing and a lack of places for workers to live,” Jeffrey Michael, director of the Stockton-based Center for Business and Policy Research at University of the Pacific, told the San Jose Mercury News.

    Workers who can't find or afford housing close to their offices are pushed out of the area, and many of them don't want to bother with long commutes. "Housing is the chain on the dog that is chasing a squirrel," economist Christopher Thornberg told the Merc. "Once that chain runs out, it yanks the dog back."

    Elon Musk, who recently laid off some 700 employees at Tesla’s Fremont factory in hopes of replacing them with cheaper contract labor, won’t be happy to hear this.   
     

  • Illinois Eyes 30 Cent Gas Tax Hike, Chicago Faces Yet Another Property Tax Hike

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via TheMaven.net/MishTalk,

    The Illinois legislature is in recess right now. Other than disbanding the body, that's the best place for them.

    When they return, they are going after your pocketbook in the form a gas tax hike. Not to be outdone, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is pondering property tax hikes.

    In July, the State legislature overrode Governor Rauner's veto and passed the largest tax hike in history. The hike raised the individual rate to 4.95 percent from 3.75 percent and the corporate rate to 7 percent from 5.25 percent.

    With those hikes, households making about $100,000 will pay an additional $1,200 in taxes each year.

    But that was not enough. It never will be.

    Today, the Illinois Policy Institute CEO John Tillman emailed, "The Illinois General Assembly will be back in session next week. And guess what? They’re already talking about raising your taxes again. This time, they’re discussing increasing gas taxes. Lawmakers haven’t released specific numbers yet, but talks have ranged anywhere from an additional $0.05 to $0.30 a gallon."

    Tax Hikes in Chicago

    Chicago taxpayers face yet another property tax increase for police and fire pensions in 2020 — and another hike the following year in the tax tacked onto water and sewer bills to save the Municipal Employees pension fund, aldermen learned on the first day of City Council budget hearings.By the city’s own estimate, police and fire pension costs will rise by $297.3 million, or 36 percent, in 2020. The Municipal and Laborers plan costs will grow by $330.4 million, or 50 percent, in 2022.

     

    “We’ve done the biggest [property tax] increases,” Chicago Chief Financial Officer Carole Brown said Monday.

     

    “But there will be an increase in 2020 for police and fire. The increase for Muni and Laborers will happen a couple years later.“

     

    When this Council passed the water and sewer tax last year, there were assumed increases in the tax from the first year to correspond to increases in the ramp. We would anticipate that if those were the revenue sources assigned on a going-forward basis after we got to actuarial funding, there would need to be increases in those revenues.”

    Big Round of Thanks

    Neighboring governors are offering their thanks to Illinois.

    In a fundraiser for Rauner, three neighboring GOP governors, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Eric Greitens of Missouri, and Eric Holcomb of Indiana each delivered a sarcastic “thank you” to Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan for “raising Illinois taxes” and “helping create new jobs” in their states.

    • "For raising Illinois' taxes, our economy's on fire," Scott Walker stated.
    • Missouri Governor Eric Greitens chided Madigan, "We’re growing good jobs."
    • Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb offered, "We’re growing union jobs faster than Illinois. So, we owe you."
    • Holcomb added, "Hoosiers love you, Mike Madigan."

     

  • Bombshell NSA Memo: Saudi Arabia Ordered Attack On Damascus International Airport With US Knowledge

    The Intercept has just released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

    The US intelligence memo – marked "Top Secret" – is arguably the most damning piece of evidence to date which gives internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling an armed insurgency which launched massive and well-coordinated attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of regime change. The NSA report is sourced to the intelligence agency's controversial PRISM program – which gives the NSA the ability to sweep up all communications and data exchanged through major US internet service providers like Google. The memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March of 2013.

    Damascus International Airport: a major civilian transport hub targeted by the Saudi government with knowledge of US intelligence. Image source: AFP/Getty

    One of the videos that Saudi-backed FSA fighters uploaded to YouTube identified by The Intercept as showing rockets launched on civilian areas of Damascus on March 18, 2013. US intelligence knew of the secret operation three days in advance yet did not stop it.  

    According to the document, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was ordered to "light up Damascus" and "flatten" the Syrian capital's international airport by Prince Salman bin Sultan – a prominent member of the Saudi royal family tasked with overseeing operations in Syria as a top Saudi intelligence officer. The document further reveals that the "Saudis sent 120 tons of explosives/weapons to opposition forces" – presumably in the lead up to the operation.

    The report not only confirms that the assault happened, but that the Saudi government was "very pleased" with the outcome: "Attacks against airport, Presidential palace and other locations occurred on 18 March," the memo reads. Also significant is that the memo confirms US intelligence foreknowledge of the attack on a major civilian airport: "Reports gave U.S. three days warning about 18 March 2013 attacks (2 year anniversary of revolution)."

    Prince Salman bin Sultan, who is currently the Saudi Deputy Defense Minister. Image source: Wikimedia Commons

    According to The Intercept, various news reports from the time confirmed significant attacks and damage from FSA-fired rockets upon civilian areas. Not only is Damascus International Airport Syria's main civilian transport hub – which was used by millions each year before the war – but it remained in daily operation for commercial flights in March 2013, when Saudi intelligence ordered the attacks with knowledge of US intelligence.

    As The Intercept reports:

    A number of videos posted by Syrian opposition media on the day of the attacks purport to show rebel fighters firing rockets at the same sites mentioned in the U.S. document. The March 2013 attacks in Damascus provide a concrete example of the role that foreign powers played in the day-to-day reality of the conflict. A number of videos posted by Syrian opposition media on the day of the attacks purport to show rebel fighters firing rockets at the same sites mentioned in the U.S. document. Local media reports from that day described an attack in which rockets struck within the areas of the presidential palace, a local government security branch, and the airport. A representative of the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted in a story the next day reporting the attacks, stating that they were unable to confirm whether they resulted in casualties. 

    However, The Intercept's commentary is inaccurate in claiming that the Syrian Observatory (SOHR) did not report casualties from the attack as one of the Arabic news sources it links to above (Middle East based Alwatan News), reports:

    "The Free Syrian Army targeted Kafr Sousa [an area of Damascus near Mezzeh] and they fired 24 missiles on Damascus airport… 60 people died in yesterday's attacks, according to the Syrian Observatory." [as translated by Zero Hedge]

    And intense attacks continued through April and into the summer of 2013 according to international media reports from the time, also confirmed by a photo circulated through the AFP showing civilian passengers waiting in airport lounges the month following the initial March 2013 rocket attacks. 

    While the Saudi-US role in fueling the jihadist insurgency from the earliest days of the war in Syria has long been thoroughly documented, this latest leaked NSA bombshell report provides astoundingly clear proof that the relationship between the anti-Assad insurgents and foreign intelligence was even more direct, and existed earlier in time than most analyst and mainstream pundits led the public to believe. 

    *****

    Below is the leaked National Security Agency document published by The Intercept earlier today:

    Leaked NSA document contents in text format: 

  • Passive Should Never Laugh At Active

    Authored by Kevin Muir via The Macro Tourist,

    I have been meaning to write this post for quite some time. As an ex-ETF trader, I have watched with bemusement as investors have both embraced and shuddered at the wide adoption of ETFs. But most pundits are missing the larger picture. ETFs are just a symptom of the bigger phenomenon. The true battle lies in the passive versus active debate.

    Let me get this out of the way right off the bat. I have no dog in this hunt. I see both the benefits and the negatives to each side. Yet as a trader, I definitely have a view on which end of the boat is leaning lopsided right now.

    *  *  *

    Lessons from triple witching

    But first, let me tell you a story. I was lucky enough to have a ringside seat for the coming of age of equity index derivatives. Sure they existed before my time, but the true widespread global adoption occurred in the 1990’s. In Canada, when I first sat down on the institutional desk, clients had little interest in what the young kids with their fancy SUN workstations were doing. Yet as money flowed into the derivatives complex, what had first just been a strange little science experiment, suddenly started moving the underlying market. Our index arbitrage flows became significant, and regular plain vanilla clients began took notice.

    Along with the increased index arbitrage flows came this bizarre triple witching expiry. When open interest was small, these expiries were minor. But as the usage of derivatives expanded, one morning we experienced an imbalance that was uncomfortably large. Being index traders, we instantly understood what had happened. Someone was letting a whole bunch of exposure expire into the open, and therefore there was a very large, and very real, index sell basket to execute at the open.

    Many institutional clients were not used to trading on the open. Most often, they let retail orders and market makers set the price, and then after it settled down, they would give us their orders.

    Given that institutional clients were not interested in trading at the open, there was little liquidity for the large expiring sell basket. Sensing an opportunity, we bid spec for a decent portion of the sell imbalance, hoping to get a good fill which we could then offset in the futures market. The trouble was, not nearly enough market participants joined us, and the market gapped down huge. It was a terrific trade as the opening settlement was many hundreds of basis points below the previous close.

    There was no fundamental reason for the market dislocation. It was simply a matter that not enough participants understood what was happening.

    Rest assured, immediately after the violent open, our phones were ringing off the hook with clients wanting to understand what the hell happened.

    With some education, active managers learned how they could take advantage of this liquidity demand at expiry, and from then on, these fundamentals clients lined up to offset the morning imbalances.

    And that’s how markets work. Opportunities are arbitraged away by market participants attempting to take advantage of mis-pricings.

    *  *  *

    End zone dances are a bad idea

    When I see a passive manager making fun of a fundamental investor, I am perplexed. The passive manager’s very existence relies on fundamental investors keeping markets efficient. You can’t claim the market is too efficient to beat, therefore you shouldn’t try, and then laugh at everyone who does. The paradox is that your success as an indexer depends on everyone else continuing to try. The passive investor should be thanking the active guys, not mocking them.

    Which brings me to a twitter exchange that I watched this weekend. I won’t name names because it isn’t important, but it was between two popular market pundits – an extremely well known money manager (and social media star), and the other, a semi-retired macro manager, revered within the hedge fund community. What struck me as odd was that the money manager, seemingly-out-of-the-blue, posted an article from last year where the macro manager had forecasted an increased chance of a recession in the coming year. The problem was that he had included a big LOL with the date on it to show how badly this macro guy had whiffed.

    Now my immediate reaction was what a dick move. We all get it wrong sometimes. This macro manager is no perma-bear. He had a solid line of reasoning on why the economy might roll over. Shoving his nose in it like an ignorant dog owner might toilet train his puppy seemed mean spirited.

    Now, both of these guys are way out of my league. I am pretty sure either could buy me over many, many multiple of times (at least I assume so given the out-of-reach-for-most-humans classic sports cars the regular money manager posts on his blog with little tidbits about which one he is buying.) And I am sure, the last thing the macro manager needs is me defending him. He runs with the big dogs and probably just had a good chuckle at the cheap shot slung from the social media star.

    But I think their exchange represents the perfect analogy for what is happening in the market right now. It epitomizes the epic battle between passive and active, and clearly demonstrates which side is feeling smug and sure of themselves.

    Climbing the ultimate wall of worry

    The 2008 Great Financial Crisis scared a lot of people. I remember my old man telling me how his father’s generation was scarred by the Great Depression. They were constantly worried it would occur again, and to a large extent, they were always saving and preparing for its return. Well, our generation is not that different. In 2008, investors abandoned the stock market, and were extremely reluctant to return.

    Have a look at this chart of the investment flows over the past decade:

    Investors fled stocks faster than Lindsay Lohan leaving rehab, and rushed into bonds. This chart is a little bit dated, so it doesn’t show the recent surge into equities, but it gives a picture of the attitude that prevailed in the years following the Great Financial Crisis.

    The important thing to realize is that most everyone was scared following the GFC. There were precious few equity bulls.

    Armed with a stack of blue tickets, Central Banks were determined to not let the Great Depression repeat. So they bought, and they bought, and they bought. It started with the Fed. Then the Bank of Japan joined the party. The ECB tried to resist, but that just caused all the deflation to be exported to the EU, and eventually even the Germans acquiesced and allowed the ECB to expand their balance sheet. It has become an orgy of Central Bank buying. It’s so obscene I think even Caligula would blush.

    I am not here to tell you how this will cause some end-of-the-world collapse. In fact, I think this will eventually cause a monster melt-up in all prices (including non-financial ones), as opposed to some deflationary crash. But what I would like to stress is that Central Banks have pushed financial asset prices higher. No doubt about it. Whether it was by the lowering of the risk free rate to mind boggling low levels (forcing investors out the risk curve), or by the actual purchase of risk assets (ala SNB and BoJ), financial assets have not been rising because of sound fundamentals, but instead because the economy has been so sluggish, causing even more Central Bank monetary stimulus.

    Investors have been reluctant to embrace risk assets. They have reluctantly bought, not because they felt it was a compelling bargain, but because they had no choice. Faced with ever increasing life spans, combined with less and less government retirement plans, individuals realize they have not saved enough, and with the horrendous financial repression, they have no alternatives.

    Markets always climb a wall of worry, but this was no wall. This was a mountain. And no regular mountain, but an Everest type imposing monolith.

    The one type of manager who got it right

    All of this uncertainty made passive-rule-based-long-term managers the stars of this cycle. Everyone else was reluctant to climb aboard the Central Bank fueled rally, but not this crew. Their rules forced them to be long, regardless of all the negativity surrounding markets. Managers that embraced this strategy are now geniuses and heroes melded into one.

    These managers were unique in that they were a member of the elite few brave enough to be fully invested. Low bond yields didn’t scare them. Record equity valuations didn’t stopped their buying. They had a plan, and they stuck with it.

    And hats off to them. Any level of cash or under-weighting of beta has been nothing but a drag on performance. Not only that, but since this group often advocates passive investing, they were concentrated in the highest market capitalization stocks. Which also happens to be the perfect vehicle for Central Bank risk asset buying.

    Think back to the rally of the previous couple of years. Was anyone buying because stocks were outright cheap? Not a chance. Sure you could make the argument stocks were inexpensive when compared to the risk free rate, but for the past few years, buying stocks was somewhat a leap of faith.

    I would argue the only group that fully caught this move were the disciples of “stocks/bonds in a diversified portfolio” for the long haul. Unless you were systematically executing a fully invested portfolio management strategy, this was an extremely difficult market to stay fully invested.

    Nothing is new

    Which brings me back to our money manager who is busy taking pot shots at macro managers who attempt to make fundamental calls about the economy’s prospects in the coming year. This money manager happened to have the perfect strategy for the past few years. Given his beliefs, I assume he was fully invested, concentrating on market capitalized stock index ETFs, with some low cost broad based bond ETFs for diversification. I don’t know this for sure, but given his comments, I would be surprised if this wasn’t his MO.

    But the real dangerous part? Since this is the only strategy that seems to have worked over the past few years, investors are chasing this investing style with a zeal last seen in Phoenix real estate in 2006.

    Active investing has become a punch line for a bad joke. Why bother picking stocks? Central Banks and the ETF buying public are just sending up the biggest ones as they make up the majority of the ETFs. And even when there is some “fundamental” analysis occurring, it mostly consists of some young data scientist putting the latest three years of data into a “factor” model and choosing more of the names that have been working for the previous three years.

    Financial assets have been goosed higher through Central Bank balance sheet expansion, and at the very moment where fundamental analysis is most needed, investors have completely abandoned it. Active managers are being fired left and right. They are being replaced with passive ETF strategies. Hedge funds of all stripes are being stripped of assets, and in their place, more beta fueled indexing.

    This story is as old as time. As much as everyone thinks they don’t chase the hot investing fad, the crowd always piles in at the end.

    We have seen this play out each and every market cycle. Don’t forget that in 1999 Warren Buffett was some old codger who needed to be put out to pasture because he didn’t understand the new economy. Or how about GMO having a majority of their assets flow out the door in 2006 because they weren’t participating in the frothy market, only to see their performance crush most of their competitors in the next couple of years.

    The fact that fully invested passive managers are doing over-the-top-victory-dances in the end zone should come as no surprise. This is the kind of behaviour we should expect at the top.

    The Greatest Short Squeeze of all time

    The Market Gods are not a lenient bunch. They have a way of knocking down the cockiest amongst us.

    I find it ironic that investors are embracing the idea that Central Bank buying will keep propelling financial assets higher at the very moment that these flows are set to decline.

    I am not some doomsdayer who thinks the world must implode in some deflationary collapse to cleanse the financial system of our over-indebted sins.

    Yet I am a realist who understands that markets go too far one way, and when that happens, they inevitably correct, and right the ship.

    There is no doubt in my mind that too many investors have abandoned fundamental analysis, and in one of the greatest short squeezes of all time, have piled into financial assets at the worst possible moment. They are not buying because assets are cheap, but instead because they are going up.

    Markets are always changing – change with it.

    Instead of complaining, true long term value investors should be welcoming this mad scramble. It is sowing the seeds for the next opportunity.

    So yeah, fully invested passive index investors might be having laughs at our expense right now, but as Harry Hogge used to tell Cole Trickle, “he didn’t slam you, he didn’t bump you, he didn’t nudge you… he rubbed you. And rubbin, son, is racin’.”

    No sense getting all sanctimonious about either side. For sure – ETFs and passive investing is way, way too popular right now. Just like my story of the triple witching expiry, there will be an event that catches market participants off guard. Then fundamental investors will step in and correct the mis-pricing.

    Too much indexing will be self-defeating. Indexers should never, ever, laugh at fundamental investors as they are essential to their survival. But neither should fundamental investors treat ETFs like the scourge of the world.

    The famous recluse trader Ed Seykota once said, “the markets are the same now as they were five or ten years ago because they keep changing – just like they did then.” Ed is spot on.

    Markets are always changing. Debating about it is like arguing with the wind.

    Rather than digging my heels in on some philosophical debate about the best direction for markets, I prefer to attempt to figure out where it is heading, irrespective of my opinion of where it should go. I have nothing against fully invested passive strategies – at the right time. But I beg to differ that fundamental analysis never works and that you should simply lap up whatever returns the market returns you regardless of valuations. I feel like there has never been a worse time to just blindly clasp this sort of strategy.

    We are on a cusp of a major turning point, and active managers are about to have their day in the sun. Here is my prediction. Within the next year the hedge fund manager will be able to return the favour to the over-confident passive money manager.

    And I will leave you with some immortal words from legendary strategist Bob Farell:

    • Markets tend to return to the mean over time.
    • Excesses in one direction will lead to an opposite excess in the other direction.
    • There are no new eras – excesses are never permanent.
    • Exponential rapidly rising or falling market usually go further than you think, but they do not correct by going sideways.
    • The public buys the most at the top and the least at the bottom.

    I wonder what Bob would say about the current group of exultant passive money managers?

  • BofA: "The Market Implies There Is No Way A Shock Can Happen"

    For today’s moment of volatility zen, we go to BofA’s Nikolay Angeloff who drew the short straw to be the (un)lucky pundit whose comments on record complacency, low volatility, etc publicized.

    Angeloff starts with pointing out what we noted over the weekend , namely that we have now recorded 334 days without a 5% or more pullback (and 335 after today’s close), the fourth longest period on record since 1928.

    In another market distortion, whether due to ETFs or central banks, equity vol has fallen so far in October, historically the most volatile month of the year, and if it continues at this pace, it will be the least volatile October in history…

    and third least volatile month ever.

    Looking at the above two charts, it is no surprise that at this 30yr anniversary of the ’87 crash, the BofA analyst concludes that “the market seems to currently imply there is no way a shock can happen. However, in part due to today’s low realized volatility creating a steep implied term-structure, along with higher fragility driving steeper skew across tenors, the entry point for “S&P fragility hedges” in the form of put ratio calendars has never been more attractive.”

    We’ll have more to say on his (costless) hedge recommendation tomorrow, but first here is some more on what the ongoing market distortions mean in practical terms:

    Markets mark the 30Y anniversary of Black Monday midst chatter of fragility. On 19-Oct-1987, the S&P 500 experienced its worst day in history (since 1928) when the index plummeted 20.5% in a single trading session. The total loss over the month leading to and including the market crash amounted to 27.6%, a 6.6-sigma event.

     

     

    Counter to many peoples’ common belief, a shock of this magnitude would be unprecedented today. Our previous work has shown that there is historically a limit of how large shocks can be based on the prevailing realized volatility. With today’s much lower levels of realized vol, a 6.6 sigma event would correspond to a lesser monthly selloff of only 11.5%

    Well, as long as it is “only” 11.5%, one can probably count the number of central banker suicides on “only” one hand as these central-planning mandarins watch the fruit of their centrally-planned labor go up in smoke.

    Angeloff’s conclusion:

    “generally, the longer time passes without an abrupt market correction, the higher the likelihood of it happening. Markets pricing very little potential for a shock seems at odds with still elevated geopolitical and policy risk globally. Additionally, some have increasingly refocused on quant fund positioning risks, and as we have argued previously CTA and risk parity flows (and the fear of them) can add fuel to (but not cause) a potential sell-off. Notably we see their equity allocations likely at a high (for CTAs this is due to the coincidental occurrence of a strong trend in performance and record-low vol). Thus, an equity sell-off or an uptick in volatility could cause these portfolios to de-lever their equity allocations and so could exacerbate an equity market correction (Charts 14 & 15). However, we still do not believe they would be the sole drivers of an ’87 style crash.

    * * *

    Two final observations:

    For Oct-17, the VIX settled at 10.53, which is 10.6 points below the 2004-2016 October average of 21.2 (less than half). This is the greatest difference between a monthly settlement and monthly average so far in 2017. For comparison, Sep-17’s settlement of 9.87 was 9.82 points below the September average, the second largest discrepancy so far this year. What’s more, on an absolute level October has the second highest monthly settlement on average (21.2), second only to November (22.0). Regardless, Oct-17’s 10.53 was the second lowest monthly settlement realized thus far in 2017.

    In stark contrast with historical trends, realized volatility on SPX has dropped in the month of September and if volatility does not pick up materially from here, the month of October will mark the second monthly drop in a row. Indeed, realized volatility in the month of October thus far is 3.5 vol pts. If realized volatility remains flat for the remainder of the month, this would be the third lowest monthly volatility in the history of the index, which realized less volatility only in Feb-64 and Aug-65. Historically SPX realized volatility tends to drop in the month of November. However, this year may witness a break of that pattern given the likely low level for the month of October. In addition the real battle over tax reform will likely start in early November and that the process from here will neither be pretty or smooth…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 24th October 2017

  • Germany’s Delegation To Russia Signals That Merkel Is Looking For New Allies

    By George Friedman of Mauldin Economics

    A delegation of executives from major German corporations recently met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Such delegations are not unusual. Sometimes it is routine, sometimes a courtesy. But occasionally, it has significance. In the case of Russia-Germany relations, such meetings are always potentially significant.

    Germany’s Unsteady Relations

    Two relationships are critical to Germany.

    One is with the European Union, the other is with the United States. Neither relationship is stable right now. Brexit, the Spanish crisis, Germany feuding with Poland and the unsolved economic problems of southern Europe are tearing the European Union apart.

    The Germans and the EU apparatus claim that none of these threaten the bloc. In fact, almost a decade after 2008, Europe appears to be achieving very modest economic growth. But the Germans know the dangers that lie ahead, even if Brussels does not.

    Many of the EU’s problems are political, not economic. (I wrote about the inherent weakness of Europe in my free e-book, The World Explained in Maps, which you can find here)

    Poland and Germany have butted heads over the tension between the right to national self-determination and EU rules. This is also what Brexit was about.

    Spain is locked in a dispute over the nature of a nation and the right of a region to secede, while the EU considers what role it should play in the domestic matters of a member state. And although southern Europe’s problems are economic, the fact that Europe has eked out minimal growth means neither that such growth is sustainable nor that the growth rate comes close to solving the Continent’s deep structural problems.

    As the de facto leader of the EU, Germany has to appear confident while considering the implications of failure.

    The German relationship with the United States is unsettled—and not just because of President Donald Trump’s personality.

    The strategic and economic situation in Europe has changed dramatically since the early 1990s—when the Soviet Union fell, Germany reunified and the all-important Maastricht treaty was signed—but Germany’s structural relationship with the US has not.

    Both are members of NATO, but they have radically different views of its mission and its economics. Germany has the world’s fourth-largest economy, but its financial contribution to NATO doesn’t reflect that.

    Then there is Russia. The American policy toward Russia has hardened since the Democratic Party adopted an intense anti-Russia stance following the presidential election—more intense even than that of the Republican Party, which has always been uneasy with Russia.

    The Ukraine crisis continues to fester while US troops are deployed in the Baltics, Poland, and Romania. This has widened rifts within the EU. Germany isn’t interested in a second Cold War; Eastern Europe believes it’s already in one.

    The Eastern Europeans are increasingly alienated from the Germans on the issue and more closely aligned with the Americans. At a time when German relations with key Eastern European countries are being tested, the added strain of US policy in the region is a threat to German interests.

    Germany wants the Russia problem to subside. The US and its Eastern European allies think the way to accomplish that is through confrontation.

    An Alternative That Germany Doesn’t Want

    Germany’s foreign policy has remained roughly the same since 1991, even as the international reality has changed dramatically. This is forcing Germany toward a decision it doesn’t want to make.

    It must consider what happens if the EU continues to disintegrate and if European countries’ foreign policies and politics continue to diverge.

    It must consider what happens if the US continues to shape the dynamics of Europe in a way that Germany will have to confront American enemies, or refuse to do so. This isn’t just about Russia—we can see the same issue over Iran.

    Germany can’t exist without stable economic partners. It has never been self-sufficient since it reunified. It must explore alternatives.

    The most obvious alternative for Germany has always been Russia, either through alliance or conquest.

    Germany needs Russian raw materials. It also needs the Russian market to be far more robust than it is so that it can buy more German goods.

    But Russia is incapable of rapid economic development without outside help, and with the collapse of oil prices, it needs rapid development to stabilize its economy. Germany needs Russia’s economy to succeed, and what it has to offer Russia is capital, technology, and management.

    In exchange, Russia can offer raw materials and a workforce.

    An alignment with Russia could settle Eastern Europe in Germany’s orbit. With the way things are going, and given Germany’s alternatives, the Russian option is expensive but potentially very profitable.

    But Germany has a problem with Russia. Every previous attempt at alignment or conquest has failed. Building up the Russian economy to create a robust market for German goods would certainly benefit both countries, but it would also shift the balance of power in Europe.

    Right now, Germany is militarily weak and economically strong. Russia is moderately powerful militarily and economically weak. An alignment with Germany could dramatically strengthen Russia’s economy, and with it, its military power.

    Having moved away from the United States and de-emphasized military power in the rest of the European peninsula, Germany could find itself in its old position: vulnerable to Russian power, but without allies against Russia.

    On a Lookout for New Allies

    The corporate chiefs’ trip to Russia is not a groundbreaking event, nor does it mark a serious shift in German policy. But it is part of an ongoing process. As the international reality shifts from what Germany needs, Germany must find another path.

    In the short term, the United States is vulnerable to a cyclical recession, and hostility toward Germany is increasing in Europe—particularly in Eastern Europe. China is facing internal challenges of its own. There are few other options than Russia, and Russia is historically a most dangerous option for Germany.

  • Introducing Cryonics: Putting Death On Ice

    There is a potent thread winding its way through generations of human culture. From Ancient Egyptian rituals to Kurzweil’s Singularity, many paths have sprung up leading to the same elusive destination: immortality.

    Today, as Visual Capitalist's Nick Routely notes, the concept is as popular as it’s ever been, and technological advances are giving people hope that immortality, or at very least radical life extension, may be within reach. Is modern technology advanced enough to give people a second chance through cryonics?

    Today’s infographic, courtesy of Futurism, tackles our growing fascination with putting death on ice.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    THE PROSPECT OF IMMORTALITY

    Robert C. W. Ettinger’s seminal work, The Prospect Of Immortality, detailed many of the scientific, moral, and economic implications of cryogenically freezing humans for later reanimation. It was after that book was published in 1962 that the idea of freezing one’s body after death began to take hold.

    One of the most pressing questions is, even if we’re able to revive a person who has been cryogenically preserved, will the person’s memories and personality remain intact? Ettinger posits that long-term memory is stored in the brain as a long-lasting structural modification. Basically, those memories will remain, even if the brain’s “power is turned off”.

    DESCENDING INTO THE DEEP-FREEZE

    There are three main steps in the cryogenic process:

    1) Immediately after a patient dies, the body is cooled with ice packs and transported to the freezing location.

     

    2) Next, blood is drained from the patient’s body and replaced with a cryoprotectant (basically the same antifreeze solution used to transport organs destined for transplant).

     

    3) Finally, once the body arrives at the cryonic preservation facility, the body is cooled to -196ºC (-320.8ºF) over the course of two weeks. Bodies are generally stored upside-down in a tank of liquid nitrogen.

    THE ECONOMICS OF CRYOPRESERVATION

    At prices ranging from about $30,000 to $200,000, cryopreservation may sound like an option reserved for the wealthy, but many people fund the procedure by naming a cryonics company as the primary benefactor of their life insurance policy. Meanwhile, in the event of a death that doesn’t allow for preservation of the body, the money goes to secondary beneficiaries.

    Even if we do eventually find a way to reanimate frozen humans, another important consideration is how those people would take care of themselves financially. That’s where a cryonics or personal revival trust comes into play. A twist on a traditional dynastic trust, this arrangement ensures that there are funds to cover costs of the cryopreservation, as well as ensure the grantor would have assets when they’re unthawed. Of course, there are risks involved beyond the slim possibility of reanimation. The legal code in hundreds of years could be vastly different than today.

    If you created a trust for specific purposes in 1711, it is unlikely it would function in the same way today.

     

    – Kris Knaplund, Law Professor, Pepperdine University

    COLD HUMANS, HOT MARKET

    At last count, there are already 346 people in the deep freeze, with thousands more on the waiting list. As technology improves, those numbers are sure to continue rising.

    Time will tell whether cryonically preserved people are able to cheat death. In the meantime? The cryonics industry is alive and well.

  • How Much Is Equity Research Actually Worth? Probably Less Than You Thought

    Over the past several months, investment banks all across Europe have scrambled to put a price tag on their equity research after years of giving it way as a ‘freebie’ in return for trading commissions.

    Of course, for wall street’s titans of finance, you know, the same guys who will look you straight in the eyes and tell you that they know with relative certainty the precise value of the synthetic CDO squared they’re selling you, we figured this would be a relatively simplistic task. Therefore, you can imagine our surprise now that the market has established a fairly wide bid-ask spread with JP Morgan on the low end at $10,000 and Barclays on the rich side at $455,000.

    Luckily, since wall street’s finest don’t seem to have a clue, Bloomberg Gladfly has decided to take a look at some comps to help shed some light on the true value of equity research.

    First, of course, it’s important to define what institutional clients are actually buying when they sign a research contract.  As Bloomberg points out with the chart below, and contrary to popular belief, equity research demand actually has very little to do with analyst forecasts and trade ideas but rather is dependent upon which banks provide the greatest access to those highly coveted management 1x1s.

    The dirty little secret on Wall Street — and why it’s so difficult to price research — is that star analysts aren’t really valued for their research at all. Ask any money manager, hedge fund or research shop, and they’ll tell you it’s all about the contacts.

     

    Many senior analysts spend only 10 percent of their time conducting research and writing reports. Teams of junior associates (or sometimes robots) maintain financial models and blast out notes. Some use pre-recorded voice mails to alert clients to new research.

     

    Gadfly estimates that between 50 and 70 percent of a senior analyst’s time is spent on corporate access. Things like arranging lunch with a CFO or connecting a client with a lawyer, supplier or other industry expert to delve into what the data doesn’t. For this reason, analysts are often required to log the number of phone calls, meetings and events arranged each month.

     

    The final 20 percent of an analyst’s time is spent on pre-IPO research, conferences and bespoke projects, such as flying a drone over a retailer’s parking lot to track how full it is; scoping the laundry outside apartment blocks; or conducting so-called channel checks to see how much oil’s being pumped through a particular pipeline.

    So, what does that mean for the ‘value’ of equity research?  Well, Bloomberg figures those actual ‘research’ reports that flood your inbox all day long are worth basically nothing while the corporate access component of ‘research’ (i.e. those annual trips to Miami Beach where 24-year-old hedge fund analysts get to interview CEO’s between binge drinking sessions at Story) should be valued at roughly the same price as an expert network service.

    Access to independent research network Smartkarma starts at $7,500 a year per user for a Spotify-like subscription that opens the door to reports from more than 400 analysts. Customers can also buy additional packages of analysts’ time, similar to the way lawyers or consultants get paid.

     

    We reckon the closest approximation to corporate access is so-called expert networks, companies that maintain a stable of industry experts to match with fund managers and other financiers when they need quick access to esoteric information.

     

    Industry leader Gerson Lehrman Group Inc. charges $100,000 a year, with the heaviest users paying millions of dollars, according to the Financial Times.

     

    As for bespoke research projects, Morgan Stanley said it plans to charge $2,500 an hour for private meetings with its stock analysts, almost twice the rate of some of the best corporate lawyers. Partners at big management consulting firms such as Deloitte LLP or McKinsey & Co. charge clients anywhere from $800 to $1,300 an hour, according to career consulting guide Rocketblocks.

    Then again, maybe those hedge fund managers could just ask young Trevor Worthington IV to stay home from Miami Beach and read a 10-K for free…just a thought.

  • Clinton, Assange, And The War On Truth

    Authored by John Pilger via Counterpunch.org,

    On 16 October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation aired an interview with Hillary Clinton: one of many to promote her score-settling book about why she was not elected President of the United States.

    Wading through the Clinton book, What Happened, is an unpleasant experience, like a stomach upset. Smears and tears. Threats and enemies. “They” (voters) were brainwashed and herded against her by the odious Donald Trump in cahoots with sinister Slavs sent from the great darkness known as Russia, assisted by an Australian “nihilist”, Julian Assange.

    In The New York Times, there was a striking photograph of a female reporter consoling Clinton, having just interviewed her. The lost leader was, above all, “absolutely a feminist”. The thousands of women’s lives this “feminist” destroyed while in government – Libya, Syria, Honduras – were of no interest.

    In New York magazine, Rebecca Traister wrote that Clinton was finally “expressing some righteous anger”. It was even hard for her to smile: “so hard that the muscles in her face ache”. Surely, she concluded, “if we allowed women’s resentments the same bearing we allow men’s grudges, America would be forced to reckon with the fact that all these angry women might just have a point”.

    Drivel such as this, trivialising women’s struggles, marks the media hagiographies of Hillary Clinton. Her political extremism and warmongering are of no consequence. Her problem, wrote Traister, was a “damaging infatuation with the email story”. The truth, in other words.

    The leaked emails of Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, revealed a direct connection between Clinton and the foundation and funding of organised jihadism in the Middle East and Islamic State (IS). The ultimate source of most Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, was central to her career.

    One email, in 2014, sent by Clinton to Podesta soon after she stepped down as US Secretary of State, discloses that Islamic State is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Clinton accepted huge donations from both governments for the Clinton Foundation.

    As Secretary of State, she approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her benefactors in Saudi Arabia, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, US arms sales to the world – for use in stricken countries like Yemen – doubled.

    This was revealed by WikiLeaks and published by The New York Times. No one doubts the emails are authentic. The subsequent campaign to smear WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, as “agents of Russia”, has grown into a spectacular fantasy known as “Russiagate”. The “plot” is said to have been signed off by Vladimir Putin himself.  There is not a shred of evidence.

    The ABC Australia interview with Clinton is an outstanding example of smear and censorship by omission. I would say it is a model.

    “No one,” the interviewer, Sarah Ferguson, says to Clinton, “could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at that moment [of the inauguration of Trump] … Do you remember how visceral it was for you?”

    Having established Clinton’s visceral suffering, Ferguson asks about “Russia’s role”.

    CLINTON: I think Russia affected the perceptions and views of millions of voters, we now know. I think that their intention coming from the very top with Putin was to hurt me and to help Trump.

     

    FERGUSON: How much of that was a personal vendetta by Vladimir Putin against you?

     

    CLINTON: … I mean he wants to destabilise democracy. He wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic Alliance and we consider Australia kind of a … an extension of that …

    The opposite is true. It is Western armies that are massing on Russia’s border for the first time since the Russian Revolution 100 years ago.

    FERGUSON: How much damage did [Julian Assange] do personally to you?

     

    CLINTON: Well, I had a lot of history with him because I was Secretary of State when ah WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive ah information from our State Department and our Defence Department.

    What Clinton fails to say – and her interviewer fails to remind her — is that in 2010, WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the United Nations leadership, including the Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent Security Council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

    A classified directive, signed by Clinton, was issued to US diplomats in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks.

    This was known as Cablegate. It was lawless spying.

    CLINTON:  He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And ah, he has done their bidding.

    Clinton offered no evidence to back up this serious accusation, nor did Ferguson challenge her.

    CLINTON: You don’t see damaging negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks. You didn’t see any of that published.

    This was false. WikiLeaks has published a massive number of documents on Russia – more than 800,000, most of them critical, many of them used in books and as evidence in court cases.

    CLINTON:  So I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator.

     

    FERGUSON:  Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr for free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him? Well, you’ve just described him as a nihilist

     

    CLINTON:  Yeah, well, and a tool. I mean he’s a tool of Russian intelligence. And if he’s such a, you know, martyr of free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia?

    Again, Ferguson said nothing to challenge this or correct her.

    CLINTON: There was a concerted operation between WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to weaponise that information, to make up stories … to help Trump.

     

    FERGUSON: Now, along with some of those outlandish stories, there was information that was revealed about the Clinton Foundation that at least in some of the voters’ minds seemed to associate you ….

     

    CLINTON: Yeah, but it was false!

     

    FERGUSON: … with the peddling of information …

     

    CLINTON: It was false! It was totally false!  …..

     

    FERGUSON: Do you understand how difficult it was for some voters to understand the amounts of money that the [Clinton] Foundation is raising, the confusion with the consultancy that was also raising money, getting gifts and travel and so on for Bill Clinton that even Chelsea had some issues with? …

     

    CLINTON: Well you know, I’m sorry, Sarah, I mean I, I know the facts ….

    The ABC interviewer lauded Clinton as “the icon of your generation”. She asked her nothing about the enormous sums she creamed off from Wall Street, such as the $675,000 she received for speaking at Goldman Sachs, one of the banks at the centre of the 2008 crash. Clinton’s greed deeply upset the kind of voters she abused as “deplorables”.

    Clearly looking for a cheap headline in the Australian press, Ferguson asked her if Trump was “a clear and present danger to Australia” and got her predictable response.

    This high-profile journalist made no mention of Clinton’s own “clear and present danger” to the people of Iran whom she once threatened to “obliterate totally”, and the 40,000 Libyans who died in the attack on Libya in 2011 that Clinton orchestrated. Flushed with excitement, the Secretary of State rejoiced at the gruesome murder of the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi.

    “Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war”, Julian Assange said in a filmed interview with me last year. “Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it?  Hillary Clinton.  That’s documented throughout her emails … there’s more than 1700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.

     

    “So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock  that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

     

    “Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it.”

    This – not Clinton’s “visceral” pain in losing to Trump nor the rest of the self-serving scuttlebutt in her ABC interview  – was the story. Clinton shared responsibility for massively de-stabilising the Middle East, which led to the death, suffering and flight of thousands of women, men and children.

    Ferguson raised not a word of it.  Clinton repeatedly defamed Assange, who was neither defended nor offered a right of reply on his own country’s state broadcaster.

    In a tweet from London, Assange cited the ABC’s own Code of Practice, which states: “Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond.”

    Following the ABC broadcast, Ferguson’s  executive producer, Sally Neighbour, re-tweeted the following: “Assange is Putin’s bitch. We all know it!”

    The slander, since deleted, was even used as a link to the ABC interview captioned ‘Assange is Putins (sic) b****. We all know it!’

    In the years I have known Julian Assange, I have watched a vituperative personal campaign try to stop him and WikiLeaks. It has been a frontal assault on whistleblowing, on free speech and free journalism, all of which are now under sustained attack from governments and corporate internet controllers.

    The first serious attacks on Assange came from the Guardian which, like a spurned lover, turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks’ disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. Assange was portrayed as “callous” and a “damaged personality”.

    It was as if a rampant jealousy could not accept that his remarkable achievements stood in marked contrast to that of his detractors in the “mainstream” media. It is like watching the guardians of the status quo, regardless of age, struggling to silence real dissent and prevent the emergence of the new and hopeful.

    Today, Assange remains a political refugee from the war-making dark state of which Donald Trump is a caricature and Hillary Clinton the embodiment. His resilience and courage are astonishing. Unlike him, his tormentors are cowards.

  • The "Safest Home In America" Is Back On The Market

    A simmering nuclear crisis, series of devastating natural disasters and a resurgence of drug-fueled crime are inspiring more Americans than ever before to buy up “doomsday prepper” gear – everything from gas masks to fallout shelters – a trend that we’ve observed time and time again.

    While most Americans will need to settle for a small backyard bunker stocked with canned goods and water filters because of cost constraints, anybody looking for something slightly more stylish need look no further: A home in the Atlanta suburbs that has been described by architects as “the safest home in America” just hit the market – and it can be yours for the bargain price of $15 million.

    The home, known as Rice House, is located inside a gated community in Alpharetta, Georgia, about 30 minutes northeast of central Atlanta.

    The cream-colored, colonnaded facade of the Rice House, situated on 3.5 acres just outside Atlanta, hides far more than a private theater, bowling alley, and infinity swimming pool.

     

    The master and guest bedrooms have ballistic doors that can withstand fire from an AK-47 assault rifle. The car vault is large enough to hold 30 vehicles and has an entrance designed to be concealed by a waterfall. Secret doors lead to a 15,000-square-foot bunker  in which an embattled owner could conceivably hole up for years, with off-grid power and water drawn from three artesian wells drilled 1,000 feet into the ground. The house had its own security architect who spent two decades designing secure buildings for the DOJ.

     

    Listing materials boast that it is “one of, if not the, safest home in America.”

     

    “This is a home where you could put a $20 million painting on the wall and sleep comfortably at night,” said listing broker Paul Wegener, of Atlanta Fine Homes Sotheby’s International Realty. “The same goes for your family.”

    The unnamed entrepreneur who owns Rice House spent six years and some $30 million to build the 36,000-square-foot fortress – a project that Bloomberg claims was “mostly for kicks.”

    “He said to me, ‘If anyone wants to get me, they can find me at Chick-fil-A,’” the real-estate agent tasked with selling the home said. “It was something of an intellectual exercise to create an impenetrable home, a personal Batcave that the owner could peel his Bugatti Veyron out of.”

    The home was just relisted for $14.7 million, a drop from the original $17.5 million. The estate also needs to be finished, a project that cost an additional $3 million to $5 million. The owner planned the Rice House as a family legacy, but decided to sell when he learned his son didn’t want to live there. The main house has been completely built, with eight bedrooms, 14 bathrooms, three kitchens, a private museum, a wine cellar, an indoor shooting range, and commercial-grade elevators.

    “The mandate was the best of everything,” Wegener said. To construct the foundation, workers dug down to bedrock and then bored down into it. The walls are made from extra-strength concrete reinforced with rebar. The car vault originally was designed with 18 columns, but the owner pushed back until engineers figured out a way to use custom-made bridge beams, so no pillars would be needed to support the ceiling. The Rice House is highly energy-efficient, with geothermal heating and cooling and a solar energy system.

    Though it’s not included in the listing—to maintain that hush-hush feel—the Rice House is in Country Club of the South, a location popular among athletes and other famous individuals. Retired Atlanta Braves pitcher Tom Glavine, Usher, Whitney Houston, and NBA Hall of Famer Allen Iverson have all lived there. The neighborhood has 19 tennis courts, an 18-hole, golf course designed by Jack Nicklaus, basketball courts, a concert venue—and, of course, 24-hour security.

  • Gundlach Warns "The Order of The Financial System Is About To Be Turned Upside Down"

    "I'm not a big fan of bonds right now," may seem like an odd way for the so-called Bond King to begin, but in an audience at Vanity Fair's Establishment Summit, DoubleLine's Jeff Gundlach told Bethany McLean, "I haven’t been really [a fan of bonds] for the past four years, even though I manage them, and institutions have to own them for various reasons."

    Gundlach urged investors to be “light” on bonds.

    As Vanity Fair's William Cohan reports, Gundlach admitted “I’m stuck in it,” of his massive bond portfolio, adding that interest rates have bottomed out and been rising gradually for the past six years.

    Gundlach said his job now, on behalf of his clients, “is to get them to the other side of the valley.”

    When the bigger, seemingly inevitable hikes in interest rates come, “I’ll feel like I’ve done a service by getting people through,” he said.

     

    “That’s why I’m still at the game. I want to see how the movie ends.”

    But it can’t end well. To illustrate his point about the risk in owning bonds these days, Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds, pointing out that this phenomenon has been caused by "manipulated behavior" by central banks.

    European interest rates “should be much higher than they are today,” he said,

    “…[and] once Draghi realizes this, the order of the financial system will be turned upside down and it won’t be a good thing.

     

    It will mean the liquidity that has been pumping up the markets will be drying up in 2018…

     

    …Things go down. We’ve been in an artificially inflated market for stocks and bonds largely around the world.

    “My job is to find scary things,” Gundlach told McLean

    “My critics say, ‘You find seven risks for every one that exists.’ Guilty. That’s my job. My job is to try to find out what can go wrong, not cover my ears and hum. It’s better to keep your eyes open.”

  • In A Dramatic Pivot, Shia Militia Leader Tells US: "Get Ready To Leave Iraq"

    The Baghdad government and its paramilitary forces increasingly see American troop presence as the actual foreign menace.

    A prominent Iraqi militia leader with close ties to Iran has told the United States to go home while also accusing US forces of not actually being interested in fighting ISIS: “Your forces should get ready to get out of our country once the excuse of Daesh’s presence is over," said Sheikh Qais al-Khazali, the commander of the Shiite PMU group Asaib (Popular Mobilization Unit), through the group's TV channel on Monday. The threatening statement was issued the same day Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi publicly rejected Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's earlier suggestion that Iraqi paramilitary units who have for years fought Islamic State terrorists are actually "Iranian" and not Iraqi nationals.  

    On Sunday Tillerson controversially asserted that Iranian "militias" need to leave Iraq as the fight against Islamic State militants was coming to an end while in Riyadh where he engaged in rare high level talks with Abadi and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. “Certainly Iranian militias that are in Iraq, now that the fighting against (the Islamic State group) is coming to a close, those militias need to go home,” Tillerson said during a press conference in Riyadh, just before boarding a plane for Baghdad. "All foreign fighters need to go home,” he added.


    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Monday. Image source: Government of Iraq/Prime Minister's office.

    But Iraqi PM Abadi pushed back against the Secretary of State in a face to face meeting in Baghdad on Monday. Abadi's words to Tillerson were publicized through a statement on the prime minister's official Facebook page posted late Monday, which has been translated by Zero Hedge (emphasis ours):

    Prime Minister Dr. Haider al-Abadi during his meeting with the American Secretary of State Rex Tillerson assured him that the fighters of al-Hash'd al Shaabi [PMU militias] are Iraqi fighters who fought terrorism and protected their country, they sacrificed in order to win against Daesh [ISIS], and that Hash'd al Shaabi is an official institution under the state. The Iraqi Constitution doesn’t allow for foreign armed groups under state institutions, and further said that we should encourage these fighters because they are the hope of our country and for the region.

    And a separate statement issued earlier in the day by the prime minister's media office warned, "No party has the right to interfere in Iraqi matters.” So it appears, based on today's rebuttals, that the Iraqi government and its paramilitary forces increasingly see American troop presence as the actual foreign menace which potentially threatens Iraqi national sovereignty.

    Interestingly, Abadi's defense of the PMU forces appears to hinge on Article 9 section 1A of the Iraqi Constitution

    Tillerson's statements, however, are a reflection of the Washington foreign policy establishment's increased frustration at Shiite-led Iran’s expanding sway in the region, especially in Syria and Iraq. US regional allies Saudi Arabia and Israel are arguably even more frustrated, reflected in the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric coming out of both countries, and the fact that the two former enemies are finding more and more common ground against Iran and Syria.

    But the US and its allies have created the very situation and conditions they now find untenable. In Syria the West's fueling of an international proxy war for regime change pushed President Assad to increasingly rely on Iranian forces in a now more than 6-year long war against both homegrown and foreign Sunni jihadists. Furthermore, Iran's chief paramilitary ally in the region, Hezbollah, has played an even bigger role in pushing out ISIS and other al-Qaeda linked insurgents from Syria's major cities.

    In Iraq, Shiite parties have dominated politics since the U.S. toppled the Sunni-dominated secular Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Essentially, the neocons handed Baghdad to the very pro-Shia forces in Iraq that they now rant in frustration against, as is now commonly understood even among some of the very architects of Bush's war.

    The ultimate fear from the perspective of the US-Israel-Saudi axis remains the possibility of, in the words of Henry Kissinger, "a Shia and pro-Iran territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut" and the establishment of a supposed "Iranian radical empire." For neocons, the next Middle East threat ever-looms ad infinitum (there will always be another boogeyman…and another, and another, and another…) as an excuse to maintain America's "forever wars" in the region.

    And of course, Iraqi PM Abadi understands all of this very well – he further knows that American officials believe in the principle of "sovereignty" until they simply don't, that is, up until the point that US allied sovereign governments refuse to remain pliant puppets of American interests. In this case, the some 80,000 to 100,000 Iraqi PMU militias perceived by the US as being under Iranian influence and serving Iranian interests are considered by American and Saudi officials as intolerable, even while they fight ISIS.

  • MSNBC Catches Illegals Jumping Border Fence With Mexico As It Reports On Trump's Wall

    In an delightfully ironic lesson why border protection is important for the US, an MSNBC crew was reporting on the prototypes of Trump’s proposed border wall near San Diego, when the interview was interrupted by a group of “migrants not from Mexico” hopping over the existing fence.

    “What happened?” the MSNBC reporter shouts as a group of agents on horseback move in to catch border jumpers. “The people are crossing!”

    “Almost on cue, a group of asylum-seekers, migrants not from Mexico, jumped over the existing fence to turn themselves in to border agents on horseback,” the narrator explained.

    “It’s like, a small group of three people jumped over in the middle of the day,” he told a border patrol agent he was interviewing. “There’s a girl there in a pink backpack. Can you explain to me what’s going on?”

    What’s going on is that, as the border agent explained, it’s just another day at work fighting the battle to secure the nation’s southern border.

    “This is the reality of every day border enforcement. The United States is still the draw, the ultimate draw, for people that have dire situations where they’re at,” the agent said. “We’re going to continue to witness this. It plays out on a regular basis for us.”

    “And it did here just now,” the dismayed reporter replied, as first observed by the American Mirror.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, construction crews are currently erecting eight roughly 30-foot-tall prototypes for the president’s border wall in a remote section of the border near San Diego, where at least a half dozen illegal immigrants have been arrested while attempting to cross amid the construction, according to NPR. The prototypes currently include four made of solid concrete, four made of steel and concrete and one topped with spikes.

    “Customs and Border Protection is paying $20 million to six construction companies from Mississippi, Maryland, Alabama, Texas and Arizona” to construct the models by the end of the month, after which CBP will evaluate them based on three criteria, NPR reports.

    “We want a better barrier. One that is hard to scale, hard to penetrate and hard to tunnel under,” Roy Villareal, chief of the San Diego Border Patrol sector, told NPR. “We’re hoping innovation from private industry combined with our experience generates the next evolution of border security infrastructure.”

    For those who missed it, here is our exclusive drone footage of the 8 different wall types currently under consideration.

  • Ray Dalio: "This Is The Most Important Economic, Political And Social Issue Of Our Time"

    Every quarter, the Fed's Flow of Funds report discloses – among many other things – the total U.S. household net worth, and every quarter for the past two years this number has steadily gone up, hitting fresh all time highs with every new release, most recently $96.2 trillion, to widespread cheers from both the financial press and the public, as well as the administration. 

    However, as we show every quarter, this aggregate number is largely meaningless in providing a status update on the financial state of the broader US population, as it masks a gaping chasm between the haves, or the top 10% of US society – those who benefit the most from this mostly financial-asset based increase in net worth, and the have nots, or bottom 90%, who remain largely locked out from such gains.

    In fact, it was the Fed's own Triennial Survey of Consumer Finances which disclosed just how skewed this net worth distribution had become:

    Today, none other than Bridgewater's Ray Dalio focuses on this topic, which he calls "the most important economic, political and social issue of our time", and defines it as "the two US economies"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    that of the top 40% and the bottom 60%.

    In an article published on LinkedIn this morning, Dalio writes that the Federal Reserve should more closely monitor the economic struggles of the bottom 60% of the economy when making policy since “average statistics” are camouflaging what’s really occurring in the U.S., precisely what this site has claimed quarter after quarter.

    Dalio's argument focuses on the wide disparities in factors including labor, retirement savings, health care, death rates and education between the top 40% and bottom 60% of the country, and how average statistics fail to capture this increasingly bimodal distribution. And, echoing what we said most recently a month ago, the Bridgewater founder said it would be a “serious mistake” for the Fed to just focus on a national average as it could lead the policy makers to see a brighter economic picture than the reality.

    Or, as we phrased it, "And there is your "recovery": the wealthy have never been wealthier, while half of America, some 50% of households, own just 1% of the country's wealth, down from 3% in 1989, while America's poor have never been more in debt."

    Back to Dalio, who writes in his Daily Observations report that “because the economic, social, and political consequences of an economic downturn would likely be severe, if I were running Fed policy, I would want to take this into consideration and keep an eye on the economy of the bottom 60%." He adds that “similarly, having this perspective will be very important for those who determine fiscal policies and for investors concerned with their wealth management."

    Dalio hardly breaks new ground when he then writes that the difference in the financial conditions for the two groups – largely due in part whether they can take advantage of the market rally or not, and for most of the US population, it is the latter – is a major cause of slowing growth. Furthermore, the gap between the two economies will only intensify over the next five to 10 years, as changes in demographics will challenge the government’s ability to meet pension and healthcare demands, while changes in technology will continue to impact employment.

    The disparities he listed include:

    • The top 40 percent now has on average 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60, up from six times as much in 1980
    • Just a third of the bottom 60 percent saves any of its income, compared to about 70 percent of the top 40
    • Premature deaths among those in the bottom 60 percent are up 20 percent since 2000, and the odds of a premature death within that group are twice as high as the top 40

    His conclusion: "We expect the stress between the two economies to intensify over the next 5 to 10 years because of changes in demographics that make it likely that pension, healthcare, and debt promises will become increasingly difficult to meet and because the effects of technological changes on employment and the wealth gap are likely to intensify. For this reason, we will continue to report on the conditions of “the top 40%” and “the bottom 60%” separately (as well as on the averages), and we encourage you to monitor them too. "

    * * *

    His full note is below (link):

    Our Biggest Economic, Social, and Political Issue The Two Economies: The Top 40% and the Bottom 60%

    To understand what’s going on in “the economy,” it is a serious mistake to look at average statistics. This is because the wealth and income skews are so great that average statistics no longer reflect the conditions of the average man. For example, as shown in the chart below, the wealth of the top one-tenth of 1% of the population is about equal to that of the bottom 90% of the population, which is the same sort of wealth gap that existed during the 1935-40 period.  

    To give you a sense of what the picture below the averages looks like, we broke the economy into two economies—that of the top 40% and that of the bottom 60%.* We then observed how conditions of the majority of Americans (the bottom 60%) are different from the conditions of those of the top 40%, as well as different from the picture conveyed by the average statistics. We focused especially on the bottom 60% because that’s where the majority of Americans are and because the picture of this economy is not apparent to most people in the top 40%. 

    The Bottom 60% Compared with the Top 40% and the “Average”

    We will start off looking at income and the economic picture and then turn to some related lifestyle and political differences.

    • There has been no growth in earned income, and income and wealth gaps have grown and are enormous. Since 1980, median household real incomes have been about flat, and the average household in the top 40% earns four times more than the average household in the bottom 60%. While they’ve experienced some growth recently, real incomes have been flat to down slightly for the average household in the bottom 60% since 1980 (while they have been up for the top 40%). Those in the top 40% now have on average 10 times as much wealth as those in the bottom 60%. That is up from six times as much in 1980.
    • Only about a third of the bottom 60% saves any of its income (in cash or financial assets). As a result, according to a recent Federal Reserve study, most people in this group would struggle to raise $400 in an emergency.
    • The rates of income and wealth changes of the middle class have been worse than those changes in any of the other groups, once you account for the social safety net and taxes. The charts below show income, adding in the impact of taxes, tax credits, benefits, and transfers (including non-monetary government transfers like Medicaid and employer health insurance). Unlike the picture of real earned incomes shown earlier, all the quintiles had seen some growth until 2008. This was primarily driven by increases in transfers, benefits, and social programs (especially medical benefits). It also lights up some differences within the bottom 60%. Note that while the conditions of those in the bottom quintile of society are terrible, and worse than those of the middle class by most measures (e.g., income, health, death rates, incarceration rates, etc.), the rate of change in these conditions has been worse for the middle class. More specifically, the middle class has experienced less post-tax and transfer income growth than the bottom quintile since 1980 (see chart on the right), partially because government support to the bottom has provided more of a cushion—though in both cases, income growth has been very low.
    • The middle class has been especially hard-hit by manufacturing jobs declining about 30% since 1997, which is shown in the below chart.
    • Those in the top 40% have benefited disproportionately from changes in asset values relative to those in the bottom 60%, because of their asset and liability mix. The balance sheets of these two groups, shown below, are sharply different. Though the bottom 60% has a small amount of savings, only a quarter of it is in cash or financial assets; the majority is in much less liquid forms of wealth, like cars, real estate, and business equity. For the bottom, debt is skewed toward more expensive student, auto, and credit card debt.  
    • The increasing disparity in financial conditions is a major cause of the slowing of growth, because those in lower income/wealth groups have higher propensities to spend than those in higher income/wealth groups. Said differently, if you give rich people more money, they probably won’t spend much of it, whereas if you give poorer people more money, they will probably spend more of it, each motivated by the extent of their unmet needs and desires.**
    • Retirement savings for the bottom 60% are not even close to adequate and aren’t much improved as the economy and markets have recovered. Only about a third of families in the bottom 60% have retirement savings accounts—e.g., pensions, 401(k)s—which average less than $20,000. Further, as we do projections of pension finance, it appears unlikely that pension retirement benefits will be fully met. 
    • Death rates are rising and mental and physical health is deteriorating for those in the bottom 60%. For those in the bottom 60%, premature deaths are up by about 20% since 2000. The biggest contributors to that change are an increase in deaths by drugs/poisoning (up two times since 2000) and an increase in suicides (up over 50% since 2000). The odds of premature death for those in the bottom 60% between the ages of 35 and 64 are more than two times higher, compared to those in the top 40%.
    •  The US is just about the only major industrialized country with flat/slightly rising death rates.
    • The top 40% spend four times more on education than the bottom 60%. This creates a self-perpetuating problem, because those at the bottom get a much worse education than those at the top.
    • The bottom 60% increasingly believe others will take advantage of them: the percentage is 49% today versus 40% in 1990.

    While conditions for the lowest income groups have long been bad, conditions of non-college-educated whites (especially males) have deteriorated significantly over the past 30 years or so. This is the group that swung most strongly to help elect President Trump. More specifically:

    • Now, the average household income for main income earners without a college degree is half that of the average college graduate.
    • The share of whites without college degrees who describe themselves as “not too happy” has doubled since 1990, from 9% to 18%, while for those with college degrees it has remained flat, at around 7%.
    • Since 1980, divorce rates have more than doubled among middle-age whites without college degrees, from 11% to 23%.
    • Prime working-age white males have given up looking for work in record numbers; the number of prime-age white men without college degrees not in the labor force has increased from 7% to 15% since 1980.
    • More broadly, men ages 21 to 30 spend an average of three fewer hours a week working than they did a decade ago; most of that time is spent playing video games.
    • The probability of premature death for whites without college degrees between the ages of 35 and 64 is nearly three times higher than it is for whites with college degrees, and the rate of premature deaths is up by about 25% since 2000 (while it is down for virtually every other demographic group). The US white population is unique among large groups in the developed world for seeing increases in their death rates. Below, we show premature deaths among working-age whites between the ages of 35 and 64. Again, the average obscures the picture. America’s non-white population isn’t seeing such a rise in premature deaths.

    The polarity in economics and living standards is contributing to greater political polarity, as reflected in the below charts.

    It is also leading to reduced trust and confidence in government, financial institutions, and the media, which is at or near 35-year lows.

    In Summary

    Average statistics camouflage what is happening in the economy, which could lead to dangerous miscalculations, most importantly by policy makers. For example, looking at average statistics could lead the Federal Reserve to judge the economy for the average man to be healthier than it really is and to misgauge the most important things that are going on with the economy, labor markets, inflation, capital formation, and productivity, rather than if the Fed were to use more granular statistics. 

    That could lead the Fed to run an inappropriate monetary policy. Because the economic, social, and political consequences of an economic downturn would likely be severe, if I were running Fed policy, I would want to take this into consideration and keep an eye on the economy of the bottom 60%. By monitoring what is happening in the economies of both the bottom 60% and the top 40% (or, even better, more granular groups), policy makers and the rest of us can give consideration to the implications of this issue. Similarly, having this perspective will be very important for those who determine fiscal policies and for investors concerned with their wealth management. 

    We expect the stress between the two economies to intensify over the next 5 to 10 years because of changes in demographics that make it likely that pension, healthcare, and debt promises will become increasingly difficult to meet (see “The Coming Big Squeeze”) and because the effects of technological changes on employment and the wealth gap are likely to intensify. For this reason, we will continue to report on the conditions of “the top 40%” and “the bottom 60%” separately (as well as on the averages), and we encourage you to monitor them too.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 23rd October 2017

  • "Czech Donald Trump" Wins Landslide Victory

    Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

    • The election outcome, the result of popular discontent with established parties, is the latest in a recent wave of successes for European populists, including in Austria and Germany. The populist ascendancy highlights a shifting political landscape in Europe where runaway multiculturalism and political correctness, combined with a massive influx of unassimilable migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, have given rise to a surge in support for anti-establishment protest parties.
    • "It is unthinkable that the indigenous European population should adapt themselves to the refugees. We must do away with such nonsensical political correctness. The refugees should behave like guests, that is, they should be polite, and they certainly do not have the right to choose what they want to eat…. There is a deep chasm between what people think and what the media tell them." — Andrej Babis, in the Czech daily Pravo, January 16, 2016.
    • As prime minister, Babis would share government with Czech President Milos Zeman, who has described political correctness as "a euphemism for political cowardice."

    Populist tycoon Andrej Babis and his Eurosceptic political party have won the Czech Republic's parliamentary election – by a landslide – making the "politically incorrect" billionaire businessman the main contender to become prime minister after coalition negotiations.

    With all of the votes counted, Babis's anti-establishment party ANO (which stands for "Action of Dissatisfied Citizens" and is also the Czech word for "yes") won nearly 30% — almost three times its closest rival — in elections held on October 20. The Eurosceptic Civic Democratic Party (ODS), the anti-establishment Czech Pirates Party and the anti-EU Freedom and Direct Democracy party (SPD) came second, third and fourth, with around 11% each.

    The Communists came in fifth with 7.8%. The Social Democrats, the center-left establishment party that finished first in the previous election, came in sixth with just 7.2%. The Christian Democrats, the center-right establishment party, won 5.8%, just enough to qualify for seats in parliament. In all, nine parties competed in the election.

    The election outcome, the result of popular discontent with established parties, is the latest in a recent wave of successes for European populists, including in Austria and Germany. The populist ascendancy highlights a shifting political landscape in Europe where runaway multiculturalism and political correctness, combined with a massive influx of unassimilable migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, have given rise to a surge in support for anti-establishment protest parties.

    Babis's victory will also strengthen the role of the Visegrad Group (V4), a political alliance of four Central European states — the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia — committed not only to resisting mass migration, but also to opposing the continued transference of national sovereignty to the European Union. A stronger V4 will accentuate the divisions between the pro-EU states of Western Europe and the increasingly Eurosceptic states of Central and Eastern Europe. The European Union consequently will struggle to maintain an outward semblance of unity.

    In his victory speech at the ANO party headquarters, Babis, who campaigned as a centrist, refused to speculate on the composition of a coalition government, but said he wanted the cabinet to be set up as quickly as possible: "This is a huge opportunity to change our country. I would like to assemble a government that will be of the people and for the people and promotes policies that are in their favor."

    Babis also tried to reassure the public that he would not put the Czech Republic on the path to authoritarianism, as some of his detractors have charged:

    "We are a democratic movement. We are a solid part of the European Union and we are a solid part of NATO. I do not understand why some people say we are a threat to democracy. We certainly are not a threat to democracy. I am ready to fight for our national interests and to promote them."

    Babis has been sharply critical of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's open-door migration policy and has repeatedly denounced EU-imposed migrant quotas and other "EU meddling" in Czech politics. Those positions resonate in the Czech Republic, where citizens have the second-lowest trust in the European Union of all 28 member states (only Greeks have less trust in the EU), according to the latest Eurobarometer poll, published in August.

    During the campaign, the 63-year-old Babis, one of the country's wealthiest people, presented himself as a non-ideological results-oriented reformer. He pledged to run the Czech Republic like a business after years of what he called corrupt and inept management. He demanded a return of sovereignty from the European Union and rejected Czech adoption of the euro single currency. He has also promised to cut government spending, stop people from "being parasites" in the social welfare system, and fight for Czech interests abroad. Babis is often referred to as "the Czech Donald Trump."

    Populist tycoon Andrej Babis (pictured) and his Eurosceptic political party have won the Czech Republic's parliamentary election, making Babis the main contender to become prime minister after coalition negotiations. (Image source: Ji?í Vítek/Wikimedia Commons)

    Babis does not want the Czech Republic to leave the EU; he has repeatedly stressed that unimpeded access to the European single market is essential to maintaining the health of the Czech economy, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the EU: "We have six thousand German companies here, investing with us and employing people."

    At the same time, Babis is opposed to the country adopting the euro because doing so would, he believes, constrain national sovereignty and competitiveness:

    "No euro. I don't want the euro. We don't want the euro here. Everybody knows it's bankrupt. It's about our sovereignty. I want the Czech koruna, and an independent central bank. I don't want another issue that Brussels would be meddling with."

    Babis has pledged to reform the European Union from within, especially regarding migration policy: "I want to play a more important role in Europe. But we have to fight for our interests and make proposals. If I were a prime minister, I would say: 'Close this cursed external European border at last.'"

    Babis has expressed his opposition to mass migration: "I have stopped believing in successful integration and multiculturalism." He has also insisted that the Czech Republic alone should decide who will work in the country and who will receive humanitarian aid: "I do not want to have a French or German migration policy; we want our migration policy to be completely different from other countries. Every state has some interests, we have to fight for Czech national interests, we do not want to have that multicultural model."

    Babis has rejected pressure from the European Commission, which has launched infringement procedures against the Czechs, Hungarians and Poles for refusing to comply with an EU plan to redistribute migrants:

    "I will not accept refugee quotas for the Czech Republic. The situation has changed. We see how migrants react in Europe. We must react to the needs and fears of the citizens of our country. We must guarantee the security of Czech citizens. Even if we are punished by sanctions."

    In June 2017, Babis reiterated that the Czech Republic would not be taking orders from unelected bureaucrats in Brussels:

    "We have to fight for what our ancestors built here. If there will be more Muslims than Belgians in Brussels, that's their problem. I don't want that here. They won't be telling us who should live here."

    In an interview with the Czech daily Pravo, Babis said:

    "It is unthinkable that the indigenous European population should adapt themselves to the refugees. We must do away with such nonsensical political correctness. The refugees should behave like guests, that is, they should be polite, and they certainly do not have the right to choose what they want to eat. Europe and Germany in particular are undergoing an identity crisis. There is a deep chasm between what people think and what the media tell them."

    As prime minister, Babis would share government with Czech President Milos Zeman, who has described political correctness as "a euphemism for political cowardice." In an interview with the Guardian, the 71-year-old Zeman recounted a recent conversation with Angela Merkel: "My first sentence in the meeting with Madam Chancellor was: 'If you invite somebody to your homeland, you do not send them to have lunch at your neighbors.'"

    In an interview with Czech Radio, Zeman, who has called mass migration to Europe an "organized invasion," said: "The Muslim Brotherhood cannot start a war against Europe, it doesn't have the power, but it can prepare a growing migrant wave and gradually control Europe."

    Like Babis, Zeman has also expressed skepticism about Muslim integration: "The experience of Western European countries which have ghettos and excluded localities shows that the integration of the Muslim community is practically impossible."

  • Depravity, Frivolity, And Dissent: Are We Watching The End Of An Empire?

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    A 40-year-old essay predicted the end of an empire and current events sure make it look like we’re watching it happen in real time.

    I spend a fair bit of time scanning the news every day for my site, Preppers Daily News. And some days, I just have to shake my head as I realize that people are so desperate for…something…that they just keep going to further and further extremes to try and find that elusive thing their lives are missing.

    The more I read, the more likeness I see to Sir John Glubb’s essay, The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. (It’s only 24 pages and you should definitely read it – it’s brilliant.) Sir Glubb wrote this outstanding work when he was 79 years old, after a lifetime of being a soldier, traveling the world, and analyzing history. It’s well worth a read as he goes into detail about the fall of empires past.

    The final stage of the end of an empire is the Age of Decadence.

    Some signs of this age are political dissensions (Antifa, anyone?), an influx of foreigners (Europe, anyone?), the welfare state (America, anyone?), despair (350 million people diagnosed), depravity (see below), and the rise of frivolity as people try to fill lives that have less and less meaning.

    Sound familiar?

    This video is a brief synopsis of the signs of an empire that is near its end.

    A synopsis I read makes Glubb’s theory entirely applicable to modern society:

    In the age of decadence many people choose to behave in ways that are unsustainable, apparently unaware of the consequences. They indulge in excessive, often conspicuous, consumption. An absurdly wealthy elite emerges, but instead of repelling the masses it is admired and celebrated. Those outside the elite aspire to similar levels of consumption, and are encouraged by the availability of cheap credit. People become convinced that increased consumption is the key to happiness, but in its pursuit they become measurably less happy. As David Morgan says, “you can never get enough of what you don’t need.”

     

    At this point in the life cycle of an empire frivolity, as Glubb calls it, comes to the fore. In order to distract people from what’s really going on, the economy creates diversions. Voyeurism becomes central to culture: the gladiatorial spectacles in decadent Rome are mirrored in today’s ‘reality’ television. People become fixated on celebrity as the genuinely noteworthty become understandably camera shy. These invented celebrities are ‘famous’ just for being famous…

     

    …Debauchery is another recurring theme at the end of empire. Society develops a strangely immature obsession with sex. People drink themselves to the point of unconsciousness and shamelessly collapse in the street. In Roman times, binge drinkers were left to their fate. Today’s debauchery is supervised by the police; its ‘victims’ are taken care of by hard-pressed health care professionals, placing further pressure on the public purse. And, all the while, supermarkets and corporations make a killing selling discounted booze to people barely old enough to buy it. This is our modern-day bread and circuses, with obese citizens literally becoming a burden on the state.

     

    But the small can never satisfy the large. Cheap pleasures fail to compensate for the absence of meaning in so many people’s lives. A hankering for something greater remains…growing numbers are denied access to work; they can find no meaningful involvement in their community, so their potential goes unfulfilled. When people are prevented from fulfilling their potential, they often self-destruct. (source)

    By “Empire,” I’m not referring specifically just to the United States in particular, but Western Civilization in general. We’re watching our friends in Europe go down the same path. How can anyone look at the following stories and think that we are all okay and that this is sustainable?

    NOTE: The story below isn’t pretty and there is adult content. If you are offended by adult content, take my word for it and do not read on. If you do read on, don’t get mad that you read adult content and complain in the comments. Thanks. DL

    Dissent

    Never have America and Europe seen their citizens more at odds. Here in the United States, the last election caused more division than any other in history. Friendships and family relationships ended over who people’s voting choices. Once Trump was inaugurated, things didn’t settle down. There are still groups who want to overthrow the “Trump-Pence regime.” Some students can’t even tolerate the existence of those with opposite beliefs.

    The education system doesn’t help. Some professors are actually encouraging violent revolt. Californians are talking about seceding from the United States because Trump won.

    In Europe, the UK voted to leave the European Union and Catalonia voted to leave Spain.  People are firmly divided between welcoming immigrants and banishing immigrants.

    Chaos is everywhere and there is little middle ground.

    Unfathomable crimes

    Crimes are becoming more horrific and mindboggling. A 17-year-old girl was trying to walk home through a “no-go zone” in the UK and was sexually assaulted 3 separate times in one hour. A man in Pennsylvania tried to strangle his girlfriend to death because she changed the passcode to the IPad. A Georgia woman murdered her two toddler sons by putting them in the oven and then video-chatted their father.

    A Hollywood fixture has been accused of assaulting and harassing dozens of women, which led thousands of other women to share their horror stories with a #MeToo hashtag on Twitter. I have seen report after report recently of teachers having sex with their high school students.

    Premature Sexuality

    Sexuality is being introduced to our children far too early, For example, libraries around the country are having “Drag Queen Story Hour.” A picture is worth a thousand words.

    What’s the purpose of this? Here’s a quote from a magazine write up entitled “An amazing demon drag queen has entertained children in Michelle Obama’s library” that explains:

    Drag Queen Story Hour aims to give young children “glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models,” according to the programme’s website…

     

    …The Drag Queen Story Hour site explains that the event “captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood”.

     

    “In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.

     

    The programme “happens regularly in LA, New York, and San Francisco, and events are popping up all over the world!”

    I actually don’t have an issue with adults who are drag queens – heck, I sang along at a show in Vegas, and as a libertarian, I believe that consenting adults can do what they want. I have not raised my kids to mistreat others because of their sexuality. They’d be in massive trouble if they did. I did, however, manage to teach them to be kind individuals without taking them to Drag Queen Story Hour when they were 3.

    Let me be absolutely clear that while I don’t think Drag Queen Story Hour is an attempt to sexually abuse children, it does lead me to the over-sexualization of kids. I don’t even know the names of all the genders and sexualities that are being claimed and LBGT keeps adding so many initials, I can’t keep up. No wonder kids are confused. I’m confused and I’m a grown-up.

    Decades ago, anything on TV before 9 o’clock was pretty innocent. We didn’t have laptops and cell phones that allowed us to learn way too much, way too soon. We didn’t take quizzes on Buzzfeed to see if we were ready to have anal sex that night and we didn’t turn to Teen Vogue to learn about oral sex. These days, Teen Vogue is racier than Cosmo was in the early 80s. How do we protect our children’s innocence in this environment? How do we let them just be kids and find their own ways? Heck, even in Disney movies, everyone’s gotta have a love interest. Why?

    Normalization of pedophilia

    Children are exposed to far too much, far too young. This makes them ripe targets for pedophiles. Let me be clear on this too. Pedophilia is always, always wrong and extraordinarily harmful to children.

    To make matters worse, there is a sick attempt to normalize pedophilia. Salon magazine had published numerous articles with titles like, “I’m a pedophile but I’m not a monster” which has since been deleted due to the public outcry. There are even forums about “moral pedophilia.” Here’s a quote:

    Our website is intended to reduce the stigma attached to pedophilia by letting people know that a substantial number of pedophiles DO NOT molest children, and to provide peer support and information about available resources to help virtuous pedophiles remain law-abiding, and lead happy, productive lives.  These are our stories.  There are brief bios of the two founders of the site and collections of other personal stories. (source)

    I keep wondering, are the people in charge of media trying to normalize this so that when they inevitably get outed for molesting children, no one will care? Watch this video about the rampant pedophilia in the entertainment industry – and then remember, these are the people who influence the views of the folks who idolize celebrities.

    Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, was spotlighted for his incredibly disturbing art collection that showed the torture and murder of children. (Here is a shocking post with images found using “Tony and Heather Podesta’s art collection” as a search term.) And who can forget that sick “spirit cooking” scandal during the election? There are some things we simply cannot unsee.

    The mainstream wants to blame the collapse of civilization on Trump, but they ignore the fact that in this administration, more than 1500 pedophilia-related arrests took place in the first full month of his presidency. Just last week, 84 children were rescued from a sex-trafficking ring, with the youngest of those sweet angels only 3 months old. A THREE-MONTH-OLD BABY WAS FOR SALE FOR $600!!!!

    Bestiality

    Speaking of “art,” a Slovenian woman just won a prestigious art award for being “in seclusion” with her dogs for 3 months. Of course, for some of us, just hanging with pets sounds awesome, but we don’t hang out with pets like Maja Smrekar does. She breastfed a puppy and fertilized one of her eggs with what she says was a “fat cell” from another of her dogs. Mmm hmm. This video that documents her “art” is another thing to add to the can’t-ever-unsee-it list. The jury that awarded her the prize said“What is making this artwork so special is the total commitment of the artist.” Apparently, I just don’t understand art. Or commitment. Or what cool people do with their pets.

    They’ve had to make laws in numerous states to combat an apparent uptick in bestiality. One guy was arrested for sneaking into a neighbor’s yard and doing it with their donkey. Numerous times. This lady says she’s literally married to her dog. All of these people (Can’t-Unsee Warning) also claim to have romantic relationships with animals.

    Bestiality is actually legal in these US states: Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Apparently, parties are organized where people can engage in sex acts with animals. Publicly.

    Not to be outdone, this gal is done with humanity altogether and says she now is…a cat. I wasn’t sure if this went in the bestiality section or where.

    The emptiness of society

    Perhaps people should first examine the depravity and frivolity that passes for art and entertainment these days.  A walk in the woods to look at fall leaves will not suffice for much of the population.

    People are so desperate for that rush of endorphins that they’re constantly seeking something more and more outrageous to give it to them. Normal things no longer give them that fleeting feeling of joy. Their own lives are so empty that they focus on the lives of people famous for being famous to fill them up.

    When society is more interested in reality television than actual reality, how can we expect that same society will be invested in our future?

  • Tesla Reportedly Preparing To Open Factory In Shanghai

    As Tesla falls further and further behind in its quest to produce 10,000 Model 3 sedans a week by the end of next year, WSJ reported Sunday that, after months of talks with local government officials, Tesla has finally received permission to open a factory in Shanghai, one of China’s designated “free trade zones.”

    If accurate, the report would signal a major shift in China’s policy toward foreign automakers. Until now, US carmakers like GM hoping to sell cars in China’s domestic market have been forced to work (and more importantly share profits and technology) with a local partner.

    But more surprising than the news itself is the timing, as Tesla continues to struggle with major production delays at its Fremont Calif factory, a problem that will no doubt be exacerbated by the company’s decision to lay off hundreds of workers and replace them with cheaper contract labor in what has been characterized as a blatant attempt to suppress unionization efforts. WSJ says cars produced at the Shanghai factory would primarily supply local markets while allowing Tesla to sale cars across the region. Meanwhile, any cars shipped to the US from the Shanghai factory would face a 25% tariff.

    The scoop comes from WSJ’s Tim Higgins, who has broke a handful of big Tesla stories in recent months, including a report earlier this month about workers at Tesla’s Fremont factory being forced to assemble Model 3s by hand because the factory's production line hadn't yet been completed.

    “Electric-car maker Tesla Inc. has reached an agreement to set up its own manufacturing facility in Shanghai, according to people briefed on the plan, a move that could help it gain traction in China’s fast-growing EV market.

     

    The deal with Shanghai’s government will allow the Silicon Valley auto maker to build a wholly owned factory in the city’s free-trade zone, these people said. This arrangement, the first of its kind for a foreign auto maker, could enable Tesla to slash production costs, but it would still likely incur China’s 25% import tariff.

     

    Tesla is currently working with the Shanghai government about details of the deal’s announcement, such as timing, one of these people said. The effort comes as President Donald Trump, who has been critical of China’s trade policies, prepares to visit Beijing early next month.

     

    A Tesla spokesman didn’t have a comment beyond reiterating the company’s previous statement in June that it planned to “clearly define” production plans in China by year’s end. The Shanghai government didn’t reply to a request for comment."

    While the news isn’t exactly a surprise – Tesla has seemingly been in talks to open a factory in China for ages and has hinted that a factory might be opening soon – given the timing, one can’t help but question whether the reporting is accurate.

    To this point, the Wall Street Journal has a rule – common among legacy media organizations – whereby if a company’s communications department is the source of leaked information in a story, the paper won’t report that the company refused to comment or declined to comment – because it wouldn’t be true. Tesla’s comms department was named in the story, so therefor the information either came from sources close to the Shanghai government, or some other third party (or, of course, a combination).

    As WSJ points out, Tesla is still working out the details of the agreement. Presumably, breaking ground remains a long way off. Perhaps there’s still time for the deal – assuming one is in fact being negotiated – to fall through.

    Of course, being allowed to operate in the country without a local partner would be an unprecedented step for China’s free-trade zones. The Chinese government wouldn’t set such a precedent without careful consideration, though it did circulate a proposal on possibly allowing foreign EV makers to circumvent the partner rule if they build their operations in the country’s free trade zones.

    Until now, foreign auto makers have built cars in China through joint ventures with local manufacturers. That allows them to avoid the 25% tariff on autos, but also forces them to split profits, and potentially share technology, with the local partner—something that has tripped up Tesla’s previous efforts to expand there.

     

    Under current rules, the cars Tesla builds in the free-trade zone would still count as imports and incur the tariff. Auto analysts in Shanghai doubt the Chinese government has any incentive to give Tesla special treatment.

     

    “Government regulators examine every deal and try not to set a precedent,” said Bill Russo, chief executive of Automobility, a Shanghai-based consultancy, and a former Chrysler executive. “Whatever deal Tesla gets, others will want it too."

    Of course, the logic of competing for a foothold in China’s domestic market – despite the myriad obstacles that remain for foreign companies, not the least of which are the PBOC’s stringent capital controls, which make it difficult for foreign corporations to repatriate profits – is unimpeachable. According to a study published by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers this week, Chinese buyers are expected to have purchased 700,000 electric vehicles by the year’s end.

    Sales have contineud to climb even as the Chinese government, which has spent billions on EV subsidies, this year pared back financial incentives for EVs by 20%. Of course, the increase is probably because the government has embraced other more coercive methods to push customers toward electric vehicles as it tries to combat a worsening air pollution problem in its cities. For example, the local government has dramatically increased the share of license plates awarded to EV owners to incentivize purchases.

    Elon Musk wouldn’t be the first American to try to compete in China’s EV market. Chinese electric car company BYD, which is backed by Warren Buffett, was the best-selling electric carmaker last year and sells seven models in the country.

    In August, General Motors said it would start selling the Baojun E100, a tiny electric car costing about $5,300 after national and local electric vehicle incentives, CNNMoney reported.

    China’s EV market, already the world’s largest, is expected to experience rapid growth over the coming decade, as the Chinese government pushes a plan to eliminate fossil fuel-burning vehicles entirely over the coming decades. The Chinese government is targeting 7 million EV sales a year by 2025, up from 351,000 last year, and in September it ordered all auto makers already operating in China to start producing EVs by 2019. Officials have also said they are working on a plan to ban gasoline cars.

    Tesla won’t report third quarter earnings until next month, but the company reported record cash burn in the second quarter (though it did have about $3 billion of cash on hand)…

    …meaning it will likely need to issue more debt to finance the construction of the factory. In August, Tesla announced a $1.5 billion bond offering purportedly to ramp up production on the Model 3.

    But regardless of the cost, China is an essential market for Tesla. And as Elon Musk scrambles to justify the company’s obscene valuation as its recent production difficulties have forced it to cede the mantle of most valuable domestic automaker to GM.

    However, there is plenty of skepticism as to whether this is Muskian 'fake news'…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Neck and Neck: Russian and Chinese Official Gold Reserves

    Submitted by Ronan Manly, BullionStar.com

    Official gold reserve updates from the Russian and Chinese central banks are probably one of the more closely watched metrics in the gold world. After the US, Germany, Italy and France, the sovereign gold holdings of China and Russia are the world’s 5th and 6th largest. And with the gold reserves ‘official figures’ of the US, Germany, Italy and France being essentially static, the only numbers worth watching are those of China and Russia.

    The Russian Federation’s central bank, the Bank of Russia, releases data on its official gold holdings in the Bank’s monthly “International Reserves and Foreign Currency Liquidity” report which is published towards the end of the third week of each month, and which confirms gold reserve changes as of the previous month-end.

    The Chinese State releases data on its official gold holdings via a monthly “Official Reserve Assets” report published by the State Administration of Foreign Reserves (SAFE) that is uploaded within the Forex Reserves pages of the SAFE website. This gold is classified as held by the Chinese central bank, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC). The SAFE report is published during the 2nd week of each month, reporting on the previous month-end.

    In both reports, official gold reserves (i.e. monetary gold) are specified in both US Dollars and fine troy ounces. Monetary gold is gold that is held by a central bank or other monetary authority as a reserve asset on a central bank’s balance sheet.

    Delta: 63 Tonnes

    For the Bank of Russia, its latest report, published on 19 September 2017 addressing August month-end, shows the Bank holding 57.2 million fine troy ounces of gold (1779 tonnes). For the Chinese State, the latest SAFE release is reporting Chinese official gold reserves of 59.24 million ounces (1842 tonnes).

    Russian gold reserves, as officially reported, now total 1779 tonnes, and are now just 63 tonnes shy of the ‘official’ gold reserves of the Chinese central bank. Given that the Bank of Russia is expected to add about another 36 tonnes of gold to its official reserves during the remainder of 2017,  then if the Chinese State does not reveal any increase in its ‘official’ gold reserves between now and the first quarter of 2018, Russia will most likely surpass China in terms of official gold reserves by April 2018.

    While its possible and probable that the Chinese State / PBoC really holds more gold than it claims to hold, any upcoming scenario in which the Bank of Russia surpasses the People’s Bank of China in terms of gold holdings would at least be symbolic in terms of international monetary developments, and would be sure to generate some chatter in the financial press.

    Although the official gold reserves of these two key nations are now nearly neck and neck, there are still some interesting contrasts between them, not least the way in which the Bank of Russia’s reported gold holdings have been steadily increasing month on month, while the reported gold holdings of the People’s Bank of China have remained totally unchanged for nearly a year now, since the end of October 2016.

    Therefore the situation which is now emerging, i.e. the distinct possibility that Russian official gold reserves will surpass those of China something in early 2018, is a situation which is emerging precisely because the Russian Federation keeps adding to its gold reserves, while the Chinese State seemingly does not.

    Differing Styles of Communication

    The routes via which these two strategically important nations have amassed their official gold reserves are also quite different, at least at a public reporting level.

    Bank of Russia Gold Reserves: 2006 – September 2017, Source:www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    It wasn’t so long ago (2007) that the gold reserves of the Russian Federation were still in the region of 400 tonnes. However, beginning in about the third quarter of 2007, the Bank of Russia began a concerted campaign to rapidly expand its official gold holdings, a trend which never subsided and which has been ongoing now for exactly 10 years. By early 2011, official Russian gold reserves had exceeded 800 tonnes. By the end of 2014, the Bank of Russia was reporting holding more than 1200 tonnes of gold. And by the end of 2016, Russian official gold were more than 1600 tonnes. For full details on the Bank of Russia’s gold holdings, including gold storage, gold reserve management, gold purchases and Russian government views on gold, see “Bank of Russia, Central Bank Gold Policies” at BullionStar’s Gold University.

    From the above chart, it can be seen that during 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively, the Bank of Russia added 171 tonnes, 208 tonnes, and 199 tonnes to its gold reserves, or in total 578 tonnes over a 3 year period. In 2017, with the Bank of Russia having added another 164 tonnes of gold for the year to end of August, its official gold reserves now stand at 1779 tonnes.

    The route to the Chinese State accumulating 1842 tonnes of gold is a different one to that of the Russians, again at least from a publicly reported angle. While the Bank of Russia has historically published changes to its gold reserves on a monthly basis, the Chinese central bank has chosen to remain very secretive, and between 2001 and mid 2015 had only issued four public updates addressing the size and growth of its gold reserves. These 4 updates were as follows:

    • 4th Quarter 2001: From 394 to 500 tonnes: A 106 tonne increase
    • 4th Quarter 2002: From 500 to 600 tonnes: A 100 tonne increase
    • April 2009: From 600 to 1,054 tonnes: A 454 tonne increase
    • July 2015: From 1,054 to 1,658 tonnes: A 604 tonne increase

    Beginning in July 2015, however, the Chinese State started to report changes in its official gold reserves on a monthly basis, and by July 2016 was reporting 1823 tonnes of official gold holdings. The following graphic, taken from a BullionStar infographic on the Chinese gold market, illustrates the sporadic reporting of Chinese official gold reserves between the early 2000s and July 2015. Note that between July 2016 and October 2016, the Chinese State through SAFE reported that the PBoC had acquired another 19 tonnes of gold, taking its total reported gold reserves to 1942 tonnes as of the end of October 2016.

    Chinese Official Gold Reserves, 2003 – 2016 Source: Chinese Gold Market Infographic, BullionStar

    The sparse official reporting by the Chinese is also clear in the below chart from the GoldChartsRUS website, which shows cumulative holdings of monetary gold by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) between 2000 and 2017. Looking at the top panel of the chart, it can be seen that between 2001 and 2015, there were only 4 distinct jumps in the quantity of gold held by the PBoC.

    This was followed by a period of about 15 months from July 2015 during which SAFE reported small monthly accumulations in PBoC’s gold holdings, as can be seen from the gradual increases in the bars in the top panel from July 2015 to October 2016, and the corresponding presence of frequent activity in the monthly changes in the lower panel of the chart.

    Official Gold Reserves of the Chinese central bank: Divulged Holdings 2000 – 2017. Source:www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    By September 2016, Chinese State gold reserve holdings had reached 59.11 million ounces. In October 2016, the SAFE report announced that Chinese official gold holdings had reached 59.24 million ounces, a 0.13 million ounce increase from the previous month. However, then something unusual happened, at least in terms of monthly updates. Since October 2016, Chinese official gold reserves have not changed at all. The SAFE updates are still published each month, but the gold holdings figure has remained unchanged at 59.24 million ounces (1842 tonnes).

    Therefore, for nearly a year now, the Chinese authorities are signalling that they have not acquired any new gold. At least that is what they want the public to believe. Hence the constantly recurring headlines from the financial media, such as this one from Reuters a couple of weeks ago, “China gold reserves steady at 59.24 mln ounces at end-September – central bank”.

    But is it true that China only holds 1842 tonnes of gold and that it has not been active during the last year in continuing to accumulate monetary gold as part of its reserve assets? And for that matter, is it the case that the Bank of Russia and Russian Federation only hold 1779 tonnes of monetary gold?

    While its difficult to know for sure, it is possible that the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation both hold additional gold that is not reported by their monetary authorities. This is so for multiple reasons, including the opaque ways in which these monetary gold reserves are accumulated, the traditional secrecy of both governments, and the fact that both countries have access to other investment pools that might hold gold that can be transferred at short notice into the respective central banks’ official gold holdings.

    How Much Gold could the Chinese State really have?

    The historical track record of the Chinese State in sporadically communicating the size of its monetary gold holdings shows that there has often been a large gulf between the true size of its gold reserves and what the Chinese claimed to have via its piecemeal and rare updates. For example, even based on its official numbers, the PBoC accumulated over 600 tonnes of gold between April 2009 and July 2015 but did not reveal this until July 2015.

    The nearly year-long hiatus between October 2016 and the present, during which the Chinese authorities, via SAFE, claim that the PBoC’s gold holdings have remained at 1842 tonnes, could be true, but only in so far as the Chinese State does not wish to inform the world about its sovereign gold reserves. Beyond this, the true gold holdings of the Chinese central bank may be significantly higher than even official published figures suggest.

    There is very little transparency into how the Chinese authorities accumulate monetary gold. In July 2015, when SAFE announced the first update to its gold holdings since 2009, it stated that the “major channels of accumulation” of gold were from purchases in foreign markets, domestic gold production, domestic scrap sources, and other transacting in the domestic market. But beyond this, the Chinese authorities never comment on where they source gold from.

    There is lots of evidence that the Chinese State purchases significant quantities of gold in the international market, including in the London Gold Market, and then monetises this gold (i.e. classifies it as monetary gold) , before transporting it back to Beijing. See “PBoC Gold Purchases: Secretive Accumulation on the International Market”, at BullionStar Gold University for further details.

    The Chinese State is also a possible candidate for having purchased a tranche of the IMF’s gold during IMF gold sales in 2010. See BullionStar blog  “IMF Gold Sales – Where ‘Transparency’ means ‘Secrecy’” for further details.

    There are also plenty of other State entities and state controlled entities in addition to the Chinese central bank that could conceivably be holding gold reserves that could in time be reclassified as PBoC gold, and brought into the sphere of reporting. See section “Gold Transfers from other Chinese State entities” in BullionStar Gold University article “Gold Policies of the People’s Bank of China” for further details.

    There is also evidence to suggest the Chinese State is really buying about 500 tonnes of gold per year, and that it has a first step target of holding at least 4000 tonnes of gold. This evidence, which is from 3-5 years ago, comes from senior people in the China Gold Association (CGA). See section “How much gold might the PBoC be buying each year?” in article PBoC Gold Purchases.

    A gold reserves-to-FX reserves ratio of 5% would currently put Chinese state gold holdings at nearly 4000 tonnes. A gold-to-GDP ratio of about 1.77%, which is the equivalent of the gold-to-GDP ratio of the US, would currently put Chinese state gold holdings at nearly 5000 tonnes of gold.

    Russia: Golden Pipelines and Stockpiles

    In its “Methodological Notes to International Reserves of the Russian Federation“, the  Bank of Russia defines “monetary gold”  as:

    “standard gold bars and coins with a purity of at least 995/1,000 held by the Bank of Russia and the Government of the Russian Federation. It comprises gold in vault, en route and in allocated accounts, including that which is held abroad. The item monetary gold includes unallocated gold accounts with non-residents.”

    The primary source of gold flowing to the Bank of Russia comes from Russian gold mining production, with the Russian Federation acquiring a large percentage of domestic gold mining production each year. In practice, a small group of state influenced Russian banks are authorised to intermediate between the gold mining companies and the State, acting as a gold pipeline between the mines and the Bank of Russia / Government. These banks finance the mining companies, purchase their gold output , have it refined into gold bars by Russian gold refineries, and then offer this gold to the Russian State.

    Some of these banks include Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank and Otkritie. For details see section “Russian Banks as bulk buyers of Russian Gold” in the Russian gold market article in BullionStar’s Gold University.

    But its possible that some of this gold ends up not with the Bank of Russia, but with other Russian State entities, one of which is the “Gosfund” or “Precious Metals and Gems fund” operated by “The Gokhran”.

    This Gosfund could be buying a portion of Russian gold mining output, stockpiling it, and intermittently releasing some of its stockpile to the Bank of Russia. When I asked the Gokhran last year could it reveal its gold holdings, the Gokhran replied to me that “it does not publish information about the amount of gold reserves in the Russian Gosfund nor any data about its precious metal operations.” See letter reply from Gokhran below (for those who can read Russian):

    Gokhran reply January 2016 to query on whether it could publish its Gold Holdings.

    Conclusion

    Given the high degree of opacity with which both the Russian State and Chinese State accumulate monetary gold, and the fact that they both can probably tap additional gold stockpiles to boost their official gold reserves, it will be interesting to see whether China, through SAFE, announces any increase in the PBoC’s gold holdings between now and the end of Q1 2018.

    Because if China does not do so, the Russian Federation will soon have the distinction of being the world’s 5th largest gold holder, pushing China into 6th place. Will China update its gold holdings before the end of 2017, or at least by early 2018? Nothing is certain, but with an ‘official’ difference of only 63 tonnes of gold between them, the race is on.

    This article first appeared under the same title, 'Neck and Neck: Russian and Chinese Official Gold Reserves' on the BullionStar.com website.

  • 93-Year-Old President Carter: Russians Didn't Alter Election, Obama Didn't Deliver, We Didn't Vote For Hillary

    Spot the odd one out…

    One of these six people says that Russians did not alter the election outcome, or vote for Hillary.

    In a lengthy interview with The New York Times recently, 93-year-old former President Jimmy Carter cut loose on some painful establishment 'facts'.

    As DailyWire.com's Joseph Curl reports, The Times decided to play up the fact that Carter would love to go over to North Korea as an envoy. But the Times is steadily proving how out of touch it is — and how it no longer seems to actually "get" what real news is.

    Here are some major highlights from the interview:

    1. The Russians didn't steal the 2016 election.

    Carter was asked "Did the Russians purloin the election from Hillary?"

     

    "I don’t think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes — or any votes," Carter said.

     

    So the hard-left former president doesn't think the Russians stole the election? Take note, Capitol Hill Democrats.

    2. We didn't vote for Hillary.

    Carter and his wife, Roselyn, disagreed on the Russia question. In the interview, she "looked over archly [and said] 'They obviously did'" purloin the election.

     

    “Rosie and I have a difference of opinion on that,” Carter said.

     

    Rosalynn then said, “The drip-drip-drip about Hillary.”

     

    Which prompted Carter to note that during the primary, they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. "We voted for Sanders.”

    3. Obama fell far short of his promises.

    Barack Obama whooshed into office on pledges of delivering "hope and change" to the country, spilt by partisan politics.

     

    He didn't. In fact, he made it worse.

     

    "He made some very wonderful statements, in my opinion, when he first got in office, and then he reneged on that," he said about Obama's action on the Middle East.

    4. Media "harder on Trump than any president."

    A recent Harvard study showed that 93% of new coverage about President Trump is negative.

     

    But here's another shocker: Carter defended Trump.

     

    "I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I've known about," Carter said. "I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation."

    5. NFL players should "stand during the American anthem."

    Carter, who joined the other four living ex-presidents on Saturday for a hurricane fundraiser, put his hand on his heart when the national anthem played — and he has a strong opinion about what NFL players should do, too.

     

    "I think they ought to find a different way to object, to demonstrate," he said. " I would rather see all the players stand during the American anthem."

    Not exactly the narrative The Times was painting.

  • Number Of Bitcoin Miners In Venezuela Swells To 100,000

    Venezuela’s worsening economic collapse has created something of a social experiment in the use of a digital currency as a de facto currency – a phenomenon that’s also playing out in troubled Zimbabwe.

    According to TheNational.ae, bitcoin adoption in Zimbabwe is seemingly skyrocketing as the country’s economic situation looks bleak. So much so, that one bitcoin is trading at nearly $10,000 on the Golix.io exchange, while the global average is, at press time, of $5,642.00.

     

    According to a local trader, bitcoin isn’t just being bought by individuals, but by businesses with bills to pay. The country adopted the U.S. dollar back in 2009 as its fiat currency, as the Zimbabwean dollar had lost nearly all its value.

     

    At press time, LocalBitcoins Zimbabwe has people buying bitcoin at the global average, and some buying the cryptocurrency for cash for well over $10,000 in the country’s capital. Bitcoin, as every bitcoiner would expect, is helping people in the country survive times of economic uncertainty, as Zimbabwe has been embroiled in a crisis for years.

    And as inflation in Venezuela has spiraled further out of control – by one estimated, it peaked above 2,400% in September – more Venezuelans are resorting to mining bitcoin, litecoin and other digital currencies as a means of coping with the country's out-of-control hyperinflation and surviving in a country where staples like food and medicine are scarce.

    "Venezuela was one of the richest per-capita nations in the world… but now, hyperinflation is a very difficult thing to understand until you have to buy lunch…"

     

    "The country has not yet dollarized…  but there's not enough dollars in Venezuela for that to have happened…"

     

    "Venezuela is becoming a cashless society… we are starting to see in Venezuela, the first bitcoinization of a sovereign state."

    However, while cryptocurrency mining isn’t explicitly illegal, the country’s Sebin intelligence service has been known to raid establishments that show a suspicious spike in electricity usage. Electricity is heavily subsidized by the state in Venezuela, making mining a particularly lucrative prospect, despite the risks.

    Bitcoin mining consultant Randy Brito estimates that about 100,000 Venezuelans are "mining," although it is impossible to have an exact figure because many are protecting themselves by using servers in foreign countries, AFP reports.

    According to the LocalBitcoins portal, transactions in bitcoins amounted to $1.1 million in Venezuela in the last week of September.

    One local who spoke with AFP said her mining rig is producing 20 to 25 litecoins per month.

    "Each litecoin is worth $46, that's $920 a month," said Veronica – a fortune in a country where the minimum monthly salary is 135,543 bolivars ($40), supplemented by a voucher of 189,000 bolivars ($56).

    AFP visited one office building in Caracas that has been converted into a clandestine mining operation, with more than 20 computers hard at work performing the cryptographic calculations necessary to unlock valuable blocks of digital currency.

    Caracas (AFP) – Inside a locked room in an office building in Caracas, 20 humming computers use their data-crunching power to mine bitcoins, an increasingly popular tool in the fight against Venezuela's hyperinflation.

     

    In warehouses, offices and homes, miners are using modified computers to perform complex computations, essentially book-keeping for digital transactions worldwide, for which they earn a commission in bitcoins.

     

    While practiced worldwide, Bitcoin mining is part of a growing, underground effort in Venezuela to escape the worst effects of a crippling economic and political crisis and runaway inflation that the IMF says could reach 720 percent this year.

     

    Having no confidence in the bolivar and struggling to find dollars, many Venezuelans, who are neither computer geeks nor financial wizards, are relying on the bitcoin – currently valued around $6,050, or other virtual currencies.

    As international sanctions have left Venezuela starved for foreign currency, cryptocurrencies have provided one crucial means for the regular people of Venezuela – who arguably have been hardest hit by the sanctions despite marching in the streets and calling for the overthrow of the regime of President Nicolas Maduro – to avoid the consequences of the administration’s economic mismanagement. Now, the question is will Venezuelans abandon the worthless bolivar in favor of relying solely on digital currencies.

    As we noted previously, one trader, John Villar, Caracas-based software developer, most eloquently stated "Bitcoin is a way of rebelling against the system." While the currency remained a niche form of payment in the country, many users purchased food and goods online through online marketplaces such as Amazon.com, albeit indirectly through gift cards purchased with the cryptocurrency.

    Noel Alvarez, former president of the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce, stated that “A maximum of one per cent of the population has access to it, but it is very useful in our situation.”

    Bitcoin’s popularity in Venezuela continued to grow. It became the country’s leading parallel currency. Some vendors even begun accepting Bitcoin exclusively. A popular online travel agency, Destinia, cited that, due to the bolivar’s instability and the trouble many Venezuelans experience when attempting to leave the country, “Giving priority to Bitcoin as a payment method could be of help."

    While Destina admitted that Venezuela is not a primary focal point for their company, they chose to prioritize Bitcoin payments in the Venezuelan market to facilitate the travel needs of the people in light of the persisting economic downturn.

    With infrastructure in place, trading and mining becoming more popular, and the crisis escalating, Maduro’s government began to take notice.

    Maduro’s War on Bitcoin

    The Venezuelan government began to crack down on the Bitcoin community, with police extorting citizens for “misusing electricity” or undermining the country’s economy. These grievances intensified over time, however, and the attack on miners became more apparent. In the largest raid, two miners were caught with 11,000 mining computers and were charged with cybercrime, electricity theft, exchange fraud, and even funding terrorism.

    In Feb. 2017, following the incident, Surbitcoin, Venezuela’s most popular exchange went offline. The company encouraged users to withdraw their money immediately as Banesco, the company’s banking partner, was set to revoke the account associated with the exchange. Rodrigo Souza, the founder and CEO of Surbitcoin, noted that "When it was found that there were 11,000 mining computers consuming the energy to power a whole town at a time when there are severe electricity shortages, it triggered a reaction.” Souza went on to say that the company was not contacted by the government, but Banesco revoked their account as it did not want to be associated with such an operation. Surbitcoin resumed operations two weeks following.

    We suspect it will not be long before Maduro takes further, tougher action against this 'subversive' behavior.

  • US Now Admits Syrian "Rebels" Have Used Chemical Weapons

    From the first moment chemical weapons were used on the Syrian battlefield, the American public was led to believe that only one side could possibly be responsible. The constant refrain in the echo chamber of US government officials and the mainstream media was that only the Assad government possessed chemical stockpiles and the technological capability of deploying such heinous weapons, therefore blame for each and every chemical attack from Ghouta to Khan Sheikhoun was laid at the feet of Assad and the Syrian military.

    And yet last Wednesday, for the first time, the US State Department casually dropped an important admission into its official Syria travel warning for American citizens: that the core rebel group currently operating in northwest Syria not only possesses but has used chemical weapons – to the point that the State Department considers it a major enough threat to publicly warn citizens about.

    The armed opposition group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is referenced early in the document: "Terrorist and other violent extremist groups including ISIS and Al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham [dominated by Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al-Nusra, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization], operate in Syria.” HTS is the group now holding Idlib province, which it captured in 2015 as part of a coalition of armed groups given direct support from a US-led operations room in southern Turkey – this according to prominent pro-opposition analyst Charles Lister.

    The new State Department travel warning has this to say about the tactics of HTS and other anti-Assad groups:

    Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and chemical weapons.

     

    They have targeted major city centers, road checkpoints, border crossings, government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr provinces.

    Hayat Tahrir al-Sham along with other Salafi-Jihadi terror groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, were in control of the Idlib province town of Khan Sheikhoun when the group alleged that Syrian jets launched a massive Sarin gas attack on civilians last April. Relying chiefly on YouTube videos uploaded by "activists" associated with the al-Qaeda linked groups, media and government officials in the West immediately blamed Syria and Russia for the incident which possibly resulted in up to 74 civilian deaths. The White House's own four page assessment released in the wake of the incident relied heavily on, in its words, “a wide body of open-source material” and “social media accounts” to find the Syrian government "guilty" – which means that essentially YouTube videos were used as justification for Trump's subsequent punitive strike on Shayrat military airfield in Syria (a strike which turned out to be largely symbolic for the sake of "doing something").

    Meanwhile, HTS and their affiliates prevented any and all international monitoring groups from entering Idlib to access the site of the alleged attack – a reality which continues to this day. The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), for example, acknowledged that, "For security reasons, the FFM [Fact-Finding Mission] was unable to visit Khan Shaykhun."

    For this reason, while Western media accused the Syrian government of attacking civilians with Sarin a mere hours after the attack was said to have taken place, OPCW officials urged caution. One prominent official who publicly insisted that Western media cease prematurely blaming Assad for Khan Sheikhoun because they couldn't possibly possess empirical data with objective chain of custody (as no observers had accessed the site) was Jerry Smith.

    Smith was the lead field investigator for the UN-backed operation to remove Syria’s chemical weapons in 2013 after a US-Russia-Syria deal was struck to decommission Syria's declared Sarin stockpiles. In two major UK media interviews, the former OPCW deputy head of Syria field operations said that he considered it entirely plausible that Assad was not responsible, even after the visibly surprised anchors attempted to pressure him into saying Assad did it.  

    Former OPCW head field investigator Jerry Smith to Sky News' Sophy Ridge in the week after the Khan Sheikhoun attack: 

    Ridge: "Is there any way that Assad might not have been responsible for those [chemical attacks]?"

     

    Smith: "The fact of the matter is that there is… We need to listen to every story and then start to pick it apart. Some of the stories that come out are not true. And the stakeholders that are saying them are having a line because of their own narrative. If we start to pick this apart effectively their stories will fall away."

     

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    A BBC article which initially quoted Smith's expert analysis from the TV interviews subsequently deleted his comments as he expressed views which ran directly contrary to the mainstream media's consensus. The narrative of the Syrian government's guilt became entrenched so early, based so little "evidence" (primarily social media videos), that even contrary analysis by high level OPCW experts was censored. 

    Similarly, this is further what currently has Russia angrily calling foul – the idea that the UN's Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) appears bias toward finding the Syrian government responsible from afar based on assumptions concerning guilt which became entrenched in the West from the beginning. A fresh and contentious vote is expected at the UN on Monday as to whether or note the JIM mandate will be extended for another year.

    And Russia is now pointing to the State Department's updated Syria travel advisory as constituting a US intelligence admission that it is not only entirely plausible that al-Qaeda (HTS) committed the Khan Sheikhoun attack but even likely, considering HTS' chief area of operation for the past year has been in Idlib province (the travel document purports to be an update of the last six months). On Friday, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov issued a statement, saying:

    I would like to point out that that the Department of State has for the first time officially acknowledged that terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra not only have but also – I would like to stress that – use chemical weapons in this part of Syria in order to carry out terrorist attacks – a thing that we have many times many times warned against and talked about at various levels.

    The State Department in a response given to the Washington Examiner over the weekend, accused the Russians of "cherry-picking language to suit their false narrative that they have been peddling for years about the use of chemical weapons in Syria and those responsible."

    However, the UN's own extensive 2013 investigation into the first reported uses of chemical weapons in Syria support the consistently stated Russian position that the armed opposition in Syria have long possessed and have repeatedly used chemical weapons. When the UN undertook its first on the ground inquiry in Syria, it admitted in its 82-page December 2013 report (initiated after the August 2013 Ghouta attack), that it considered both sides of the war to be in possession of mass casualty producing chemical weapons. This is important, given that at the time the US position was that only the Syrian government could have possibly launched chemical attacks. According to the UN report:

    The United Nations Mission remains deeply concerned that chemical weapons were used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arabic Republic, which has added yet another dimension to the continued suffering of the Syrian people.

    The report stated that chemical weapons were “probably used” at five sites in Syria during the conflict up to that point (2013). Most significant is that among the five sites the UN could not find a single instance where members of the armed rebels opposition were victims, but instead found that at two sites, the victims were Syrian government soldiers, and at a third, the victims were Syrian Army personnel and civilians.

    While the purpose of the investigation was not to establish the culprit in each attack, the report identified the victims in three out of the five incidents as government soldiers. This was the first tacit UN admission that the rebels possess and have used chemical weapons – an admission made all the way back in 2013. And even the generally pro-rebel New York Times had to admit the following when the 2013 report came out:

    Chemical weapons were used repeatedly in the Syria conflict this year, not only in a well-documented Aug. 21 attack near Damascus but also in four other instances, including two subsequent attacks that targeted soldiers, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday.

    And concerning the first reported usage of chemical weapons in the entirety of the Syrian conflict, the NYT further admitted at the time that Syrian soldiers had been on the receiving end (though the NYT buried the information far away from the front page):

    The report said the panel had corroborated “credible allegations” that chemical weapons were used in the first reported attack — a March 19 episode involving soldiers and civilians [as victims] in Khan al-Assal in the country’s north.

    But even prior to the UN's December 2013 findings, credible allegations of rebel chemical weapons were nothing new. In May of 2013, Carla Del Ponte, a top UN human rights investigator and former UN Chief Prosecutor and veteran International Criminal Court attorney – was the first to accuse the rebels of using Sarin gas against government forces and civilians (also see herehere, and here).

    Del Ponte’s assertions, based upon her information gathering team on the ground, caused a row in Europe at the time, but the only major American outlet to cover the story when it happened was the LA Times. During a Swiss-Italian TV interview, she was convinced enough to be very blunt in her assessment, saying, “I was a little bit stupefied by the first indication of the use of nerve gas by the opposition.”

    So in reality, a number of top experts (as well as documentation) have come forward over the past few years to offer analysis contrary to the West's open and shut "Assad did it" narrative, yet the Western public has for the most part been carefully shielded from such voices (to say nothing of Seymour Hersh's excellent investigative reporting, or MIT rocket scientist Theodore Postol's analysis). With this latest US State Department admission that groups like HTS in Syria possess and have used chemical weapons, it appears that the US government could slowly and reluctantly be catching up to what other experts have long understood.

  • The Global "Bubble Arms Race" Has Ushered In The Age Of Government Strongmen

    Authored by Doug Noland via Credit Bubble Bulletin blog,

    The week left me with an uneasy feeling. There were a number of articles noting the 30-year anniversary of the 1987 stock market crash. I spent “Black Monday” staring at a Telerate monitor as a treasury analyst at Toyota’s US headquarters in Southern California. If I wasn’t completely in love with the markets and macro analysis by that morning, there was no doubt about it by bedtime. Enthralling.

    As writers noted this week, there were post-’87 crash economic depression worries. In hindsight, those fears were misplaced. Excesses had not progressed over years to the point of causing deep financial and economic structural maladjustment. Looking back today, 1987 was much more the beginning of a secular financial boom rather than the end. The crash offered a signal – a warning that went unheeded. Disregarding warnings has been in a stable trend now for three decades.

    Alan Greenspan’s assurances of ample liquidity – and the Fed and global central bankers’ crisis-prevention efforts for some time following the crash – ensured fledgling financial excesses bounced right back and various Bubbles hardly missed a beat. Importantly, financial innovation and speculation accelerated momentously. Wall Street had been emboldened – and would be repeatedly.

    The crash also marked the genesis of government intervention in the markets that would evolve into the previously unimaginable: negative short-term rates, manipulated bond yields, central bank support throughout the securities markets, Trillions upon Trillions of central bank monetization and the perception of open-ended securities market liquidity backstops around the globe. Greenspan was the forefather of the powerful trifecta: Team Bernanke, Kuroda and Draghi. Ask the bond market back in 1987 to contemplate massive government deficit spending concurrent with near zero global sovereign yields – the response would have been “inconceivable.”

    Articles this week posed the question, “Could an ’87 Crash Happen Again.” There should be no doubt – that is unless the nature of markets has been thoroughly transformed. Yes, there are now circuit breakers and other mechanisms meant to arrest panic selling. At the same time, there are so many more sources of potential self-reinforcing selling these days compared to portfolio insurance back in 1987. Today’s derivatives markets – where various strains of writing market insurance (“flood insurance during a drought”) have become a consistent and popular money maker – make 1987’s look itsy bitsy.

    The record $3.15 TN hedge fund industry barely existed in 1987. The $4.1 TN ETF complex didn’t exist at all. To be sure, the amount of trend-following finance dominating present-day global markets is unprecedented. Moreover, the structure of contemporary finance has already (repeatedly) proven itself conducive to financial dislocation. Over the years – and especially post-2008 reflation – boom and bust dynamics have turned only more forceful. Central bank fixation on countering the bust has precariously propelled the latest boom.

    The ’87 crisis response fatefully unleashed the “Terminal Phase” of Japanese Bubble excess – the consequences of which persist to this day. Decades of exceptional development flushed away with a few years of recklessness. In China, officials over the years claimed to have learned from the dismal Japanese Bubble experience. Clearly, they did not. The 2008 crisis was multiples of 1987. The recent post-crisis reflation, as well, has been at an incredibly grander and prolonged scale. This has ensured that China’s Bubble and “Terminal Phase” have inflated so far beyond Japan’s eighties fiasco.

    Bubble mirage had Japan’s economy and banking system poised to lead the world. Now it’s China. In contrast to Japan’s beleaguered post-Bubble political class, China’s communist party won’t have to agonize over elections.

    China faces extremely serious issues – and I’ll assume enlightened Chinese communist party officials are not oblivious. Beijing was the leading culprit behind my disquiet this week. Most focused elsewhere. The Trump administration’s tax package made initial headway in the Senate. There was also market-friendly reporting that Federal Reserve governor “Jay” Powell may be Trump’s leading candidate for Fed chairman. With securities markets rising ever higher into record territory, who cares about some communist party gathering? Heck, is communism even pertinent in today’s tantalizing New Age? Did you see those cryptocurrencies this week?

    Chinese President Xi Jinping has a plan. China will be the world’s super power. The great communist party, with its progressive system of meritocracy, is the only mechanism to adroitly guide Chinese “new era” development. And President Xi is the master – the modern-day Emperor – with the depth of experience, the vision, the charisma, the power to ensure China’s rightful place on the world stage. He embodies the benevolent dictator for the masses; the resolute commander for an increasingly hostile world; the deity to guide and protect an insecure society. Spooky stuff.

    October 20 – Financial Times (Tom Mitchel): “‘Government, military, society and schools — north, south, east and west — the party is leader of all,’ Mr Xi proclaimed in a three-and-a-half hour speech… to the party congress. Next week the congress will appoint a new Politburo Standing Committee stacked with Xi loyalists. One person who advises senior officials attributes Mr Xi’s now seemingly unassailable dominance of Chinese politics to a Machiavellian insight. ‘Because of the economic prosperity of the reform era, almost everyone in officialdom was corrupted,’ he says. ‘Xi used this fact as leverage to scare everyone. They have to follow him because everyone is vulnerable. All you have to do is investigate them.’ In his marathon address to the congress this week, Mr Xi positioned himself not just as modern China’s third great leader after Mao and Deng, but also the heir to a glorious Communist tradition stretching back to Russia’s Bolsheviks. ‘A hundred years ago, the salvos of the October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China,’ Mr Xi said, noting that the Chinese Communist party was founded just four years later. ‘From that moment on, the Chinese people have had in the party a backbone for their pursuit of national independence and liberation, prosperity and happiness.’ According to Mr Xi’s arc of history, China is only three decades away from resuming its traditional and rightful place as the world’s dominant economic and cultural power, with the US caught in a downward spiral accelerated by Mr Trump’s election.”

    Xi’s speech was said to have left young devotees sobbing (and previous leadership yawning and checking their watches). Xi is moving aggressively forward with a consolidation of power – assiduously crafting a cult of leadership. He has shrewdly perched his government’s skill and competence up on a high pedestal, with its leader the unassailable “man now regarded as China’s great centraliser and most powerful ruler since Mao Zedong, the party’s revolutionary hero.”

    October 17 – Bloomberg (Ting Shi): “President Xi Jinping warned of ‘severe’ challenges while laying out a road map to turn China into a leading global power by 2050, as he kicked off a twice-a-decade party gathering expected to cement his influence into the next decade. In a speech that ran for more than three hours on Wednesday, Xi declared victory over ‘many difficult, long overdue problems’ since he took power in 2012. He said China would continue opening its doors to foreign businesses, defend against systemic risks, deepen state-run enterprise reform, strengthen financial sector regulation and better coordinate fiscal and monetary policy. ‘Right now both China and the world are in the midst of profound and complex changes,’ Xi said. ‘China is still in an important period of strategic opportunity for development. The prospects are very bright, but the challenges are very severe.’”

    Xi and Chinese leadership are battening down the hatches. Recall that less than two years ago the Chinese Bubble was at the brink. It was Xi and his “national team” that took incredible measures to reverse a dynamic of collapsing markets and exodus from the Chinese currency. In short, confronting an inconveniently timed bust, they resorted to stoking their historic Bubble. Why not – everyone else has gotten away with it.

    The upshot has been two additional (fateful) years of rapidly inflating apartment prices and economic maladjustment. There has been as well a couple more years of historic compounding Credit growth. It was only fitting that Xi’s overstated exultation elicited a shot of sobriety from China’s respected central bank chief (from his catbird seat).

    October 19 – Financial Times (Gabriel Wildau): “China’s central bank governor has warned in unusually stark language of the risks from excessive debt and speculative investment, as he used the Communist party congress to caution that the country’s fast-growing economy faced a possible ‘Minsky moment’. ‘When there are too many pro-cyclical factors in an economy, cyclical fluctuations will be amplified,’ Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, said at a meeting on the sidelines of the Communist party gathering in Beijing. ‘If we are too optimistic when things go smoothly, tensions build up, which could lead to a sharp correction, what we call a ‘Minsky Moment’. That’s what we should particularly defend against.’”

    Credit growth accelerated into the communist party congress. Chinese Total Social Financing (total non-governmental Credit) expanded a stronger-than-expected $277 billion during September. Year-to-date Total Social Financing growth of $2.375 TN is running 16.3% above last year’s record pace. Lending was led by booming demand for household real estate purchases. Total Chinese Credit could surpass $4.0 TN in 2017, easily outdoing U.S. Credit growth at the height of our mortgage finance bubble. Despite all the talk about excessive debt levels and the need for deleveraging, Chinese officials have yet to get their arms around a historic credit bubble.

    Xi spoke of a focus on financial stability. His comment, “Houses are built to be inhabited, not for speculation,” reiterates official concern for housing prices. Past efforts to counteract apartment inflation with added supply failed to dampen enthusiasm for speculating on ever higher prices. At this late stage of such a prolonged Bubble, only harsh medicine will suffice. Prices will need to fall and speculation punished for the spell to be broken.

    Bubbles are always about a redistribution and destruction of wealth. Its unparalleled global scope makes the current Bubble is so concerning. Xi now owns the Chinese Bubble, and there would appear little prospect that he’ll ever be willing to take responsibility for the damage wrought. Fingers will be pointed directly at foreigners, foremost the U.S. and Japan.

    I believe the global government finance Bubble – history’s greatest financial boom – will conclude this long Credit cycle going back to the conclusion of WWII. As the “granddaddy of Bubbles,” it is fitting that things turn really crazy during an exceptionally prolonged “Terminal Phase.” We’re at the point where no one is willing to risk bursting the Bubble, certainly not timid central bankers.

    There’s so much at stake. Importantly, from the global Bubble perspective, a faltering Bubble would risk surrendering power on the global stage. Xi certainly doesn’t seem willing to see a faltering China retreat from global ascendency. The same can be said for Shinzo Abe in Japan. Here at home, making America great again gets no easier with a bursting Bubble. And while there’s no President of Europe, Mario Draghi has assumed the role of defender of European resurgence with an interminable windfall of free “money.”

    It’s all quite unsettling. Global finance has run completely amok. This has been unfolding for so long now that few are concerned. Most revel in asset inflation drunkenness. Instead of safeguarding sound finance and stable money – the bedrock of civil societies and peaceful global relationships – governments and central banks around the world are harboring Bubble excesses like never before. This ensures catastrophic consequences when Bubbles burst. It has reached the point where these Bubbles have become part and parcel to global power, with countries not willing to risk being left behind. It’s as if it has become An Arms Race in Bubbles.

    Three decades of serial booms and busts begat An Age of Government Strongmen – and weak central bankers. It would only be fitting for President Trump to opt for the milquetoast Jerome Powell to shepherd Fed inflationist doctrine, perhaps even trying to placate his base with a slot on the FOMC for John Taylor. Apparently, there are more urgent fights these days than reform at the Federal Reserve. Everywhere, it seems, various fights are taking precedence over stable finance. It just makes one dread the kind of conflicts that could break out when this historic global financial boom buckles. But, then, who on earth cares? The Dow is mere days away from 24,000, and Bitcoin is surely poised to make a run to $10,000!

  • Censorship In The Digital Age

    Authord by Jason Hirthler via CounterPunch.org,

    The grand experiment with western democracy, badly listing thanks to broadsides from profiteering oligarchs, may finally run ashore on the rocks of thought crime. In the uneven Steven Spielberg project Minority Report, starring excitable scientologist Tom Cruise, Cruise plays a futuristic policeman who investigates pre-crimes and stops them before they happen. The police owe their ability to see the criminal plots developing to characters called pre-cognitives, or pre-cogs, kind of autistic prophets who see the future and lie sleeping in sterile pools of water inside the police department. Of course, it turns out that precogs can pre-visualize different futures, a hastily hidden flaw that threatens to jeopardize the profits of the pre-crime project. Here is the crux of the story: thought control is driven by a profit motive at bottom. As it turns out, just like real life.

    Now, the British government has decided to prosecute pre-crime but has done away with the clunky plot device of the pre-cogs, opting rather to rely on a hazy sense of higher probability to justify surveilling, nabbing, convicting, and imprisoning British citizens. The crime? Looking at radical content on the Internet. What is considered radical will naturally be defined by the state police who will doubtless be personally incentivized by pre-crime quotas, and institutionally shaped to criminalize trains of thought that threaten to destabilize a criminal status quo. You know, the unregulated monopoly capitalist regime that cuts wages, costs, and all other forms of overhead with psychopathic glee. Even a Grenfell Towers disaster is regarded more as a question of how to remove the story from public consciousness than rectify its wrongs.

    The Triple Evils

    Martin Luther King, Jr. famously, or infamously, depending on whether you are a penthouse mandarin or garden-variety prole, linked the triple evils of poverty, racism, and militarism. These evils are as yet unaddressed in our society, as we are daily shown on the media mouthpieces of imperial capitalism. Wars must be waged. Victims of social injustice must be incarcerated. Society itself must be made poor to ensure higher profits.

    Yet there is another set of evils that are primarily used to mask the original trifecta outlined by King. In fact, the connection between propaganda, surveillance, and censorship is clear and inseparable. Take as your initial premise that imperial capitalists want to control the world. Not an unjustified claim. As an imperial capitalist, you are part of a privileged minority whose objective is to further exploit the disenfranchised whose only recourse is the resources you are pillaging. War, be it with bombs or sanctions or special forces or proxies, is immensely profitable to the capitalists. Arms makers make money. Chemical companies make money. Energy companies make money. Media companies make money. Presidents not only make money, they also make history. But the workers, the poor, and the downtrodden pay the price. That’s why they won’t be happy to hear of your plans. Therefore, they must be lied to, lied to so convincingly and comprehensively that they accept, without a second thought, the plans you have laid out before them.

    This convincing requires three decisive actions: propaganda, surveillance, and censorship. The first is the official lie you craft to convince them to believe you. The second is the dragnet of digital observation by which you assess whether or not they do believe you. The third is the coercive methods by which you punish those that don’t believe you (justified by the imperial tale you first wove).

    The official interpretation of reality is already in place: western civilization is beset on all sides by maniacs that want to take away our freedoms. The surveillance is already in place through programs like the Five Eyes alliance and ECHELON, PRISM, Boundless Informant, FISA, Stellar Wind, and many others. What remains is to tighten the noose of censorship around the neck of our open western societies.

    Idiots Abroad

    To that end, British Home Secretary Amber Rudd recently announced that citizens that view too much extremist material online could face up to 15 years in jail. Rudd related,

    “I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law.”

    This flaxen cipher of totalitarian control opened by tabulating some 67,000 tweets by ISIS, along with 44,000 links to ISIS propaganda, had been generated in the last year. Already, Section 58 of the Terrorist Act 2000 criminalized the possession of information that might be useful to a terrorist. But this is not enough for 10 Downing Street. Rudd is taking that law of possession and expanding it into a law of perception. It is now enough to simply watch extremist content. You needn’t download it, distribute it, or otherwise act on it. You need only see it more than once. At that point, by Rudd’s surely flawlessly calculated probabilities, you have become an existential threat to the state, or rather, to national security. You are more likely to commit acts of terror than those who have not seen the extremist content. Pre-crime without the pre-cogs.

    But Rudd’s was another step in a long line of encroachments peddled by fascist-minded western governments. Theresa May, the reviled Thatcherite epigone, wants to play a paternal role in preventing citizens from even having the chance to view extremist content. The Tory manifesto tells us, “Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree.” Britain plans, quite proudly it seems, to become the “global leader” in the regulation of the Internet. Just before these announcements were made, Britain had passed the Investigatory Powers Act, which lets the government sweep up user browsing histories. So the surveillance data authorities would use to implement Rudd’s plan is already there. Want to read that eloquent jeremiad against the Tories? Sorry, that was just labeled hate speech. Want to visit your favorite leftist forum? Apologies, mate, but that was deemed a “safe space” for extremist speech and shut down. Want to watch some attractive young people copulate? No problem. Just submit a request to your local minister outlining your precise reasons for wanting access to such nominally proscribed content. Otherwise, forget it.

    The Germans aren’t far behind. The so-called Network Enforcement Act is said to create a framework for managing Internet activity, particularly in social media. The act is part of the country’s fake fight against fake news and hate speech, or rather its quite real fight against progressive, leftist, or communist thought and expression. This law demands, on pain of a fifty million euro penalty, that companies with two million or more web visitors must, on receipt of complaint, remove “unlawful content” from their sites. Facebook has opened a new data center in Germany to deal with removal requests, sure to be flooding in from the Bundestag. As the World Socialist Web Site makes clear, if your fake news promotes war (Iraq 2003), mischaracterizes coup d’états (Ukraine 2014), or spreads anti-immigrant hysteria (Cologne 2015), then you’ve got nothing to fear. Of course, it falls to the government itself to decide what is and what isn’t extremist content, no doubt a comforting thought for myriad Der Spiegel loyalists. And, of course, the erstwhile European Commission, destroyer of Greece and perpetrator of other ills, has published guidelines to help member states remove “illegal” content. Even the Russians have joined in, promoting legislation designed to curtail digital freedoms.

    Stateside Schlemiels

    None of this would be news to Barack Obama, whose own legacy of crumpled writs of habeas corpus, worthless privacy platitudes, and high-altitude wetwork, sits like a canker on the body politic. On his way out the door, through the turnstile of public weal into private gain, he provided the deep state with millions of dollars when he added the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which consecrates black budgets, cost overruns, price gouging, and all other manner of insecurity practiced by the Pentagon and its parasitic defense contractor community. The CDPA, if that’s how it will eventually be known, will effectively pay people to generate officially sanctioned narratives. The U.S. government is fighting fact by calling it propaganda and then producing its own propaganda and calling it fact.

    Thanks in part to pressure from Congressional Senate Intelligence Committee that, and the indefatigable efforts of Democrats Adam Schiff and Mark Warner, major brands have been hopping on the clanging tumbrel of Russiagate, as it wheels unsteadily through the digital space, collecting the corpses of freethinkers. Facebook is now blocking “fake news” from its ads. YouTube has begun to fetter content producers with a more restrictive ad network and murky review policies. Google has tweaked its algorithm to keep “fake news” from surfacing high in Search Engine Results Pages, or SERPS.

    What precisely constitutes fake news is evidently up to the Zuckerbergs and Schmidts of the world. For Google, it has decidedly meant suppressing progressive and left-wing content, as plummeting traffic numbers have indicated. Of course, it won’t mean suppressing the fake news produced by the CIA or Mi5 or the standard state-fluffing smorgasbord of lies, deceits and hit jobs offered up by the so-called mainstream media.

    The always sharp Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report writes that the FBI has created a fresh construct to deal with African-American unrest, called, “Black Identity Extremism,” already truncated into another mind-murdering acronym, BIE. (As though an acronym adds just the note of tenability required to pass off a fatuity on a mal-educated populace.) Foreign Policy, in an otherwise surprisingly liberal-minded story, suggests the construct risks reviving the racism the agency has worked so hard to overcome. Ford drily notes the overlooked matter of J. Edgar Hoover targeting blacks since the 1920s, not to mention COINTELPRO and attacks on the Black Panthers. Regardless, in the eyes of the FBI, blacks angry about police abuses, persistent economic inequalities, and the New Jim Crow, are little more than “identity extremists,” a danger to national security, notably the security of the white plutocracy which it serves.

    (Fore) Closing Thoughts

    Remember that much of this apparatus of thought control has been applied beneath the banner of the fake Russia hacking story. That story, created by the Clinton camp to distract from the DNC email revelations provided by WikiLeaks, at first blamed Russia for hacking into “our democracy”, then suggested Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to swing the election, and then emphasized that Russia had launched an “influence campaign” designed to swing the election, with the focus subtly shifting from hacking to collusion to influence. At each turn, the evidence proves paltry, the claims absurd, and the virtue signaling nauseating. The bar is being progressively lowered until it meets a threshold of credibility by which the Senate Intel Committee can prosecute Donald Trump or justify some sort of punitive measures against Russia.

    The story is so transparently false, from the technical detail to the geopolitical motive, that it is only sustained by the permanent – or deep state – elements of the foreign policy community that need a means by which to control and direct the Trump administration. Russia collusion served as an ideal pretext to force Trump away from campaign-trail odes to conciliation and toward a continuation of the hostile foreign policies glibly enabled and advanced by Barack Obama. The comedy of it all is that Facebook found ‘incriminating’ ads that amounted to less than one percent of the Facebook total ad buys. Congress would like to ban RT, which has ratings that are 0.3 percent of Judge Judy’s. And the infamous hack has been shown to be a leak. What are we left with? A grandiose deceit based on a need to sustain a brutal ideology of oppression, austerity, and war.

    But this is how the imperialists do it. They organize globally to oppress locally. That’s why they’ve been rightly rebranded as ‘the globalists’. The workers always trail behind, left to cope with recently discovered alliances of institutional powers collaborating to fence in the prospects for economic equality, social justice, and the fair distribution of a nation’s wealth. We find ourselves beneath the a pregnant cloud of metastasizing repression, conceived and constructed beneath our own gaze. In his recent novel Purity, one of author Jonathan Franzen’s characters, a famous East German exile and whistleblower extraordinaire (a more charismatic Assange), finds himself a global celebrity, the subject of countless interviews wherein,

    “…he’d taken to dropping the word totalitarian. Younger interviewers, to whom the word meant total surveillance, total mind control, gray armies in parade with medium-range missiles, had understood him to be saying something unfair about the Internet. In fact, he simply meant a system that was impossible to opt out of.”

    Whether it is too late for a world of working class people and the ubiquitous poor to opt out of the globalized imperium dreamed up by our post-war planners, is hard to say. But if you think there’s still time, be extremely careful, since the pre-crime police are nearly omnipresent, and they might overhear you quoting Marx or see you scrawling ideas about redistribution on the walls of some abandoned underpass. Just imagine some future advertisement for the pre-crime program, a glistening LCD ad floating between skyscrapers, a smiling family at play, a nation secure, and an omniscient narrator softly reminding you, “Don’t forget—it’s the thought that counts.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 22nd October 2017

  • Xi's Roadmap To The Chinese Dream

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    China's Belt and Road Initiative – the New Silk Road – will spark the country's development and turn the dream into reality…

    It all starts with Hong Kong as a major BRI financing hub.

    Now that President Xi Jinping has been duly elevated to the Chinese Communist Party pantheon in the rarified company of Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, the world will have plenty of time to digest the meaning of “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

    Xi himself, in his 3½-hour speech at the start of the 19th Party Congress, pointed to a rather simplified “socialist democracy” – extolling its virtues as the only counter-model to Western liberal democracy. Economically, the debate remains open on whether this walks and talks more like “neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics”.

    All the milestones for China in the immediate future have been set.

    • “Moderately prosperous society” by 2020.
    • Basically modernized nation by 2035.
    • Rich and powerful socialist nation by 2050.

    Xi himself, since 2013, has encapsulated the process in one mantra; the “Chinese dream”. The dream must become reality in a little over three decades. The inexorable modernization drive unleashed by Deng’s reforms has lasted a little less than four decades. Recent history tell us there’s no reason to believe phase 2 of this seismic Sino-Renaissance won’t be fulfilled.

    Xi emphasized, “the dreams of the Chinese people and those of other peoples around the world are closely linked. The realization of the Chinese dream will not be possible without a peaceful international environment and a stable international order.”

    He mentioned only briefly the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as having “created a favorable environment for the country’s overall development”. He didn’t dwell on BRI’s ambition and extraordinary scope, as he does in every major international summit as well as in Davos earlier this year.

    But still it was implicit that to arrive at what Xi defines as a “community of common destiny for mankind”, BRI is China’s ultimate tool. BRI, a geopolitical/geoeconomic game-changer, is in fact Xi’s – and China’s – organizing foreign policy concept and driver up to 2050.

    Xi has clearly understood that global leadership implies being a top provider, mostly to the global South, of connectivity, infrastructure financing, comprehensive technical assistance, construction hardware and myriad other trappings of “modernization”.

    It does not hurt that this trade/commerce/investment onslaught helps to internationalize the yuan.

    It’s easy to forget that BRI, an unparalleled multinational connectivity drive set to economically link all points Asia to Europe and Africa, was announced only three years ago, in Astana (Central Asia) and Jakarta (Southeast Asia).

    What was originally known as the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road were endorsed by the Third Plenum of the 18th CCP Central Committee in November 2013. Only after the release of an official document, “Visions and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Roads”, in March 2015, the whole project was finally named BRI.

    According to the official Chinese timeline, we’re only at the start of phase 2. Phase 1, from 2013 to 2016, was “mobilization”. “Planning”, from 2016 to 2021, is barely on (and that explains why few major projects are online). “Implementation” is supposed to start in 2021, one year before Xi’s new term expires, and go all the way to 2049.

    The horizon thus is 2050, coinciding with Xi’s “rich and powerful socialist nation” dream. There’s simply no other comprehensive, inclusive, far-reaching, financially solid development program on the global market. Certainly not India’s Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC).

    Have BRI, will travel

    It starts with Hong Kong. When Xi said, “We will continue to support Hong Kong and Macau in integrating their own development into the overall development of the country”, he meant Hong Kong configured as a major BRI financing hub – its new role after a recent past of business facilitator between China and the West.

    Hong Kong’s got what it takes; convertible currency; total capital mobility; rule of law; no tax on interest, dividends and capital gains; total access to China’s capital market/savings; and last but not least, Beijing’s support.

    Enter the dream of myriad financing packages (public-private; equity-debt; short-long term bonds). Hong Kong’s BRI role will be of the Total Package international financial center (venture capital; private equity; flotation of stocks and bonds; investment banking; mergers and acquisitions; reinsurance) interlinked with the Greater Bay Area – the 11 cities (including Guangzhou and Shenzhen) of the Pearl River Delta (light/heavy manufacturing; hi-tech venture capitalists, start-ups, investors; top research universities).

    That ties up with Xi’s emphasis on innovation; “We will strengthen basic research in applied sciences, launch major national science and technology projects, and prioritize innovation in key generic technologies, cutting-edge frontier technologies, modern engineering technologies, and disruptive technologies.”

    The integration of the Greater Bay Area is bound to inspire, fuel, and in some cases even mould some of BRI’s key projects. The Eurasian Land Bridge from Xinjiang to Western Russia (China and Kazakhstan are actively turbo-charging their joint free trade zone at Khorgos). The China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor. The connection of the Central Asian “stans” to West Asia – Iran and Turkey. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from Xinjiang all the way to Gwadar in the Arabian Sea – capable of sparking an “economic revolution” according to Islamabad. The China-Indochina corridor from Kunming to Singapore. The Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor (assuming India does not boycott it). The Maritime Silk Road from coastal southeast China all the way to the Mediterranean, from Piraeus to Venice.

    Yiwu-London freight trains, Shanghai-Tehran freight trains, the Turkmenistan to Xinjiang gas pipeline – these are all facts on the ground. Along the way, the technologies and tools of infrastructure connectivity – applied to high-speed rail networks, power plants, solar farms, motorways, bridges, ports, pipelines – will be closely linked with financing by the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the security-economic cooperation imperatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to build the new Eurasia from Shanghai to Rotterdam. Or, to evoke Vladimir Putin’s original vision, even before BRI was launched, “from Lisbon to Vladivostok”.

    Xi did not spell it out, but Beijing will do everything to stay as independent as possible from the Western Central Bank system, with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) to be avoided in as many trade deals as possible to the benefit of yuan-based transactions or outright barter. The petrodollar will be increasingly bypassed (it’s already happening between China and Iran, and Beijing sooner rather than later will demand it from Saudi Arabia.)

    The end result, by 2050, will be, barring inevitable, complex glitches, an integrated market of 4.5 billion people mostly using local currencies for bilateral and multilateral trade, or a basket of currencies (yuan-ruble-rial-yen-rupee).

    Xi has laid China’s cards – as well as the road map – on the table. As far as the Chinese Dream is concerned, it’s now clear; Have BRI, Will Travel.

  • Forget ISIS, "Government Corruption" Tops Americans' Biggest Fears

    As Americans gear up to celebrate Halloween at the end of October, a recent survey has revealed the fears that really keep people up at night.

    The Chapman University Survey of American Fears polled 1,207 U.S. adults on their levels of fear across 80 different categories.

    As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, like last year, corruption of government officials came top in 2017, with 74.5 percent of U.S. adults saying it makes them "afraid" or "very afraid".

    Infographic: Americans' Top Fears Of 2017  | Statista

    You will find more statistics at Statista

    The unrest and uncertainty of Donald Trump's presidency has had a significant influence on this year's ranking.

    With the U.S. health system still engulfed by chaos, 55.3 percent of respondents are fearful of the American Healthcare Act/Trumpcare. The president's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords has also had an impact with 48 percent afraid of global warming and climate change and 44.9 percent fearful of air pollution.

    The threat of war between the U.S. and North Korea is also starting to touch a nerve. 48.4 percent of Americans fear U.S. involvement in another world war while 47.5 percent are afraid the regime in Pyongyang will use nuclear weapons.

  • "It's A Coup": Catalan President Slams "Worst Attack" By Spain "Since Franco Dictatorship"

    Update: The defiant Catalan leader, Carles Puigdemont, addressed Catalans, Spaniards, and the rest of Europe on TV saying that the Spanish states' imposition of Article 155 means "liquidation of our self-government and cancellation of the democratic will of Catalans".  In other words, he made it quite clear that the region's leaders would not accept direct rule imposed on the region by the Spanish government, as a political crisis that has rattled the economy and raised fears of prolonged unrest showed no signs of easing.

    Puigdemont said Rajoy had set out to "humiliate" Catalonia in an "attack on democracy" and said removing powers from Catalonia was the "worst attack against the institutions and the people of Catalonia since the military dictatorship of Francisco Franco".

    After taking party in peaceful demonstration, Puigdemont expressed his rejection of Madrid’s move, but stopped short of saying he would make good his threat to push ahead with the independence bid before direct rule takes effect.

    “I ask the (Catalan) parliament to meet in a plenary session during which we, the representatives of the citizens’ sovereignty, will be able to decide over this attempt to liquidate our government and our democracy, and act in consequence,” Puigdemont said in a televised address.

    Puigdemont also said Spain "closed the doors ot a request for talks, and should set a date to discuss the attack" and "Catalan institutions cannot accept attack by Spain."

    In a striking accusation, the Catalan president said that "Catalan institutions dealt a coup by Spanish state." Puigdemont then switched to English to appeal to Europeans, says democracy also at risk in Europe: "Catalonia is an ancient European nation". He also announced a session in Catalan parliament to debate "the attempt to liquidate our self-government".

    Puigdemont concluded by saying "Long live Catalonia" to which a silently listening crowd suddenly burst back into cheers and chanting.

    However, as noted, Puigdemont did not specifically declare independence, but said Catalonia will not accept Madrid's plan to curb region's powers, leaving one tiny, final loophole.

    The Senate vote that would give Madrid full control of Catalonia’s finances, police and public media and curb the powers of the regional parliament for up to six months is scheduled for next Friday. That could give the independence movement room to maneuver.

    The regional parliament’s speaker, Carme Forcadell, said she would not accept Madrid’s move and accused Rajoy of a “coup.” “Prime Minister Rajoy wants the parliament of Catalonia to stop being a democratic parliament, and we will not allow this to happen,” Forcadell said in a televised speech.

    In the latest can kicking yet, the Catalan assembly is expected to decide on Monday whether to hold a session to formally proclaim the republic of the region. Catalan media have said Puigdemont could dissolve the regional parliament and call elections by next Friday. Under Catalan law, those elections would take place within two months.

    That would enable Puigdemont to go the polls earlier than envisaged by Rajoy, who spoke of a six-month timetable, and to exploit the anti-Madrid sentiment running high in the region.

    According to Reuters, pro-independence groups have previously mustered more than 1 million people onto the streets in protest at Madrid’s refusal to negotiate a solution.
     

    *  *  *

    As we detailed earlier, with Spain officially pulling the trigger on Article 155, and activating the Spanish Constitutional "nuclear option" this morning, when PM Rajoy said he would seize control of the Catalan government, fire everyone and force new elections in six months, attention has shifted to the Catalan response. And as we waited for the official statement by Catalan separatist president Carles Puigdemont, expected at 9pm local time, we found him taking to the streets, where he led hundreds of thousands of independence supporters in protest around Barcelona on Saturday, shouting "freedom" and "independence" following the stunning news from Madrid earlier on Saturday.

    The protest in the center of the Catalan capital had initially been called to push for the release of the leaders of two hugely influential grassroots independence organisations, accused of sedition and jailed pending further investigation. But it took on an even angrier tone after Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced his government would move to dismiss the region's separatist government, take control of its ministries and call fresh elections in Catalonia.

    According to municipal police, over 450,000 people rallied on Barcelona's expansive Paseo de Gracia boulevard, spilling over on to nearby streets, many holding Catalonia's yellow, red and blue Estelada separatist flag.

    Catalan regional vice-president Oriol Junqueras and Catalan regional president
    Carles Puigdemont attend a demonstration on October 21, 2017 in Barcelona

    Protesters greeted Puigdemont's arrival at the rally with shouts of "President, President." The rest of his executive was also there.

    For at least some locals, the time to split from Spain has come: "It's time to declare independence," said Jordi Balta, a 28-year-old stationery shop employee quoted by AFP, adding there was no longer any room for dialogue.

    Others disgree: "The Catalans are completely disconnected from Spanish institutions, and particularly anything to do with the Spanish state," said Ramon Millol, a 45-year-old mechanic.

    Meritxell Agut, a 22-year-old bank worker, said she was "completely outraged and really sad." "They can destroy the government, they can destroy everything they want but we'll keep on fighting."

    Catalonia is roughly split down the middle on independence, but residents cherish the autonomy of the wealthy, northeastern region, which saw its powers taken away under the dictatorship of General Francisco Franco. Which is why, as many have warned, Madrid's move could anger even those against independence.

    Barcelona's Mayor Ada Colau, who opposes the independence drive, tweeted: "Rajoy has suspended the self-government of Catalonia for which so many people fought. A serious attack on the rights and freedoms of everyone."

    Meanwhile, the anger keeps rising: as a police helicopter hovered above, protesters booed and gave it the finger. "I wish they would just go," said Balta, looking up at the sky.

    The Spanish government's proposed measures still have to be approved by the Senate. But the upper house is majority-controlled by Rajoy's ruling Popular Party and he has secured the support of other major parties, meaning they will almost certainly go through.

    Puigdemont is expected to make a statement at 9 p.m. For Catalonia, and Spain, it will – literally – mean the difference between independence and remaining part of Spain. It could also mean the difference between peace and a violent crackdown by Madrid on what it has seen since day one as an illegal independence process. For the Catalan leader, the stakes are huge:  El Pais reported Puigdemont faces a charge of sedition, punishable by up to 30 years in prison, if he formally declares independence or tries to change the Spanish constitution.

  • Mauldin: "Investors Ignore What May Be The Biggest Policy Error In History"

    Submitted by John Mauldin

    My good friend Peter Boockvar recently shared a chart with me. The University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers have been tracking consumers and their expectations about the direction of the stock market over the next year. We are now at an all-time high in the expectation that the stock market will go up.

    The Market Ignores Monetary Uncertainty

    It is simply mind-boggling to couple that chart with the chart of the VIX shorts (I wrote about the VIX craze in this this issue of Thoughts from the Frontline).

    Peter writes:

    Bullish stock market sentiment has gotten extreme again, according to Investors Intelligence. Bulls rose 2.9 pts to 60.4 after being below 50 one month ago. Bears sunk to just 15.1 from 17 last week. That’s the least amount since May 2015. The spread between the two is the most since March, and II said, “The bull count reenters the ‘danger zone’ at 60% and higher. That calls for defensive measures.” What we’ve seen this year the last few times bulls got to 60+ was a period of stall and consolidation. When the bull/bear spread last peaked in March, stocks chopped around for 2 months. Stocks then resumed its rally when bulls got back around 50. Expect another repeat.

    Only a few weeks ago the CNN Fear & Greed Index topped out at 98. It has since retreated from such extreme greed levels to merely high measures of greed. Understand, the CNN index is not a sentiment index; it uses seven market indicators that show how investors are actually investing. I actually find it quite useful to look at every now and then.

    The chart below, which Doug Kass found on Zero Hedge, pretty much says it all. Economic policy uncertainty is at an all-time high, yet uncertainty about the future of the markets is at an all-time low.

    Why This Is Happening Now

    At the end of his email blitz, which had loaded me up on data, Dougie sent me this summary:

    • At the root of my concern is that the Bull Market in Complacency has been stimulated by:
    • the excess liquidity provided by the world’s central bankers,
    • serving up a virtuous cycle of fund inflows into ever more popular ETFs (passive investors) that buy not when stocks are cheap but when inflows are readily flowing,
    • the dominance of risk parity and volatility trending, who worship at the altar of price momentum brought on by those ETFs (and are also agnostic to “value,” balance sheets,” income statements),
    • the reduced role of active investors like hedge funds – the slack is picked up by ETFs and Quant strategies,
    • creating an almost systemic "buy the dip" mentality and conditioning.
    • when coupled with precarious positioning by speculators and market participants:
    • who have profited from shorting volatility and have gotten so one-sided (by shorting VIX and VXX futures) that any quick market sell off will likely be exacerbated, much like portfolio insurance’s role in a previous large drawdown,
    • which in turn will force leveraged risk parity portfolios to de-risk (and reducing the chance of fast turn back up in the markets),
    • and could lead to an end of the virtuous cycle – if ETFs start to sell, who is left to buy?

    On the Brink of the Largest Policy Error

    The chart above, which shows the growing uncertainty over the future direction of monetary policy, is both terrifying and enlightening. The Federal Reserve, and indeed the ECB and the Bank of Japan, went to great lengths to assure us that the massive amounts of QE that they pushed into the market would help turn the markets and the economy around.

    Now they are telling us that as they take that money back off the table, they will have no effect on the markets. And all the data that I just presented above tells us that investors are simply shrugging their shoulders at what is roughly called “quantitative tightening,” or QT.

    I simply don't buy the notion that QE could have had such an effect on the markets and housing prices while QT will have no impact at all.

    In the 1930s, the Federal Reserve grew its balance sheet significantly. Then they simply left it alone, the economy grew, and the balance sheet became a nonfactor in the following decades. I don’t know why today’s Fed couldn’t do the same thing.

    There really is no inflation to speak of, except asset price inflation, and nobody really worries about that. We all want our stocks and home prices to go up, so there’s no real reason for the central bank to lean against inflationary fears; and raising rates and doing QT at the same time seems to me to be taking a little more risk than necessary.

    And they’re doing it in the midst of the greatest bull market in complacency to emerge in my lifetime.

    Do they think that taking literally trillions of dollars off their balance sheet over the next few years is not going to have a reverse effect on asset prices? Or at least some effect? Is it really worth the risk? Remember the TV show Hill Street Blues? Sergeant Phil Esterhaus would end his daily briefing, as he sent the policemen out on their patrols, with the words, “Let’s be careful out there.”

    * * *

    Sharp macroeconomic analysis, big market calls, and shrewd predictions are all in a week’s work for visionary thinker and acclaimed financial expert John Mauldin. Since 2001, investors have turned to his Thoughts from the Frontline to be informed about what’s really going on in the economy. Join hundreds of thousands of readers, and get it free in your inbox every week.

  • Crypto-Currency Calm Before The Storm

    Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

    The United States (and the world) has been using the worthless fiat federal reserve note that is not backed by any true tangible asset.  The only backing is not even the “full faith and credit of the United States government,” because the government is too far in debt to have any credit.  Faith disappeared a long time ago: our faith in elected officials as public servants.  Instead, they serve themselves upon the labors of the public, and the public services them, in every sense of the word.

    Cryptocurrency is an illusion.  The new “shell game” is to replace one illusion…the fiat currency…with another illusion, the “bitcoin.” 

    Russia announced last week several measures to “deal” with the Cryptocurrency…first, by issuing a Crypto-ruble.  If you read the fine print, the Russian government is moving in to tax and regulate it, at a rate of 13% on trades for profit, as well as “Crypto-Rubles” that suddenly appear out of nowhere.

    It won’t affect the Black Market as much, because 13% is going to be paid to turn a blind eye to the billions of rubles being stolen by the Russian Mafia and oligarchy alike.  The gimmick here is for the government to take a chunk out of it: for now.  The reason “now” is being used, is that eventually they’ll shift gears, pass legislation, and eventually outlaw private trading in it that is not government-sanctioned or government-approved.

    A government is only concerned with perpetuating itself and maintaining power.  The most basic way it does this is by controlling the currency of the nation, regulating it, and taxing the citizens.  In the United States, it has been reported by several sources that JP Morgan Chase is going to embrace Cryptocurrency.  Europe is well on its way to establishing a “Euro-BitCoin,” and China has recently relaxed some measures regarding it.

    This is the calm before the storm: the governments are studying it, and studying the masses to find the means to take control of it.

    The gullible masses are playing right into their hands.  The problem with Cryptocurrency is not just in the fact that it is backed by nothing (a fool’s errand before it has been started), but there is no privacy.  None.  If the governments control and monitor all electronic and computer media, then there is no such thing as privacy regarding electronic currency.  This will be the death of cash, and thus the death of any privacy for citizens.

    There will be no hiding from the taxing authorities.  All the accounts will be monitored: taxed on any growth, and every single penny accounted for.  The government will know what work you do, for how much, and how much “Crypto-currency” you have in your accounts.  All electronic, nebulous, unbacked garbage.  How about a nice “glitch” where suddenly, your entire account falls to a zero balance?  That “glitch” can happen anytime.

    No, the politicians and the oligarchs will have gold, silver, real estate, mining rights and contracts, and ownership of every utility and municipal function upon which the public is dependent.  Eventually the Crypto-Dollars will be handed out sparingly to “exchange for food, clothing, and to pay their bills,” and the whole thing is designed for one thing:

    To keep the population at a starveling, subsistence level while those in power own everything, and them as well: Ruled by the politicians and oligarchs, fooled by the press and the religious pulpits, and killed by the enforcement arms of police and military.

    In 1910, the meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia took place leading up to 1913.  It was then that the framework for the transfer of the power of the U.S. government over the nation’s currency to the federal reserve was established.

    “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

     

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s letter to Colonel Edward Mandell House,

    Fmr. Advisor to President Woodrow Wilson    November 21, 1933

    The aim is global governance.  The Cryptocurrencies arose out of a desire to use something other than the dollar and other failing fiat notes not backed by anything.  The irony is that the Cryptocurrencies are the vehicle for the globalists.

    Once each nation has its Cryptocurrencies in place, they can “align” them, and virtually abolish all economic buffers and barriers…which will come crashing down just as the illegal aliens in Europe and the United States are destroying the borders, language, culture, and societies.  The whole thing is trumpeted as a recourse, but it is nothing more than an extension of an Alinsky principle “organizing the organized.”  At the right moment, the governments will swoop in, regulate, and tax these Cryptocurrencies.

    Once cash is eliminated, hard assets such as gold, silver, and other resources will be simple to control.  Where did you obtain that gold?  How did you obtain it, and is it in our records?

    The power lies in the receipt, the payment receipt showing where you obtained that product and how you obtained it…all based on POS (point of sale), the electronic monitoring of every expenditure at the register.  The “successful” employment of Cryptocurrency will mean that the people have been completely duped and have handed all privacy into the control of the government.  Once they control everyone economically, they will use that control to seize other aspects of daily life that are not regulated.  They’ll know how much you make, where you work, and how much you have available.

    Or what you think you have available, because in the blink of an eye, they’ll make your Crypto dollars disappear, and you’ll have no recourse, just as they have no accountability.  If politicians steal money now, while cash still exists, think of how much they’ll be able to steal when everything is done electronically…when all the bankers and oligarchs are under their control/in a symbiotic-parasitic relationship and they can pass any law they wish.  Cryptocurrency is a scam that will eventually lead to the final enslavement of the U.S.

  • Unprecedented Housing Bailout Revealed, As China Property Sales Drop For First Time In 30 Months

    Back in March, we explained why the “fate of the world economy is in the hands of China’s housing bubble.” The answer was simple: for the Chinese population, and growing middle class, to keep spending vibrant and borrowing elevated, it had to feel comfortable and confident that its wealth will keep rising. However, unlike the US where the stock market is the ultimate barometer of the confidence boosting “wealth effect”, in China it has always been about housing: three quarters of Chinese household assets are parked in real estate, compared to only 28% in the US with the remainder invested financial assets.

    Beijing knows this, of course, which is why China periodically and consistently reflates its housing bubble, hoping that the popping of the bubble, which happened in late 2011 and again in 2014, will be a controlled, “smooth landing” process. 

    The other reason why China is so eager to keep its housing sector inflated – and risk bursting bubbles – is that as shown in the chart below, in 2016 the rise of property prices boosted household wealth in 37 tier 1 and tier 2 cities by RMB24 trillion, almost twice the total local disposable income of RMB12.9 trillion. For any Fed readers out there, that’s how you create a wealth effect, fake as it may be. 

    Unfortunately for China, whose record credit creation in 2017, and certainly in the months leading up to the 19th Chinese Communist Party Congress which started last week, has been the primary catalyst for the “global coordinated growth”, the good times are now again over, and according to the latest real estate data released last week, property sales in China dropped for the first time since March 2015, or more than two-and-half years, in September and housing starts slowed sharply reinforcing concerns that robust growth in the world’s second-largest economy is starting to cool.

    Property sales by floor area fell 1.5% in September from a year earlier, compared with a 4.3% increase in August and a 34% jump in September 2016, according to Reuters calculations based on official data released on Thursday. That marked the first annual decline since the start of 2015. Separately, new construction starts by floor area, a volatile but telling indicator of developers’ confidence, rose just 1.4% in September on-year, slowing from a 5.3% increase in August, according to Reuters calculations.

    “The negative September sale number shows that, unequivocally, the property boom has peaked,” Rosealea Yao, a property analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics told Reuters. “We have seen some big rebounds at the end of the first and second quarter, but given how fast the sale numbers are declining, we expect no big rebound this time.”

    Echoing our concerns above, Reuters writes that “real estate, which directly affects 40 other business sectors in China, is a crucial driver for the economy but also poses a major risk as Beijing looks to tame soaring home prices without triggering a crash or a sharp drop in construction activity.

    The easing in property activity appeared to drag on broader growth in the third quarter, and as many economists predicted China’s GDP rose 6.8% in the third quarter from a year earlier, down from 6.9% in the second quarter. And while property investment did rise 9.2% in September, picking up pace from an expansion of 7.8 percent in August, analysts warned such investment usually lags sales trends by up to six months.

    Still, as discussed here previously, while home prices have sharply softened in China’s biggest, Tier-1, cities in recent months in response to a flurry of government cooling measures, property bubbles are still a threat in other parts of the country.

    A flurry of small cities have had to unveil fresh property curbs in recent weeks after speculators turned their attention to less-restricted cities that have massive overhangs of unsold houses.

    Moreover, in addition to many buyers purchasing second houses on credit as Deutsche Bank pointed out last month, high prices are forcing many home buyers to take on more debt, weighing on future household consumption and leaving banks more exposed to any property downturn even as Beijing looks to rein in financial system risks. Household loans, mostly mortgages, rose to 734.9 billion yuan ($110.80 billion) in September from 663.5 billion yuan in August, despite rising mortgage rates, according to Reuters calculations. Short-term loans also soared in the third quarter, suggesting speculators may be trying to circumvent property cooling measures, economists said.

    What is most concerning, however, is that the recent sharp decline takes place even as policymakers have made stabilizing the overheated property market a top priority ahead of a critical Communist Party Congress this week, reiterating the need to avoid dramatic price swings which they fear could threaten the financial system and harm social stability.

    Adn while a downward inflection point in China’s housing market – which accounts for a third of China’s economic growth – is bad, what follows is far worse.

    According to a fascinating new WSJ report, China’s housing downturn is likely far worse than meets the eye, as under Beijing’s direction more than 200 cities across China for the last three years have been buying surplus apartments from property developers and moving in families from condemned city blocks and nearby villages. China’s Housing Ministry, which is behind the purchases, said it plans to continue the program through 2020. The strategy, supported by central-government bank lending, has rescued housing developers and lifted the property market,

    As the WSJ notes, this latest backdoor bailout “It is a sharp illustration of China’s economy under President Xi Jinping and the economic challenges he will face as he renews his 5-year term at a twice-a-decade Communist Party Congress that opens on Wednesday.”

    Rosealea Yao from Gavekal Dragonomics, who was also quoted above, wrote that “the government’s creativity in coming up with new ways of supporting the housing market is impressive—but it’s also an indication that it still depends on housing for growth.

    While traditionally, China’s government used to build homes for families who lost theirs to development or decay, last year, local governments, from the northeast rust belt to the city of Bengbu with 3.7 million amid the croplands of central Anhui province, spent more than $100 billion to buy housing from developers or subsidize purchases, according to Gavekal Dragonomics.

    In other words, the reason why China no longer has ghost cities is because the government is buying them in just as concerning, “ghostly” transcations.

    The underlying structure is yet another typically-Chinese ponzi scheme:

    Underpinning the strategy is a cycle of debt. Cities borrow from state banks for purchases and subsidies, then sell more land to developers to repay the loans. As developers build more housing, they, too, accrue more debt, setting up the state to bail them out again. The burden on the state rises, as does the risk of collapse.

    What is astounring, is that while the government has tried other ways of filling apartments, such as offering cash subsidies to encourage rural migrants to buy in urban areas, the program is the first large-scale case of the government becoming a home buyer itself. In May, Lu Kehua, China’s deputy housing minister, said the program has “played a positive role in steady economic growth,” and called for a push to clear housing inventory as early as possible, according to an article by the official Xinhua News Agency.

    Well, of course, it’s played a “positive role” – when the government itself is buying half the units it bought (see chart above), what can possibly go wrong? Well, pretty much everything if the housing market is once again headed lower and with the explicit backing and funding of the Chinese government.

    Some more fascinating details on how China fooled the world into believing back in 2014 that its recently burst housing bubble had “smoothly landed” and was again recovering:

    Three years ago, Bengbu’s housing prices were falling. Housing inventory in 2014 would have taken almost five years to fill at the pace of sales at the time, said Shanghai-based research firm E-House China R&D Institute. Around the same time, the Bengbu government began to gobble up homes, and it has continued to do so. The city said it bought nearly 6,000 apartments from developers last year.

     

    Housing stock in Bengbu was down to four months in September, a city official overseeing the government program said in September. Home prices had increased by 15% in August from a year earlier. That exceeded the 8.2% growth across a benchmark of 70 cities compiled by the national statistics agency.

     

    Beijing and Shanghai residents are used to such price surges, but it is unusual in a smaller Chinese city lacking any particular tourism or job-market appeal.

    Naturally, China would rather not have details of its latest bailout program spread too far:

    Bengbu officials are wary about publicizing its hand in the market for fear of driving up prices and speculative buying. “We don’t mention it as much now as in the past two years,” the city official in charge of the program said. “Prices have been fluctuating a lot, and it’s a little bit out of control.”

    Since the launch of the program, which is an explicit subsidy to Chinese real-estate developers who are directly selling to the government, things have predictably normalized. In fact, the outcome has been a little too frothy:

    In 2015, groups of families on government-organized apartment tours started showing up, said Ding Qian, a planner at the developer, Bengbu Mingyuan Real Estate Development. By October 2016, the developer had sold 20 blocks of finished apartments, about 10% of them paid for with government funds, Ms. Ding said.

     

    “We have run out of apartments to sell,” she said. The developer has sped up construction of 42 new blocks, about 4,000 apartments, and has raised prices by 40%.

    All thanks to the government, which is lending to local governments to avoid the impression it is directly involved in bailing out China’s “wealth effect”:

    The Bengbu official in charge of the program declined to disclose details about the city’s apartment purchases, but said the city had borrowed 10 billion yuan ($1.5 billion) of the 19 billion yuan of available credit extended by China Development Bank for housing purchases and subsidies.

     

    Local governments in 2016 borrowed 972.5 billion yuan from the bank, the government’s main housing lender, nine times the level three years earlier, according to E-House China R&D Institute, which compiled data from official bank and government websites. More than half of last year’s loans went to purchases or subsidized buying, according to the official Xinhua News Agency. The rest of the loans funded housing projects built by the government.

    What is most firghtening, is that despite the decline in property sales, the government’s role in the housing market continues to grow according to the WSJ, and here is a stunning statistic: Of all the residential floor space sold in China last year, 18% was purchased by government entities or with state subsidies, E-House China determined from official government data. The share could reach 24% this year, the firm said.

    To paraphrase: Beijing is now the (covert) marginal buyer of a quarter of all Chinese real estate. That, in itself, is a mindblowing statistic. What is scarier, is that despite this implicit backstop, property sales are once again declining after 30 months of increases. One can only imagine the epic crash that would ensure at this moment, if – for some reason – the government bid were to be pulled, and just how spectacular the ensuing global depression would be as the rug is pulled from below the middle class of the world’s fastest growing economy.

  • The First Amendment Is Under Serious Assault In Order To Stifle Anti-Israel Boycotts

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Assaults on freedom speech can be found in many aspects of American life these days, but one specific area that isn’t getting the attention it deserves relates to boycotts against Israel.

    Increasingly, we’re seeing various regional governments requiring citizens to agree to what essentially amounts to a loyalty pledge to a foreign government in order to participate in or receive government services.

    I’m going to highlight two troubling examples of this, both covered by Israeli paper Haaretz. The first relates to Kansas.

    From the article, In America, the Right to Boycott Israel Is Under Threat:

    The First Amendment squarely protects the right to boycott. Lately, though, a legislative assault on that right has been spreading through the United States –  designed to stamp out constitutionally protected boycotts of Israel…

     

    Over the past several years, state and federal legislatures have considered dozens of bills, and in some cases passed laws, in direct violation of this important ruling. These bills and laws vary in numerous respects, but they share a common goal of scaring people away people from participating in boycotts meant to protest Israeli government policies, including what are known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns.

     

    Today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging one of those laws — a Kansas statute requiring state contractors to sign a statement certifying that they do not boycott Israel, including boycotts of companies profiting off settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

     

    We are representing a veteran math teacher and trainer from Kansas who was told she would need to sign the certification statement in order to participate in a state program training other math teachers. Our client is a member of the Mennonite Church USA. In response to calls for boycott by the church and members of her congregation, she has decided not to buy consumer goods and services offered by Israeli companies and international companies operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Our client is boycotting to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and to pressure the government to change its policies.

     

    Earlier this year, our client was selected to participate as a contractor in a statewide training program run by the Kansas Department of Education. She was excited to use her skills to help train math teachers throughout the state, but when she was presented with a form requiring her to certify that she “is not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel,” she told the state that she could not sign the form in good conscience. As a result, the state refuses to let her participate in the program.

     

    Kansas’s law, and others like it, violates the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from suppressing one side of a public debate. That means it cannot impose ideological litmus tests or loyalty oaths as a condition on hiring or contracting.

    If this was the only example of such behavior, I suppose we could dismiss it as a one-off, misguided directive. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is far more common than any of us would like to admit.

    Here’s another recent example, from the article, Houston Suburb Won’t Give Hurricane Relief to Anyone Who Boycotts Israel:

    A Houston suburb will not approve grants to repair homes or businesses damaged in Hurricane Harvey if the applicant supports boycotting Israel.

     

    The city of Dickinson’s application form for storm damage repair funding includes a clause stating that “By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”

    No other clauses about political affiliations or beliefs are included in the form.

     

    The state of Texas passed a law in May banning state entities from contracting with businesses that boycott Israel. The law, one of 21 passed in states around the country in the past few years, has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union as unconstitutional.

    This is totally insane. I don’t care what you think about Israel, the above is completely unacceptable in a free society and we should all be making a stink about it. Please share with friends and family.

    *  *  *

    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.

  • LedgerX Trades Over $1 Million In Bitcoin Options And Swaps In First Week

    Bitcoin derivatives clearinghouse LedgerX has announced that the first bitcoin derivatives trades have taken place on its platform – an important milestone for the nascent digital currency market that could open the door to more institutional involvement and, some say, the creation of the first bitcoin-focused ETF.

    LedgerX confirmed rumors that it had already started clearing bitcoin derivatives trades in a statement provided to CoinDesk and a handful of other media outlets. According to figures provided by the company, LedgerX facilitated trading in 176 swaps and options contracts in its first week, an amount with a notional values of more than $1 million, according to CEO Paul Chou.

    "This week, a new standard is set for transparency, oversight and counter-party assurance. Institutional investors and traders can now rely on a guaranteed clearing and settlement process when transacting bitcoin contracts," Chou said.

    As CoinDesk points out, while the initial LedgerX trades appear to be exclusively bitcoin focused, the details of the license granted to the company by the CFTC in July allow for the creation of derivatives for other digital currencies as well. The company is reportedly working with options trading shops, asset managers, hedge funds, bitcoin miners, family offices, investment banks and virtually anybody else interested in helping it create a market for the new contracts.

    "Our regulated, institutional-grade platform enables participants who were sitting on the sidelines, to enter the digital currency market."

    LedgerX is licensed as both a swap execution facility (SEF) and a derivatives clearing organization (DCO).

    The CFTC gave its blessing to LedgerX back in July when it approved the creation of the first designed bitcoin SEF, or swap execution facility. Previously, bitcoin derivatives were traded exclusively OTC on exchanges like BitMEX. But now, trading in bitcoin options will be centrally cleared in the same manner as option contracts on equities.

    Congress mandated the creation of SEFs as part of its Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill in a bid to bring greater transparency to derivatives trading after synthetic CDOs and other shady “hedging instruments” tied to the mortgage securities helped wreck the economy in 2008,

    Dodd Frank, helped by a raft of CFTC rules, helped create a complex trade-reporting ecosystem in US markets, which RiskFocus has illustrated in the infographic below:

    Bitcoin options trading has come a long way since late 2015, when the CFTC officially went after bitcoin company Coinflip for operating a platform for trading bitcoin options without the proper authorization – confirming in the process that bitcoin would be treated as a commodity for regulatory purposes.

    We imagine LedgerX won’t have too difficult of a time moving inventory, considering bitcoin’s astounding run of new record highs persists unabated. In a market starved for volatility, giving the "big boys" the ability to trade with massive leverage on what is already the most volatile asset class in existence is just what some funds need to make their year as they swing for the fences with 20x (or more in) margin.
     

  • "Carnival Barker" Krugman & The Inevitable Weimar Endgame

    Authored by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    Who President Trump ultimately picks as the next Federal Reserve Chairman doesn’t really matter. Unless he goes really far afield to someone totally unexpected, whoever that person will be will be largely more of the same. It won’t be a categorical change, a different philosophical direction that is badly needed.

    Still, politically, it does matter to some significant degree. It’s just that the political division isn’t the usual R vs. D, left vs. right. That’s how many are making it out to be, and in doing so exposing what’s really going on.

    As usual, the perfect example for these divisions is provided by Paul Krugman. The Nobel Prize Winner ceased being an economist a long time ago, and has become largely a partisan carnival barker. He opines about economic issues, but framed always from that perspective.

    To the very idea of a next Fed Chair beyond Yellen, he wrote a few weeks ago, “we’re living in the age of Trump, which means that we should actually expect the worst.” Dr. Krugman wants more of the same, and Candidate Trump campaigned directly against that. As such, there is the non-trivial chance that President Trump lives up to that promise.

    Again, it sounds like a left vs. right issue, but it isn’t. The political winds are changing, and the parties themselves are being realigned in different directions (which is not something new; there have been several re-alignments throughout American history even though the two major parties have been entrenched since the 1850’s when Republicans first appeared). Who the next Fed Chair is could tell us something about how far along we are in this evolution.

    What Krugman wants, meaning, it is safe to assume, what all those like him want, is simple: success. He believes that the central bank has given us exactly that, therefore it is stupid to upset what works.

    In particular, both Bernanke and Yellen responded effectively to a once-in-three-generations economic crisis despite constant heckling from back-seat drivers in Congress and on the political right in general. And their intellectual and moral courage has been completely vindicated by events.

    This is right here is the very central point of political difference that is pulling the world slowly apart. Krugman offers no evidence for his assertion, that the Fed has performed admirably and successfully, he just states it as if it was so (a common tactic in the mainstream, the fallacy of authority). Whenever challenged on this contention, the argument will always go back to “jobs saved.”

    A worse counterfactual downside is not a rational standard for evaluation in any discipline or context. The only benchmark that should matter is recovery, as any economy facing recession, even an unusually severe one, has to make it back to the prior condition. On that score the Fed has utterly and unambiguously failed.

    One reason for it is the one thing Economists like Krugman never bring up; the 2008 panic. How can anyone claim the Fed under Yellen or Bernanke performed even minimally well? The very fact that the panic happened at all is a direct indictment on monetary policy and the people who were there during it (you had one job to do!).

    That’s not really what is at issue here, only it has become one battle in what is a larger war. That struggle is betrayed in Krugman’s own words by which he means to raise up both Bernanke and Yellen as examples of what needs to continue.

    For more than a decade the Fed chair has been a distinguished academic economist — first Ben Bernanke, then Janet Yellen. You might wonder how such people, who have never been in the business world, who have never met a payroll, would deal with real-world economic problems; the answer, in both cases: superbly…

    Given this track record, you might expect to see either Yellen reappointed or an equally qualified technocrat take her place.

    This is all really about Economics. It has failed and most publicly so in the form of its principle public adherents in the Federal Reserve piloted by Bernanke and Yellen. The technocratic stars of the faith have been dramatically dimmed by events. Economists are not scientists, clearly, and so they are desperately seeking to circle the wagons by rewriting history; the last ten years weren’t all that bad, and they really could have been worse if it wasn’t for Economics.

    The irrational, emotional defense for the ideology is what is driving political upheaval, including Donald Trump’s occupying the White House.

    To most people, Krugman’s ideas and assertions are nonsense. They don’t have to know anything about QE’s effect on the TBA market and dollar rolls, how exactly McDonald’s was borrowing from FRBNY, or what it was that AIG did that ultimately made the Federal Reserve profits. People know the Fed did a bunch of stuff that didn’t work because they can tell there is something very wrong with the economy.

    And after ten years of being told not to worry about it, or that it was being expertly handled, the people are Fed up with the defense of ideology first at the expense of actual answers. That’s really where we are; Economics has no more solutions (more QE!), therefore Economists have been forced to re-evaluate everything but only along those lines. If Economics can’t solve the problem, then they believe this has to be as good as it gets. And everyone should just stop complaining and appreciate the heroic and inspired effort that “saved” so many “jobs.”

    Trump’s candidacy, as Bernie Sanders’, as an ideal was a grave threat to the status quo because it started with the premise that, no, this isn’t as good as it can be and that we need to look for real solutions. Whether he forwards that ideal as President is and has been another matter, and who he picks as Fed Chair might be some small indication of where he currently stands consistent with that idea, or perhaps having second thoughts about it.

    The technocracy doesn’t work because it isn’t technically competent (thus 2008).

    That’s the real political debate in 2017 and going forward; technical incompetence where the defense of the technocracy refuses to even allow the suggestion that this might be true. I go back to Weimar Germany not because I expect a global hyperinflationary breakdown, but in how that one particular form of systemic breakdown exposed timeless flaws inherent in all economic and financial systems. They all run to some extent on trust and (good) faith:

    In other words, German monetary officials, particularly Reichsbank head Rudolf von Havenstein and Minister of Finance Karl Helfferich, denied that Germany had an inflation problem at all – right up until the end. Minister Helfferich declared that Germany had better gold coverage after the war than before it, despite that more than quadrupling of currency volume. One economics professor, Julius Wolf, wrote in 1922 that, “in proportion to the need, less money circulates in Germany now than before the war.”

     

    As much as the easy-to-see Versailles excuse played a part, there can be no doubt that beyond 1921 the German people themselves began to recognize that authorities had no idea what they were doing; worse, they came to see that even though policymakers were inept and incompetent, officials themselves would never admit as much and thus nothing would prevent Germany from its fate. That awakening meant an increase in danger that French occupation could never have unleashed on its own.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 21st October 2017

  • Brandon Smith: How To Stop All Future Mass Shootings

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    In my last article 'A Tactical Analysis Of The Las Vegas Mass Shooting Incident,' I outlined the precarious nature of the mainstream narrative and why the Vegas event in particular requires serious independent investigation into the possibility that Stephen Paddock did not plan or execute the event alone, or, he did not plan or execute the event at all, and someone else with far more tactical knowledge and shooting experience committed the murders outside the Mandalay Bay Hotel. Given that the FBI and Vegas sheriff's timeline seems to change every few days and that Mandalay surveillance footage is locked up tight, I think it is safe to say that someone more professional, and not muzzled by bureaucracy, needs be involved.

    Setting aside the inconsistencies in the official narrative, questioning the motives behind this particular attack does not really bring us any closer to a practical solution. Of course, if you are one of those people that obsessively embraces the "crisis actor" theory, then you likely think that nothing much needs to be solved because "no one actually died." I am not very interested in this impractical theory reminiscent of 'The Truman Show', nor the people that promote it. It reminds me of the 9/11 hologram plane theory — remember, the theory designed to discredit the more legitimate 9/11 truth movement which included hundreds of scientists, architects and engineers with real arguments and evidence? Yeah, those establishment disinformation tactics did not go away; they are still being used today to undermine honest and rational investigations of other potential false flag events.

    Ask "fake event" theorists for ANY concrete evidence that a single death was theatrical and that thousands of concertgoers and their families are part of the conspiracy, and these guys will demand that YOU show them the dead bodies and prove that the event "wasn't faked."  In other words, you must prove a negative, which is of course impossible.

    Tell them you happen to know people with friends and family who were harmed in the event and they'll call you a liar or a government "agent." Show them numerous photos of dead bodies and they'll claim the bodies are actors. Show them first hand accounts of people on the ground — hey, all those people must be actors, too. Ask them for proof again and they'll try to pawn the burden of proof off on you; proof that they will then again deny when it is presented. It is a pointless circle of idiocy that makes alternative research look ridiculous.

    If the establishment is seeking to stage a false flag, why go through the trouble of an elaborate, costly and harder-to-contain Kabuki play with numerous actors that might not keep quiet when they could simply shoot some real people with real bullets and be done with it?

    Moving on…

    This article will be focusing on the very real shooting (and attacks like it) which did in fact occur. Perhaps not the way that the mainstream media and the FBI claim, but still taking place all the same. How do we prevent such attacks in the future? What about Gladio-type false flag events (the Vegas event has numerous Gladio markers)? Can those be stopped, or is this an impossible task?

    As far as false flag attacks are concerned, the long-term solution would be to nullify the people who fund and plan these scenarios. Until the day this is accomplished, though, we need some short-term protections.

    I believe it is indeed possible to stop future mass shooting events, and to be sure, the solution does NOT involve further gun control measures or confiscation. Why? Because gun control does nothing to prevent mass shootings.

    Just take a look at the Paris attacks perpetrated by ISIS. France has strict gun laws in line with what gun control advocates in the U.S. would like to see implemented. Even off-duty police officers in France were not allowed to carry their sidearms until after the Paris attacks in 2015.

    French gun laws did nothing to stop ISIS terrorists from killing over 130 people in a single night using weapons already highly restricted in the country. All they accomplished was disarming innocent citizens and making them easy targets.

    The nation of India also has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet this did nothing to prevent the Mumbai attacks in 2008 in which 164 people were killed.

    Norway had extremely tough gun laws in 2011, but these were easily circumvented by Anders Breivik who murdered 69 members of a Workers Youth Camp on the island of Utoya.

    As I noted in my previous article, the Vegas attack was initiated using more complex sniper-like tactics as evidenced in the choice of the shooter's perch as well as in the calculations for bullet drop from an elevated position. I believe this was done quite deliberately; most mass shooters tend to be poorly trained and attack a crowd haphazardly at point blank range in order to achieve maximum casualties in the shortest amount of time.  However, in Vegas, and Nevada in general, the likelihood of running into a person with a conceal carry weapon is rather high. Paddock (or whoever) might not have lasted more than a minute before being confronted with multiple defenders armed with their own sidearms.

    The Vegas shooter was smart to avoid a point blank, ground level confrontation. But how do we make future shooters think twice about longer range attacks at crowded events?

    The federal government and DHS will probably call for stricter security measures in locations in which many people congregate. I would not be surprised to see demands for TSA-style security in streets in major tourist areas and at concerts, sporting events, etc. Body scanners and luggage scanners in major hotels? Count on it, eventually. Hardcore anti-gun ordinances within major cities, much like the gun measures in places like Washington D.C.? Do not be shocked.

    As mentioned above, none of this will really stop a determined mass shooter or terrorist (and certainly not a false flag), but without an alternative solution, frightened people have a tendency to go along with the deluded notion that more government means more security.

    Vegas is not a stranger to crisis, but it seems to have forgotten how to prevent it. Many Americans are unaware that back in 1992 during the Rodney King riots, Las Vegas had to deal with its own major civil unrest with millions of dollars in damage and multiple deaths. This was barely reported because of Vegas's habit of burying stories that might stain the tourist destination's fun-loving image. But, it did take place.

    West Las Vegas erupted in violence in the wake of the Rodney King trial, including snipers shooting at police officers and bystanders, but the Vegas Strip went largely untouched. This was perhaps because hotel and casino private security at that time had a reputation for being rather well armed and vicious. Many hotels had their own rooftop shooters ready and waiting. Given, Vegas was still highly "mobbed up" in the 1990s, but one must admit that their security was not to be trifled with.

    No major federal measures were needed and intrusive security was minimal. Can this effect be achieved again (without the mob)?  Yes.

    If mass shooters, terrorists and "others" seek to attack highly populous events using advanced tactics, then the organizers of these events should be employing private security groups with applicable tactical training and experience. There are thousands of well-trained veterans and civilians out there with the skills necessary to stop an active shooter, and they are not being employed where they are most capable. A team of two people trained in counter-sniping positioned near the concert at the Mandalay Bay could have cut down the shooter within a couple minutes rather than 10 minutes (or more), saving dozens of lives.

    To be clear, I am not talking about poorly organized volunteer security made up of people not vetted, led by other men of questionable competence. I am not talking about guys who claim they have training but are never asked to prove it before they show up for the "gig." And I am not talking about security groups composed of individuals who barely know each other and have never worked together, as we have seen in scenarios like the Berkeley riots.

    What I am talking about is the employment of quiet, vetted and tested professionals hired out for specific events in which large crowds will be present.

    The Feds are not needed and, in most cases, not wanted. Private security firms WITHOUT federal affiliations could handle the protection of major venues without constitutional violations by simply placing people at events with the proper training. The mere presence of these people may even act as a deterrent for future attacks.

    Security should also be organized and managed independently from the venues which they are tasked to protect.  As we have seen recently with the very odd behavior of MGM security employee, Jesus Campos; including his disappearance right before he was expected to give his accounting of events at the Mandalay and his sudden reappearance on the Ellen Show to give a farce of an interview devoid of hard facts or timeline confirmations, rent-a-cops owned by the venue are more vulnerable to manipulations and possible "coaching" after a crisis event occurs.

    Excitement seekers and the public at large should avoid events that refuse to pay for truly independent and tactically skilled security, and instead choose typical rent-a-cops, retired cops and moonlighting cops that need extra cash. It is clear in light of the Vegas attack that these people do not have the ability to obstruct any attacker using more advanced combat strategies.  Nor are they likely to be honest about what really happened after the fact.

    On top of this, more training and more responsibly armed Americans continue to be the best methods towards defusing and deterring active shooters. The point is, if the American public does not pursue alternative solutions and take tactical realities into account, then the only other option will be government interference on a scale that will promote totalitarianism in the name of safety. It is time for the American people to grow up, stop waiting for Big Brother to protect them and start taking their security into their own hands.

  • Mapping What Every State In America Is Best At

    Company towns used to be a defining feature of the American economy. Nowadays, as Raul at HowMuch.net notes, thanks to globalization and offshoring, it is much harder to find employers that exert such influence over a small town (with a few notable exceptions).

    That being said, specific industries still tend to grow in clusters and can dominate the economy of a particular region. To understand this new reality, we mapped the most important industries by state according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, which takes into account an industry’s collective output as a percentage of the overall GDP. For simplicity, we excluded government jobs and real estate.

    The result is one of the easiest snapshots of the U.S. economy you will ever find.

    Source: HowMuch.net

    The government groups companies into particular industries using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Basically, someone looks at a company and decides where it belongs on a list of industries. This is more complex than it sounds, especially if a parent company holds many different unrelated subsidiaries (like Amazon), or when a business model strides the line between different industries (anyone care to debate if Airbnb is a technology company or in the hospitality industry?). We simply generated a color-coded map of the results of this debate.

    You can immediately see some interesting groupings in the map.

     Computer & electronics companies dominate the West Coast, oil & gas remains ascendant in the Southwest, and insurance companies take the greatest market share in the Upper Midwest.

    Take a look at the deep South, where you see a lot of red signifying the ambulatory healthcare services industry. This single industry dominates in 13 different states. Think about the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in these places, and it’s pretty easy to understand why these industries are so important. For example, Apple, Facebook, and Google are all headquartered in Silicon Valley in California.

    Things tend to be much more diverse across the Northeast, where you see many different industries all grouped together. This is also easy to explain: it’s one of the most population-dense places in the country and it has the smallest states in terms of geography. This environment lets a lot of different industries grow together.

    Factory towns may be a thing of the past, but it remains true today that similar businesses tend to grow and expand in areas with the same economic conditions.

    This is true for less populous states like North Dakota and places with big cities too, like Colorado. If you’re looking for a job in one of these states, then our list gives you a good idea of where the biggest opportunities might be.

     

  • Did John McCain Provide The Infamous 'Trump Dossier' To BuzzFeed?

    After nearly a year of cogitating, no one in the media, usually a fairly leaky institution, has been able to figure out who exactly who provided the infamous “Trump Dossier” to BuzzFeed which was published on January 10, 2017 and promptly debunked within approximately 35 seconds. 

    As the Daily Caller points out today, less than a handful of people had access to the dossier before it made its way to BuzzFeed: John McCain, David Kramer (a former State Department official and an associate of McCain), then FBI Director James Comey and Fusion GPS (the creator of the document).  Fusion GPS has since admitted under oath that they did not share the document with BuzzFeed which basically just leaves John McCain (and/or his associate) or James Comey.

    Asked about the dossier recently, an irritable, and perhaps defensive, McCain lashed out at a Daily Caller reporter (seemingly a new trend for McCain of late) saying only “I don’t know why you’re digging this up now.”

    In addition to McCain and Steele, opposition research firm Fusion GPS had the dossier, as did David J. Kramer, a former State Department official and an associate of McCdoain’s.

     

    One person who was provided a copy of the salacious document, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, is Arizona Sen. John McCain. But McCain, who has already acknowledged providing an early version of the dossier to former FBI Director James Comey, denied this week that he also gave a version to BuzzFeed, which published it on Jan. 10.

     

    “I gave it to no one except for the director of the FBI. I don’t know why you’re digging this up now,” McCain said during a testy exchange with The Daily Caller on Wednesday.

     

    McCain was asked whether he was BuzzFeed’s source after the Republican’s office declined to answer direct questions on the matter.

    As a reminder, here is a recap of the timeline leading up the dossier’s BuzzFeed debut.

    McCain and Kramer, a former official at the McCain Institute, were first told about the dossier in November, during a conversation with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British spy and associate of Steele’s. McCain then dispatched Kramer to meet with Steele in London on Nov. 28.

     

    Steele, who operates Orbis Business Intelligence in London, has revealed in the London lawsuit that he allowed Kramer to view the dossier but did not provide him a copy. He said that an “arrangement” was later made for Fusion to provide a copy of the dossier to McCain through Kramer.

     

    McCain then provided a copy of the document to Comey during a Dec. 9 meeting.

     

    Four days after McCain met with Comey, Steele would produce the final memo of the dossier, the one that was provided to BuzzFeed and which included the allegations against Gubarev.

     

    Steele sent the final memo to Fusion with instructions to pass a hard-copy to Kramer and McCain. It is unclear how the dossier was disseminated after that. Fusion has not said whether it disseminated the final version of the dossier to anyone outside the company.

     

    The denials by Steele, Fusion and McCain that they were BuzzFeed’s sources leaves just a few posibilities, including Kramer.

     

    Kramer has not responded to multiple requests for comment about his handling of the dossier or whether he gave it to any news outlets. He has not talked on the record to any reporters since being identified in the controversy.

    McCain

    Of course, the identity of BuzzFeed’s source is significant for two reasons.  First, because a Russian tech executive, Aleksej Gubarev, was accused in the document of hacking into DNC computers to dig up dirt on Hillary during the 2016 campaign.  And second, but certainly not least, because it could shed light on whether someone in Trump’s own party or, and perhaps even more disturbing, within the FBI ordered a “political hit” on the newly elected – if wildly unpopular (at least on the DC circuit) – president.

    It is a central question in a lawsuit filed against the media outlet by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian tech executive named in the dossier. Gubarev is identified by name in Steele’s Dec. 13 memo. In it, Steele alleges that Gubarev was recruited under duress by the FSB, Russia’s intelligence agency, and that he used his companies to infiltrate the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee.

     

    Gubarev’s attorneys have said they want to find out if BuzzFeed’s source provided any warnings or qualifications about the allegations made in the dossier. If so, the lawyers are likely to argue that BuzzFeed was negligent and careless in publishing the document.

     

    BuzzFeed, which has apologized to Gubarev, has defended its decision to publish the dossier, noting that its article unveiling the Steele memos explicitly stated that the memos had not been corroborated. The website also said that the dossier was newsworthy because Comey had briefed President Trump on its allegations during a meeting on Jan. 6.

     

    On top of its importance to the lawsuit, the identity of BuzzFeed’s source is of widespread interest because of the possibility that a government official disseminated the uncorroborated document to the media, possibly as a hit job on Trump.

    And then, of course, there is the issue of who ordered the dossier in the first place…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • "Tired Mountain Syndrome" – North Korea's Nuclear Test Site Is Headed For A Deadly Collapse

    UN Security Council sanctions aside, one of the reasons China has closed much of its border with North Korea and imposed emergency measures to monitor radiation flowing across the mountainous terrain is because the country’s scientists worry that the mountain under which North Korea has held five of its six nuclear tests is in danger of collapsing and unleashing a devastating cloud of radiation on the surrounding terrain.

    And just in case anybody doubted the veracity of China’s warnings, a slew of independent analysts have confirmed what Beijing has long feared: North Korea’s Mount Mantap, a 7,200-foot-peak under which North Korea has carried out most of its recent nuclear tests, is suffering from “tired mountain syndrome,” according to the Washington Post.

    Satellite images captured during the North’s Sept. 3 test of a purported hydrogen bomb, Mt Mantap could be seen visibly shifting during the enormous detonation which triggered a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in North Korea’s northeast.

    And since that test, the region – which is not known for seismic activity – has experienced several landslides and no fewer than three more earthquakes.'

    The North, which carried out its first nuclear test more than ten years ago in 2006, has built a complex system of tunnels underneath the mountain that’s known as the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Facility. According to WaPo, intelligence analysts use satellites to monitor the three known entrances to Punggye-ri to try and anticipate when another test might be coming.

    Arms Control Wonk describes the site in more precise detail.

    North Korea’s nuclear test site comprises a number of tunnel complexes in mountains surrounding a main support area. Following an initial nuclear explosion in 2006, subsequent nuclear tests have been conducted in a tunnel complex to the North of the support area, under Mt. Mantap. The site contains additional tunnel complexes that may be suitable for nuclear explosions to the south and west of the support area. The Punggye-ri site is capable of hosting nuclear explosions in tunnels with yields of up to a few hundred kilotons.

    The tremors unleashed by the North’s last test shook homes in northeastern China. And eight minutes after the initial quake subsided, there was a 4.1-magnitude earthquake that appeared to be a tunnel collapsing at the site.

     

     

    Images captured by Airbus showed the mountain trembling during the test. An 85-acre area on the peak of Mount Mantap visibly subsided during the explosion, an indication of both the size of the blast and the weakness of the mountain.

    Anybody who was around in the 1950s and 1960s will remember that “tired mountain syndrome” was a diagnosis last applied to the Soviet Union’s atomic test sites. To be sure, earthquakes also occurred at the US nuclear test site in Nevada after detonations there.

    “The underground detonation of nuclear explosions considerably alters the properties of the rock mass,” Vitaly V. Adushkin and William Leith wrote in a report on the Soviet tests for the United States Geological Survey in 2001. This leads to fracturing and rocks breaking, and changes along tectonic faults.

    Analysts Frank V. Pabian and Jack Liu worry that the blasts have caused substantial damage to the North’s tunnel network.

    “Based on the severity of the initial blast, the post-test tremors, and the extent of observable surface disturbances, we have to assume that there must have been substantial damage to the existing tunnel network under Mount Mantap,” they wrote in a report for the specialist North Korea website 38 North.

    Of course, just because the mountain is literally crumbling doesn’t mean the North will stop using it as a test site. As WaPo notes, the US didn’t abandon the Nevada test site after earthquakes there, they said. Instead, the US kept using the site until a nuclear test moratorium took effect in 1992. For that reason, analysts will continue to keep a close eye on the Punggye-ri test site to see if North Korea starts excavating there again — a sign of possible preparations for another test.

    But as Chinese scientists have warned, one more test might be one too many.

    Chinese scientists have warned that another test under the mountain could lead to an environmental disaster. If the whole mountain caved in on itself, radiation could escape and drift across the region, said Wang Naiyan, the former chairman of the China Nuclear Society and senior researcher on China’s nuclear weapons program.

     

    “We call it ‘taking the roof off.’ If the mountain collapses and the hole is exposed, it will let out many bad things,” Wang told the South China Morning Post last month.

    But perhaps equally as concerning as the collapse of Mantap is the possibility that another test could trigger an eruption at Mt. Paektu, an active supervolcano located on the North Korea-China border, about 80 miles from Pyungge-ri.

    The mountain has not experienced a major eruption for centuries, and its last small rumble was in 1903. But an eruption could have devastating consequences – possibly causing more death and destruction than a nuclear blast.

    And with a North Korean diplomat reiterating today that the North intends to continue with its nuclear program, while the country has also decried the military exercises happening in the waters east of the peninsula, where the USS Ronald Reagan is conducting training drills with the South Korean navy.

    However, the North’s Oct. 10 holiday and the Oct. 18 beginning of China’s National Party Congress having come and gone without a new test. And signs of movement at some of the country’s missile test sites spotted in recent weeks have apparently been false alarms.

    But given the amount of time that has elapsed since the North’s most recent missile test, it’s likely that the next provocative test – be it a test of a new long-range missile or a seventh nuclear test – isn’t too far off.
     

  • UC Santa Cruz 'Liberals' Declare Mainstream Republicans Nazis: A Threat To Their Safety For Simply Existing

    Authored by Alex Thomas via SHTFplan.com,

    A meeting of the College Republicans at the University of California, Santa Cruz was taken over and subsequently shut down by hard-left students who literally screamed that the groups very existence was a threat to their safety.

    The leftist group initially organized the effort to derail the free speech of Republicans on campus in a Facebook post that openly called for shutting down the groups “right of assembly” while also labeling mainline conservatives as white supremacists and fascists.

    “White Supremacist, fascist-sympathizing College Republicans are having a meeting at McHenry library, room 0332. Everybody be aware of this violent racist activity happening everyday on this campus!” wrote a student.

     

    “We need a movement of people on this campus that rejects the ‘right of assembly,’ or ‘right of free speech’ for white supremacists and fascists.”

    The group then went through with their social media threats, banging on the meetings door and eventually barging into the room to full on disrupt the peaceful meeting while screaming about fascists, racists, and white supremacists. Remember, this was a meeting of mainline conservatives.

    Details published by Campus Reform include the fact that the leftist group refused to have any sort of dialogue with the College Republicans.

    According to the UCSC College Republicans, their offers to discuss the concerns of the protesters were met with exclamations that “dialogue is violence,” after which the protesters called the club’s presence a “threat to the library” and demanded that the CR members vacate the space immediately.

     

    The protesters even reportedly berated library staff members when they refused to shut down the pre-approved meeting. One staff member eventually asked the CR members to leave in order to end the disturbance, but meeting attendees chose to respond by sitting quietly and refusing to leave the area.

    One student protester laughably ran out of the meeting hysterically screaming about nonexistent “Nazis downstairs”.

    The commotion culminated in one of the student activists running out into the main library area screaming that there were “Nazis downstairs,” but while the gimmick drew several spectators, many of them expressed indignation at the actions of the protestors. 

     

    “As a Democrat, I am embarrassed that some people on the left act this way,” remarked Phil Leonard Vogel, creator of the moderate campus news publication City on a Phil. “They give all of us a terrible name.”

     

    After nearly two hours, school officials eventually called the police, who reportedly arrested three of the protesters.

    Unbelievably, one of the protesters even claimed that the groups very existence was a disturbance.

    You truly can’t make this stuff up.

    “Your existence is a disturbance, your existence is a disturbance to every marginalized person in this country.”

    This is apparently what it means to be a liberal (at least for some) in the year 2017.

  • Bank Of America: "This Could Send The Nasdaq To 10,000"

    Last weekend, One River’s CIO Eric Peters explained what he thought would be the nightmare scenario for the next Fed chair, who as we now know will either be Jerome Powell or John Taylor, or both (with an outside chance of Yellen remaining in her post). According to the hedge fund CIO, the “worst case scenario” is one in which despite an improving economy, yields simply refuse to go up, leading to the final asset bubble and Fed intervention that “pops” it:

    if we don’t see a sustained cyclical jump in wages, then yields won’t go up. And if yields don’t go up, then the asset price ascent will accelerate,” continued the strategist. “Which will lead us into a 2018 that looks like what we had expected out of 2017; a war against inequality, a battle for Main Street at the expense of Wall Street, an Occupy Silicon Valley movement.” He paused, flipping through his calendar.  “Then you’ll have this nightmare for the next Federal Reserve chief, because they’ll have to pop a bubble.”

    While Peters never names names in his pieces, the “strategist” in the weekend letter was BofA’s Michael Hartnett, who several days after Peters penned the above, followed up with some thoughts of his own on precisely this topic, and in a note released this week, described what he believes is the “biggest market risk” for the market. Not surprisingly, it is precisely what Peters was referring to in the above excerpt.

    Responding to the question of “What is the biggest market risk”, Hartnett writes that “in our gut, it’s that the two most important investment trends of the past decade, central bank liquidity & technological disruption, ends in a bubble for tech stocks (Chart 7), & High Yield & EM bonds, the epicenters of the “scarce growth” & “scarce yield” themes.

    As with Peters, for Hartnett it all comes down to one thing: inflation and higher yields, specifically among long-dated yields: 

    Multi-year lows in unemployment, multi-year highs in consumer confidence, soaring global PMIs, soaring profits, a doubling of the oil price, fiscal stimulus…little wonder the world is short bonds in 2017.

     

    And yet inflation & bond yields refuse to rise.

    The reason is simple: in attempting to stimulate wage growth, and thus benign inflation, the Fed continues to target the symptom of a condition which it no longer has any control over. Remember: Deflation = Debt + Demographics + Disruption? Well, they’re back. Quote Hartnett:

    Aging Demographics and excess Debt remain structural impediments to higher inflation. But the biggest impediment is technology, and the potential for the labor market to be permanently disrupted, as AI and robotics crush wage expectations, particularly in the service sector.

    For now the bond market still gives the Fed the benefit of the doubt, with 10Y yields occasionally pushing higher when the nearly extinct bond vigilantes make a surprise appearance, pushing rates up at least until the next deflationary scare emerges. But what happens if the bond vigilantes finally throw in the towel? Well, that’s what unleashes the final bubble… and sends 30Y yields toward 2% and the Nasdaq  to 10,000.

    Capitulation of bond bears would send 30-year Treasury yields toward 2%, the Nasdaq toward 10,000, and high yield & Emerging Market bond spreads 100bps tighter (all-time lows…241bps in the US, 179bps in Europe, 139bps in EM). The outperformance of “deflation” versus “inflation” could turn exponential (Chart 8).

    And while the market may or may not have a major correction in the coming months (Hartnett also predicted last week that the next major market drop will take place between Thanksgiving and Valentine’s Day), the longer-term implications as this tension is finally resolved either way, most likely with the intervention of the Fed – whose next chair will have no choice but to burst the bubble – will define the market for the next generation, or as the BofA strategist puts it:

    “Icarus Unleashed” in coming quarters would then set-up 2018/2019 as a period of volatility, aggressive Fed tightening to pop bubbles, and more hostile War on Inequality & Occupy Silicon Valley politics, setting the stage for the end of the bull market as Icarus crashes back to earth.’


  • Pat Buchanan Asks: "Is Liberalism A Dying Faith?"

    Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more democratic – and the model for mankind’s future.

    Equality, diversity, democracy – this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.

    But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.

    And even Europe seems to be rejecting what America has on offer.

    In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.

    The right-wing People’s Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria’s vote, delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!

    Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.

    South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians are talking of separation.

    By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington Post, Babis “makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO’s mission is outdated.”

    Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.

    To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many may nod at Thomas Jefferson’s line that “All men are created equal,” but they no more practice that in their own nations than did Jefferson in his.

    On Oct. 7, scores of thousands of Poles lined up along the country’s entire 2,000-mile border — to pray the rosary.

    It was the centennial of the Virgin Mary’s last apparition at Fatima in Portugal in 1917, and the day in 1571 the Holy League sank the Muslim fleet at Lepanto to save Europe. G. K. Chesterton’s poem, “Lepanto,” was once required reading in Catholic schools.

    Each of these traditionalist-nationalist movements is unique, but all have a common cause. In the hearts of Europe’s indigenous peoples is embedded an ancient fear: loss of the homeland to Islamic invaders.

    Europe is rejecting, resisting, recoiling from “diversity,” the multiracial, multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual future that, say U.S. elites, is America’s preordained mission to bring about for all mankind.

    Indeed, increasingly, the indigenous peoples of Europe seem to view as the death of their nations and continent, what U.S. liberal elites see as the Brave New World to come.

    To traditionalist Europeans, our heaven looks like their hell.

    Thus Poles fall on their knees to pray to the Virgin Mary to spare them from threats of an Islamic future, as their ancestors prayed at the time of Lepanto, and of Vienna in 1683, when the Polish King John Sobieski marched to halt the last Muslim drive into the heart of Europe.

    European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve “illiberal” ends. And it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right. For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds deeply nationalist views.

    European elites may denounce these new parties as “illiberal” or fascist, but it is becoming apparent that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem but an existential crisis.

    To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from overuse.

    And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in nations created for their own kind.

    Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.

    And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of 1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.

    Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.

    So, why is liberalism dying?

    Because it is proving to be what James Burnham called it in his 1964 “Suicide of the West” — the ideology of Western suicide.

    What we see in Europe today is people who, belatedly recognizing this, have begun to “rage, rage, against dying of the light.”

  • Kyle Bass: "Today's Market Resembles The 1987 Debacle On Steroids"

    The US stock market celebrated the 30th anniversary of Black Monday with the 2017 version of a rocky trading day: Stocks sold off early, with S&P 500 futures recording their steepest post-midnight drop of the year. But the dip was reflexively and aggressively bought, and stocks even poked back into the green seconds before the close as algos mistook a repetitive Politico headline about Jay Powell’s chances of becoming the next Fed chair for news – leaving us with yet another record close.

    Of course, the historical juxtaposition of the 1987 crash with today’s unnaturally placid markets practically forced even the most bullish of traders to question how much longer the present market paradigm – where markets listlessly drift through a seemingly interminable series of record highs while trading volume and volatility remain suppressed – can possibly last.

    With that question in mind, Real Vision released a video early today containing interviews with some of the biggest names in the hedge fund universe. Though the interview was shot a few weeks ago, remarks from Hayman Capital’s Kyle Bass resonated with market's mood.

    Bass discussed what he sees as the many short- and long-term risks to the US equity market, including the rise of algorithmic trading and passive investment, which have enabled investors to take risks without understanding what they’re doing, leaving the market vulnerable to an “air pocket."

    And with  so many traders short vol, Bass said investors will know the correction has begun when a 4% or 5% drop in equities snowballs into a 10% to 15% decline at the drop of a hat.

    “The shift from active to passive means that risk is in the hands of people who don’t know how to take risk. Therefore we’re likely to have a 1987 air pocket. This is like portfolio insurance on steroids, the way algorithmic trading is now running the market place.

     

    Investors are moving from active to passive, meaning they’re taking the wheel themselves all at a time when CTAs are running their own algo strategies where they’re one and a half times long and half short and they all believe they can come out at the same time."

     

    “If you see the equity market crack 4 or 5 points, buckle up, because I think we’re going to see a pretty interesting air-pocket, and I don’t think investors are ready for that,” Bass said.

    When it comes to identifying potential catalysts, Bass said the US’s deteriorating relationships with both China and North Korea present significant long-term risks…

    “Our trade relationship with China is worsening our relationship with north korea whatever it is continually worsens. We’ve got three people at the head of these countries that are trying ot maike their countries great again, I think that’s a real risk geopolitically."

    …While the unwind of G-4 central bank stimulus could hammer equities and bonds in the short term.

    "But when you think about it financially, which is actually easier to calculate, the financial reason is the G-4 central banks going from a period of accommodation to a period of tightening, and that’s net of bond issuance."

    In summary, investors better snap up those out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts before it’s too late, because central banks – try as they might – can’t forestall the return of volatility forever.

  • How Times Have Changed

    From the Slope of Hope: One of my favorite little books is called Hey Skinny! Great Advertisements from the Golden Age of Comic Books, which pretty much describes the contents exactly. It is a hodgepodge of cheesy ads from the mid 1940s to late 1950s for all manner of junk, and it’s eye-opening to see via these come-ons just how much has changed in merchandising. I thought I’d provide a sampling for your amusement, not edification.

    First up is the “Lucky Grab Bag”, in which children would send in their precious cash in exchange for a bag of……….stuff. God only knows what stuff would come back, but I suspect it was whatever overstock items happened to be laying around the office……..ballpoint pens, sanitary napkins, swizzle sticks. I suspect an entire generation of kids learned the meaning of disappointment from the receipt of these parcels o’ crap.

    1020-grabgab

    Next up is the most amazing sun watch in the world. The fact it was the only sun watch in the world probably helped. Evidently it was a watch with a triangle sticking out of it (helpful for accidentally cutting yourself) which, if you aimed it precisely right on a sunny day, could give you the time within two hours of accuracy. This allowed you to tell time “the truly scientific way”. It wasn’t just a watch, though – – this product claimed to have nine functions, including “weather forecaster”, which I suppose meant if you couldn’t tell what time it was, it was either cloudy or already raining on your dumb ass.

    1020-sunwatch

    Now we step into the yesterday of political incorrectness with rubber masks. There’s Satan, an “Idiot”, and……umm……..a Minstrel. This advertisement, only partly shown, suggests that wearing one of these masks was a great way to bag the ladies, since they found it terribly amusing. In the parlance of the day, you could “panic a party” (whereas today you could “earn a lawsuit.”)

    1020-masks

    This next one is, for me, the most appalling of all. It seems there was a company back in the 50s whose sole purpose in life was to create photo enlargements. In exchange for giving their sales information to twenty of your friends, they would send you………brace yourself……..a monkey. How they shipped it to you or managed to keep it alive during the shipment (or, indeed, kept it from committing monkey suicide out of terror en route) is beyond me. It’s hard for me to believe that the good people of the U.S. had much success with miniature monkeys shrieking and throwing poo around the house across the suburbs of our once-great republic.

    1020-monkey

    For nascent crimestoppers, there is the “new toy gun” which, it seems, fires off pieces of potatoes. No big deal. What I find intriguing is the story they lay out in in the ad, in which a couple of young chaps stop a bank robbery cold (and are immediately paid for doing so by Mr. Bank Manager). It takes some serious suspension of disbelief to think hardened bank robbers would be stopped in their tracks by some ten year old holding what appears to be the letter “L” from Sesame Street in his hand, but that’s how the story is told. One can only hope the kids of the 50s didn’t seek out to emulate this behavior by hanging out in rougher parts of town with their weapon, waiting for their payday.

    1020-toygun

    The ads weren’t all just for kids, though. There were ads aimed at adults as well, and judging from the ad, there must have been plenty of desperate, disillusioned dads in America. Allow me to lay out what was being advertised here, as the story is told: (1) a guy pulls up in his driveway in a new car under the gaze of his envious neighbor, who puzzles over how he could afford such a luxury (2) the car owner states he is pulling down the big money by selling shoes door-to-door (3) Instead of laughing hysterically, the neighbor implausibly inquires as to how he can muscle in on this kind of action (4) the neighbor evidently signs up to be a new salesman for Mason Shoes, and he is provided a catalog and, yes, a sample air cushion which is the distinctive edge of Mason that makes them better than other shoes (5) the poor bastard pesters his neighbors, co-workers, and anyone else with feet to buy these shoes, and he does well enough that Mason sends him some sample shoes, sparing him the continue embarrassment of having nothing more than a soft insole as his only selling aid.

    1020-sellshoes

    We finish our journey with an ad specifically targeted to adult women (why they would be reading Archie comic books is beyond me, but there we are). The ad portrays a town whose women are having their engagement and wedding rings stolen from their homes. Mary has been robbed too, but she’s chill. How could this be? After all, the diamonds were worth at least a thousand dollars! That’s easy – – because Mary has her actual jewelry locked up in a safe where no one can see or enjoy it. What she’s been wearing on her fingers day after day are a set of rings that cost $2.98, and apparently no one could tell the difference. Nice going, Mary. I bet they look fabulous.

    1020-rings

    Well, that’s it for our trip down memory lane. Perhaps you were expecting an article on trading. But ask yourself – – how much value have you received from all the articles you’ve been reading about trading for the past eight years? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 20th October 2017

  • Legendary Singer Tom Jones Admits Being Abused, Says Sexual Harassment Common In Music Industry Too

    Speaking to the BBC, legendary Welsh singer Tom Jones, perhap smore fmaous for his Vegas shows now, confirmed that the scandal in the movie industry, following the revelations regarding Harvey Weinstein, is also common in music.

    Speaking at the launch of the “The Voice UK” television programme in Manchester, Jones stated that “Things have always happened in the music industry as well. There's been people complaining about publicists and different things they've been expected to do to get a record contract, just like a film contract."

    Unexpectedly, Jones acknowledged that he’d faced this problem when he started out

    “Yes. At the beginning, yes…

     

    There were a few things like that. But you avoid it. You just walk out…

     

    But what's tried on women is tried on men as well. But then again, it's not much though. It was just once, really."

    Jones said that it left him feeling terrible…

    “you think I’ve got to get away from this person and it can’t be like this… There’s always been that element there, that people with power sometimes abuse it.”

    The question is whether other members of the music industry follow Jones lead but name names.

    Jones added:

    "Things happen in showbusiness, and sometimes things are covered up and then they come to light and other people come forward, it's like taking the cork off of a bottle.

     

    Things come out that maybe should've come out years ago, who knows. But that's the way it is with showbusiness, you are in the public eye, and that's it. You have to take the good with the bad. But justice will out. If you've done something wrong you've got to pay for it, or prove that you haven't done anything wrong."

    The fact that it’s also been going on in the music industry for many years – Jones began his career in 1963 – is probably not going to surprise anybody.

  • Europe's Secession Problems Aren't Going Away

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Earlier this week, The New York Times noted that movements for greater local autonomy appear to be spreading throughout Europe. In some ways, the conflict in Catalonia is just the tip of the iceberg. The Times reports

    Coming on the heels of the Catalan vote, the Lombardy and Veneto referendums are yet another signal of the homegrown conflicts that persist in many of the European Union’s member states. Separatist movements are also simmering in Britain — where voters in Scotland rejected independence in a 2014 referendum but continue to debate the issue — as well as France, Germany, Belgium and Romania.

    Like Catalonia – and unlike Scotland – the Lombardy and Veneto regions of Italy are among the wealthiest regions, and send enormous amounts of tax revenue to Rome. Italy's southern regions, which are significantly poorer than northern Italy, have benefited from Northern wealth ever since Italians were all forced into a single nation-state in the late nineteenth century. 

    This has never been forgotten by Italians from Veneto, many of whom participated in a referendum in 2014 to declare Independence. Naturally, the Italian government in Rome declared the vote invalid. At the time, however, I interviewed one of the organizers Paolo Bernardini about the referendum. (See "Inside Venice's Secession Movement.") At the time, secessionists liek Bernardini appeared to be pursuing immediate and total independence from Rome, while remaining inside the EU: 

    A tiny majority of Veneto people are in favor both of the EU and of the Euro as a currency. So I envisage a little, rich state, playing a major economic and political role in the EU, a stabilizing role. It will interact naturally with other rich and similar states, Bavaria (still part of Germany), Austria, and the Netherlands. It will be a Finland in the Adriatic. 

    According to the Times piece, though, supporters of Northern independence have gone back to taking small steps, and realize – probably correctly – that there are numerous steps that must be taken between the status quo and total independence. 

    The new effort appears to be focused on conducting local plebescites demanding more local autonomy. This doesn't conflict with the goal of eventual independence, of course, although it probably is an essential first step. 

    Flemish Independence? 

    A region taking a gradualist approach is the Flemish-speaking region of northern Belgium, also known as Flanders. The Flanders situation has been noted in a multitude of media outlets looking to find "the next Catalonia." CNBC reports

    Political groups such as the New Flemish Alliance, a nationalist, conservative group which is dominant in the Belgian parliament, advocate a gradual secession of Flanders from Belgium. Euronews reported that the party even hung a Catalan flag outside its headquarters recently in support of the Spanish separatist region. With elections in 2019, the issue of Flemish independence is not likely to disappear soon.

    The Catalonia and Scotland situations have brought secession issues to the fore in the English-language media, but there's nothing new about Belgium's problem. The unlikely unions of French-speaking and Flemish-speaking regions date back to 1830 when northern regions of Belgium won independence from the Netherlands. The resulting union known as Belgium has never been a totally comfortable one, as noted in a 2007 Chicago Tribune article, which compared Beligum to an unhappy and tired married couple

    They stay together mainly out of habit, and also because it would be such a headache to break up the household and divide the communal property.

     

    If you know a couple like this, then you will understand the Belgians.

     

    Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia are trapped in a loveless marriage called Belgium.

     

    In today's Europe, divorce no longer carries the opprobrium it once did. The Czechoslovakians had a very amicable split in 1993. The Yugoslavs less so. Even Scotland and England are talking about a separation.

     

    But in Brussels, which these days feels more the capital of the far-flung European Union than the capital of a medium-size European nation, polite Belgian politicians don't like the D-word. They wish the whole issue would just go away.

     

    It won't. That much became clear in December when RTBF, the French-language state broadcaster, interrupted its regular programming with an urgent bulletin announcing that Flanders had declared independence.

     

    Grainy footage showed King Albert II and Queen Paola heading for the airport to flee the country. There also was video of trams stopped at the new Flemish border, and live interviews with familiar politicians discussing the crisis.

     

    Not until half an hour into the broadcast did the message "This is fiction" appear on the screen. Too late. Embassies in Brussels already had scrambled to seek clarification while thousands of worried callers jammed RTBF's switchboard…

     

    Belgian politicians were not amused.

    Mind you, this was back in 2007 before it had become well established that the Scots could vote on their own Independence, and before the British voted for Brexit. 

    These more recent developments make regionalist movements such as those in Spain, Italy, and Belgium of increasing notability. 

    The question remains, however, if nation-states lacking the Anglo-Saxon deference to electoral politics will be as tolerant of election outcomes as the British appear to be. 

    The Democracy Problem 

    At the core of all these issues remains an unanswered question: If a majority of voters in a region vote for independence or greater autonomy, will the vote be respected by the central government?

    After all, European nation-states have for decades been lecturing the rest of the world about the wonderfulness of democracy and how "the will of the people" must prevail. At the national level, it is simply assumed that "the will of the majority" is what grants a state a "right" to rule over the citizenry. 

    But if a majority in a specific region votes for a divorce from the central government, is all this talk about democracy and the will of the majority to suddenly be ignored? 

    Ludwig von Mises, of course, in his book Liberalism, advocated for the idea that any region, right down to the village level, be allowed to gain independence based on the outcome of a freely held plebiscite. 

    In recent years, opponents of independence movements in Italy and Spain have bickered over the way these votes are being conducted, and over the extent to which a majority actually wants indepenence. 

    These arguments are good at buying time, but they conveniently ignore the central problem at hand: if Catalonia held a fair-and-square election, and, say, 75 percent of eligible voters opted for independence, would the Spanish government allow independence? What about a similar situation in northern Italy? It's a yes-or-no question, but it doesn't seem to be one either the Spanish or Italian government is willing to answer. 

    Thus, Europe's democracy problem persists. Is democracy only allowed when it is no threat to the established status quo for nation-states? Should the central government send in the troops to beat citizens and seize ballots when people vote "the wrong way"? 

    This isn't just a problem for Europe, of course. Most of the "democratic" world, including Europe and the Americas, has a similar problem. 

    Old Borders Have Outlived their Usefulness 

    As time goes on, though, it's going to be harder and harder for nation-states to defend the current configuration of their national borders. 

    The current model of nation-states is based on the idea that a single metropolis, or a group of them, can control surrounding rural frontier areas for reasons of military strategy and to ensure a food supply for the metropolis. In return, the wealthy metropolis will protect frontier areas from foreign invasions, and provide some semblance of order to far-flung regions lacking the wealth and power of the metropolis. 

    This system of nation-states began to take firm shape in the seventeenth century, and was finally solidified in the nineteenth. The world wars of the 20th century showed us the heights to which nation-states can reach, and the extent to which they can seize and control resources.

    This old model, however, was initially based on the idea that populations would be largely agricultural and rural, and that personal, cultural, and economic networks would be focused around the nation-states themselves, and the people within them.

    As time has gone on, though, urbanization, international trade, and international communications have grown far beyond what the national governments of old could have ever imagined. Capital cities in nation states no longer command the attention and economic focus of other powerful cities within their nation states, and trade with foreign populations has in many cases become more important that trade within one's own nation-state. Agriculture is no longer a key source of wealth, which makes city-states with only small rural hinterlands increasingly viable. 

    At the same time, these newly forced international connections reduce the importance of the old nation-states as "protectors" from the neighboring regions. After all, if trade with the foreigners next door is just as important as trade with one's own countrymen, it becomes increasingly difficult to see what one's national government is offering protection from

    Does northern Italy really need protection from Austrian or Swiss invaders? Does Flanders need protection from the Netherlands? In an age of thorough economic integration, a war between two European states would mostly be a matter of mutually-assured economic destruction. 

    Nevertheless, the force of habit is an important factor in political ideology. Many people continue to see their national borders as quasi-sacred, reacting with horror at the idea that their nation-state should be "dismembered." National governments are careful to downplay the fact that the borders of most modern nation-states barely reach back as far as the nineteenth century. Even a look at a map of Europe from 1945 should disabuse us of any notion that national boundaries are anything but temporary. 

    In fact, border changes can often be measured in lengths of time similar to those of a single human lifetime. But this doesn't stop commentators from declaring that such-and-such region or such-and-such state (i.e., California) will never secede or dramatically change its national status.

    In politics, claims of "never" should always be treated as laughably naive. 100 years is quite long enough to completely change the map of the world. 

  • Coverup Questions Emerge Over Vegas Security Guard's 'Ellen' Appearance

    Following his sudden re-appearance on The Ellen Show after vanishing for 6 days, numerous questions remain unanswered about Mandalay Bay shooting hero Jesus Campos' timeline and perhaps more concerning stil is that The Daily Mail reports that he was pressured into giving his only interview to Ellen DeGeneres because the giant company that owns the Las Vegas casino feared he would spill the beans about the shooting timeline if he was grilled by real journalists.

    As we detailed previously, Campos had originally agreed to do five interviews, all on Thursday last week, but suddenly went missing, his union boss, who was helping set up the deal, told DailyMail.com in an exclusive interview. David Hickey, president of the Michigan-based International Union, Security Police and Fire Professionals of America, would not confirm that MGM was behind the decision, but said the company certainly influenced Campos.

    ‘I was in a meeting with MGM’s upper management and they were definitely concerned about how tough someone like Hannity would be on him and they voiced their opinions,’ Hickey said.

     

    He said all sides had agreed parameters for the interviews. ‘Everyone knew he wasn’t to talk about security protocols, staffing or training or give out names of employees.’

     

    But he said the company — that, like most of Vegas’s casino industry, obsessively controls what employees are allowed to say to the media — was pressuring Campos not to give too much away.

     

    ‘I thought they were being negative, telling him that someone was going to be tough and how they were worried about his health — it wasn’t the thing he needed to hear four hours before the interviews were going to begin.’

    Hickey said he met with the MGM executives at a location in Las Vegas where Campos was staying. They met in the living room but he wanted a word with some of the management team in private so they went into the bedroom.

    When they returned, Campos had gone, and Hickey said he hasn’t seen or heard from him since. The next thing he knew the security official had bailed on the five interviews.

    Then he learned on Monday that instead of appearing on a news show he would go on Ellen.

    ‘It certainly wasn’t my choice that he should appear on that circus,’ Hickey told DailyMail.com.

     

    Ellen did not press him on the official timeline of the shooting, which has changed three times since the massacre.

    And that appears to have been MGM's plan.

    When he went through his recollection of the night, she did not press him to clarify some of the lingering questions about the official timeline – such as whether he or hotel officials delayed calling police for six minutes after he was shot.

    If that version is proven to be true, it could open MGM to massive costs from lawsuits.

    DeGeneres told him:

    'I know you've had so many people asking for you to tell the story and talk about it and I understand your reluctance. You're talking about it now and you're not going to talk about it again.

     

    ‘I don't blame you. Why relive it over and over?'

    Sources told DailyMail.com, MGM is worried that families of the 58 people murdered as well as many of the 546 injured  in the Mandalay Bay massacre will launch lawsuits potentially worth billions of dollars against the company, and they thought Campos might not keep his story straight under the pressure of the TV lights and tough questioning.

    That is why Campos, 25, appeared on a daytime chat show hosted by a fast-talking, dancing comedienne, rather than take questions from TV hardhitters such as Fox News’ Sean Hannity, NBC News or ABC News.

     

    ‘MGM was behind the decision to call off all the interviews and did a deal with Ellen, knowing she would not play hardball on the timeline as long as she had the exclusive,’ a TV insider told DailyMail.com.

    The stench of coverup continues…

  • How Many Hours Americans Need To Work To Pay Their Mortgage

    When it comes to the cost of living in cities, a general rule of thumb is that housing prices are much higher in the country’s economic and population hubs, especially in the cities along the coasts.

    As Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, particularly in recent years, prices have been pushed sky-high in places like New York City or San Francisco through a combination of limited supply of new homes, increasing demand, shifting demographics, and government regulations.

    PUTTING IT INTO PERSPECTIVE

    Today’s visualization from HowMuch.net applies a common denominator to compare 97 of the biggest cities in the United States. Using a measure of median household income against the average mortgage payment in each city, we get a gauge of how many hours must be worked each month just to pay down the house.

    The visualization uses data from the U.S. Census for household income and Zillow for median home listing price, while calculating mortgage payments based on a standard 30-year term.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    THE RESULTS

    Using the above method to compare the amount of hours it takes to pay down a monthly mortgage, we see some interesting contrasts in the country.

    Here are the five most expensive cities in the United States for housing:

    With about 170 hours in a normal work month, the average people in these cities are spending 50% or more of their income just to pay down their mortgages. It’s worst in New York City and Los Angeles, where at least 65% of income is going towards housing.

    These cities stand in stark contrast to the five cheapest cities based on hours of work needed:

    In a city like Memphis, TN it takes only 18.4 hours of work a month to pay down the average mortgage. That’s equal to only about 10% of monthly household income.

    COASTAL DISPARITY

    Interestingly, even though coastal hubs have high prices relative to the cities in the middle of the country, they differ quite widely against each other. This discrepancy does not necessarily show in terms of ranking, but more in terms of the actual hours of work needed.

    Washington, D.C., for example, requires less than half the hours of work to pay down a mortgage than Los Angeles or New York City. Meanwhile, a popular west coast hub like Seattle only needs 72.8 hours in comparison to New York’s 113.5 hours.

  • Blaming Russia For The Internet 'Sewer'

    Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,

    As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd, almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine Internet into a 'sewer'…

    With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian “propaganda and disinformation,” it’s perhaps not surprising that we see “researchers” such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have “basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer.”

    Tomb of the Unknown Soldier outside the Kremlin wall in Moscow, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)

    I’ve been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been “a sewer” – in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid “news,” and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter’s 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet.

    Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world’s population didn’t need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational “sewer.” But, of course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today’s Russia-gate frenzy.

    After all, your “non-governmental organization” or your scholarly “think tank” is not likely to get a piece of the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily Russian “propaganda and disinformation” if you explain that the Russians are at most responsible for a tiny trickle of “sewage” compared to the vast rivers of “sewage” coming from many other sources.

    If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your “research” cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion monthly users.)

    Albright’s full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms on the Internet was: “They’ve gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a sewer.”

    But let’s look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected “Russian-linked” accounts purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook’s annual revenue of about $27 billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin’s goal was to help elect Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.

    Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what’s known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that “the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500.”

    In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, “I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate.”

    Puppies and Pokemon

    And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these “Russian-linked” Facebook groups was dedicated to photos of “adorable puppies.” Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister motive behind the “puppies” page.

    The New York Times building in Manhattan. (Photo credit: Robert Parry)

    Similarly, CNN went wild over its own “discovery” that one of the “Russian-linked” pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who found “Pokémon Go” sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men – if you would name the Pokémon after the victims.

    “It’s unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had happened and to upset or anger them,” CNN mused, adding:

     

    “CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded — or, indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the prizes.”

    So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting “adorable puppies” and want to “remind people” about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald Trump.

    A New York Times article on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.

    It turns out that some of the mainstream media’s favorite “fact-checking” organizations are home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.

    “None of the stories were true,” the Times reported. “Yet as recently as late last week, they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes, fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods.”

    There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off “fake news” by taking money for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.

    The Truth About Fake News

    Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked “fake news” theme, ran a relatively responsible article about a leading “fake news” Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not.

    Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017

    The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection.

    The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of  Google ads placed on mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim here of Russian “links.” It was all about good ole American greed.

    But the even larger Internet problem is that many “reputable” news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.

    This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian “meddling” even if these “suspected … links to Russia” – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true.

    But there are no lucrative grants going to “researchers” who would put the trickle of alleged Russian “sewage” into the context of the vast flow of Internet “sewage” that is even flowing through the esteemed “fact-checking” sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.

    There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over Sen. Jeff Sessions’s brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor changes in the Republican platform).

    Saying ‘False’ Is ‘True’

    And, there is the issue of who decides what’s true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies “have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

    That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic.

    Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as “hand-picked” analystsfrom three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an “assessment” blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence.

    In other words, the Jan. 6 “assessment” was comparable to the “stovepiped” intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush’s administration. In “stovepiped” intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink.

    So, in many ways, Clinton’s statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016 and later in 2017 when she repeated it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the fact-checking organization wouldn’t budge — even after The New York Times and The Associated Press ran corrections.

    In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence – testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the 17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton’s false statement from being described for what it was: false.

    Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an arbiter of truth with its position on Google’s First Draft coalition, a collection of mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and what is not true — for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what’s deemed “false.”

    So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it’s false – it becomes “true.” Thus, it’s perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.

  • ScotiaMocatta Put For Sale After Multibillion Money-Laundering Scandal

    The world’s oldest gold trader is for sale after a massive money laundering scandal may have terminally crippled one of the most iconic names in the business.

    Canada’s Bank of Nova Scotia is exploring options for its gold business ScotiaMocatta, the Financial Times reported, which include a possible sale of Canada’s most popular precious metals trader. Scotiabank made a decision to sell ScotiaMocatta following a massive money laundering scandal centered on a U.S. refinery that involved smuggled gold from South America. The ScotiaMocatta business, a mainstay in PM trading, is one of London’s main gold trading banks and is being sold by JPMorgan.

    According to the FT sources, ScotiaMocatta’s future had been underway for several months, with ScotiaBank allegedly seeking a buyer for up to a year and was likely to shrink the business if a sale is not completed, although according to the article Chinese buyers – the world’s dumbest money these days – are rumoured to be the key targets of the sale.

    While gold trading has been in a cyclical decline in recent years, the “straw that broke the camel’s back” in prompting the sale was Scotiabank’s lending to Elemetal, a precious metals refinery in Dallas. Scotiabank was one of its biggest lenders, they said. The problem emerged in March, when US prosecutors accused workers at a subsidiary of Elemetal, NTR Metals in Florida, of a money laundering scheme using “billions of dollars of criminally derived gold” mostly from Peru.

    Here the story take a turn into a slightly surreal detour:

    NTR imported more than $3.6bn of gold from Latin America between 2012 and 2015, the court documents allege. Two of the accused, Samer Barrage and Juan Granda, pleaded guilty last month to a charge of money laundering in plea deals.

     

    After the story came to light in March, Elemetal was kicked off the London Bullion Market Association’s “Good Delivery List” of gold refiners;

    This was an almost instant death sentence for the company as buyers will usually only buy gold from a refiner on the list. Indeed, in the same month, New York’s Comex futures exchange said it was no longer taking gold from Elemetal for delivery against futures contracts in the world’s biggest gold futures market.

    And this is where the scourge of gold rehypothecation emerged, as in the scandal surrounding Elemetal, it became impossible for holders of Elemetal gold to sell the gold bars on, leaving them sitting in bank vaults, according to traders quoted by the FT. Buyers are reluctant to take the gold, given the investigations.

    This means that hundreds of millions in loans made to Elemetal by ScotiaMocatta are suddenly stuck in limbo. It also means that one of five bullion banks that settle gold trades in the London market, the world’s largest, has effectively been blackballed. It was built on the 1997 purchase by Scotiabank of Mocatta Bullion, which traces its roots back to 1671. And with Mocatta crippled, Scotiabank, which has the biggest foreign presence of any Canadian bank, is focusing its international strategy on the Pacific Alliance, a Latin American trade bloc comprising Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia. It will also hope to find a willing Chinese buyer for the gold trading operation.

    Mocatta’s exit will be good news for HSBC and JPMorgan, which dominate the London market; their large balance sheets enable them to provide credit to clients and refiners around the world. Additionally, and unlike Scotiabank, they also have vaults in London. Gold trading in London is estimated to be worth more than $5tn a year, although as the FT notes, there are no precise figures on how much gold is traded there every day.

  • Senate Passes 2018 Budget Paving Way For $1.5 Trillion In Tax Cuts, Sending Yields, Dollar Sharply Higher

    Senate republicans took a major, if relatively easy, step toward passing Trump's tax plan on Thursday night with the critical passage of a budget blueprint that would protect a $1.5 trillion tax cut from a Democratic filibuster. Senators narrowly voted 51-49 to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget after a several hour-long marathon on the Senate floor. The budget resolution could also pave the way for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration by ensuring that drilling legislation can pass with only Republican votes according to the NYT.

    With a 52-seat majority, Mitch McConnell had a narrow path to getting the 50 votes needed to clear the budget through the upper chamber. But GOP leadership caught a break this week when Sen. John McCain, a holdout over defense spending, announced he would vote yes, and Sen. Thad Cochran, recovering from health issues, returned early to Washington.

    The budget’s passage could keep Republicans on track to pass a tax package late this year or early in 2018. That said, there are still plenty of possible complications, not least of all bickering within the GOP over the final shape of the tax package – where the fate of state and local tax exemptions has still to be decided – as the following Goldman flowchart shows: the steps that were successfully passed tonight are shown in green.

    The House could pick up the Senate-passed budget as early as next week and give final approval to parliamentary language protecting the Republicans’ coveted tax effort. If House Republicans instead insist on negotiating a compromise that melds the Senate and House budget plans, tax legislation could be delayed.

    “Passing this budget is critical to getting tax reform done, so we can strengthen our economy after years of stagnation under the previous administration,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

    The Senate gave its approval to the budget blueprint on Thursday night after considering a flurry of amendments, a tedious process that gives the minority party an opportunity to force the majority to endure politically difficult votes. One Democratic amendment that was rejected sought to stop tax cuts from going to the top 1 percent; another would have restored cuts to Medicare.

    The Senate approved the budget after the previously discussed so-called vote-a-rama, a legislative whirlwind in which amendments are considered one after another

    Giving tonight events an aura of fatalistic determinism, Senator Lindsey Graham, and a member of the Budget Committee, said "this is the last, best chance we will have to cut taxes,” and warned that the consequences would be ruinous if the party failed. “That will be the end of us as a party,” he said, “because if you’re a Republican and you don’t want to simplify the tax code and cut taxes, what good are you to anybody?”

    Where things get laughable is when one considers the context of what just happened: In Congress, the annual budget resolution provides an outline of federal spending and revenues. The Senate’s blueprint, for the 2018 fiscal year that began Oct. 1, claims to achieve a balanced budget within a decade, assuming greater economic growth and using an accounting method that excludes Social Security. In order to erase projected deficits, it calls for trillions of dollars in spending cuts over the coming decade.But the cuts exist only on paper, without legislation to achieve them.

    And as the GOP predicts that by 2028 US government spending will equal revenues, here is what will really happen:

     

    Meanwhile, as Republicans played with excel's "goalseek" function, Democrats sounded the alarm, warning that the aspirational cuts in the budget plan called for slicing more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and about $470 billion from Medicare over a decade. Unfortunately for Democrats, they have exactly zero say in the matter: Though Democrats have pleaded to have more say in the tax overhaul, parliamentary language in the budget resolution would allow Republicans to pass a tax bill without any cooperation from the minority party.

    “Passing this budget is not a requirement for passing tax reform,” said Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan. “Passing this budget is only a requirement to pass a tax bill with as few votes as possible, without input or buy-in from members of the minority.”

    For Republicans, the budget debate provided a moment to showcase their main goal in the coming months, which according to the NYT is approving an overhaul of the tax code for the first time in decades, which they hope will lead to greater economic growth. But before they can move ahead with a tax bill, the House and Senate need to agree on the same budget resolution. The House approved its budget resolution, which had long been stalled, on Oct. 5. The House budget also lays the groundwork for a tax bill, but, unlike the Senate’s approach, it calls for the legislation to not add to the deficit.

    The House budget resolution also seeks more concrete action when it comes to cutting spending, instructing committees to come up with legislation that would produce at least about $200 billion in savings.

    However, according to The Hill, a House GOP source says the amendment seems sufficient to avoid a conference committee between the two chambers, and allow the House to simply pass the Senate resolution.

    Ultimately, however, the only reason why the vote passed so easily is because as the Hill explained, it doesn't matter, and was merely viewed as a mere vehicle for passing tax reform

    "This is the biggest hoax cast upon the American people ever that this budget process even exists. The only thing about this that matters is in preparation for tax reform," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who voted for the budget.  Corker noted bluntly that he believes the budget doesn't have a real-world impact and if he was chairman of the Budget Committee he would disband it. When a staffer told him he was about to miss an amendment vote, he shot back: "yeah, on a vote that doesn't matter."

    McCain, explaining why he would support the budget, added: “At the end of the day, we all know that the Senate budget resolution will not impact final appropriations.”

    Then again, all of these nuances were lost on the shotgun headline scanning algos, which read that Trump's tax plan is one step closer to passage and sent both the USDJPY…

    … and 10Y yields surging…

     

    With gold lower…

     

    With Dow Futs up over 100 points…

    … and the Fed cursing their fate, because as Dudley explained yesterday, the last thing the feed needs right now as it is desperate to avoid tightening fast, is a burst of wage inflation, something which Trump's tax proposal, if it passes, will promptly lead to, crushing the Fed's carefully laid plan to take years and years in unwinding it balance sheet and rising rates.

  • Be Afraid America – DHS Warns ISIS, Al Qaeda Are Planning '9/11-Style' Attack

    Nothing distracts like fear. And today, former DHS chief Elaine Duke invoked one of the most traumatic episodes in US history to remind complacent Americans that Al Qaeda and ISIS are still out there, plotting deadly terror attacks meant to kill as many American civilians as possible.

    With the Islamic State in retreat following the surrender of its de facto capital to US-backed Arab and Kurdish fighters, Duke told reporters that remnants of the group have partnered with a resurgent Al Qaeda to plot a devastating terror attack on the scale of a 9/11 – thus generating a headline seemingly tailor made to make pulses quicken.

    “The terrorist organizations, be it ISIS or Al-Qaeda or others, want to have the big explosion like they did on 9/11. They want to take down aircraft, the intelligence is clear on that,” the acting US secretary of homeland security said during a visit to the UK, as cited by British media.

     

    “The threat is still severe,” she stated on Wednesday in London following her meeting with UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd, according to Russia Today.

    Duke warned that groups have carried out several relatively small-scale terror attacks (think the attacks that have rocked the UK, France and Belgium over the past year), which suggests the groups could be moving on to more ambitious targets. In the UK alone, the attacks have killed nearly 40 people.

    One strategy Duke fears is a 9/11 style plane hijacking, something terrorists have not given up on despite the advances in airport security since 9/11.

    “Creating terror is their goal. A bladed weapon attack causes terror and continues to disrupt the world, but that does not mean they have given up on a major aviation plot,” she said.

    During her meeting with Judd, Duke parroted the UK conservatives’ push to remove terrorist content from the internet – content that has been effective at recruiting home-grown jihadists in the UK’s Muslim population.

    The attacks famously prompted British Prime Minister Theresa May to ask “allied democratic governments” to “regulate cyberspace to prevent the spread of extremism and terrorism planning.”

    Duke said that while tech firms have been cooperative, there’s still much progress to be done.

    “We will continue to push as far as we can go. I think that we have the cooperation of those companies and we just need to work on that,” she said. Social media firms joining a meeting of G7 interior ministers to discuss the issue this week “is a positive sign,” she said.

     

    “There has been a shift and for us somewhat with the Charlottesville incident,” said Duke, adding that tech companies are under “social pressures” and have “to balance between keeping their user agreements and giving law enforcement what they need.”

    Terror attacks have become a regular occurrence in the UK since the rise of ISIS. A bombing in the Manchester Arena last May killed 23 people and injured more than 100 others, making it the deadliest attack of its kind in the UK since 2005. The latest terrorist attack occurred on Sept. 15 at Parsons Green tube station, where a partially-exploded bomb injured 30 commuters.

    Just one day before the US security chief’s warnings, Andrew Parker, director general MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, said that Britain was under unprecedented threat from Islamist terrorists.

    *  *  *

    Scared enough yet? Don't worry, we'll just take away a little more 'freedom' to ensure your 'security'… and remember – it's for your own good!

  • Chinese Capital Outflows Return As Soon As PBOC Halts FX Intervention

    Since the addition of the Chinese renminbi (RMB), i.e. Yuan, to the IMF’s SDR basket of reserve currencies last October, more than 60 countries and regions have added and adopted the renminbi as a new reserve currency, according to the latest report on renminbi internationalization by the People’s Bank of China.

    As a reminder, one year ago the International Monetary Fund included China’s currency in its Special Drawing Rights basket as an international reserve currency, along with the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound. As the PBOC gloated, this inclusion further promoted the international use of RMB, which is ironic considering in the past year the Chinese central bank unleashed some of the most draconian capital controls and measures to avoid capital flight, going as far as effectively banning offshore M&A (not to mention bitcoin trading) which Beijing saw as just another way to avoid China’s capital account firewall. Meanwhile, to “lead by example” the ECB invested €500MM of its reserves in renminbi-denominated assets during the first half of this year.

    The PBOC also said “it will push forward with internalization of the renminbi and keep its position stable in the global monetary system.”

    “Looking ahead, the scope of international usage of renminbi will be further expanded in 2017 and usage channels will be further widened” the report said. 

     

    “Renminbi internationalization will play a more active role in serving the real economy and facilitating trade and investment.”

    Supposedly that means that the next time the Yuan crashes once people remember that of China’s $30 trillion in loans, roughly 20% are NPL, the PBOC will not intervene when tens of billion in capital resume fleeing every day.

    Somehow we doubt it, especially since as the report itself admitted, the value of trade deals settled in the renminbi fell by 35.5% in 2016 from the previous year. Renminbi settlement accounted for 16.9% of China’s total goods trade last year, while the proportion was 22.6% in 2015, 20% in 2014, and close to zero in 2009. The currency fell by 6.5% against the dollar in 2016 – the biggest annual drop since 1994, but gained about 5% this year due to dollar weakness and tighter controls on capital outflows.

    And speaking of capital flight, even though the PBOC reported that in September official central bank reserves rose by $17 billion to $3.109 tn (largely due to valuation effects), according to the latest SAFE data released overnight, after the first, and only month of inflows in three years, outflows have again returned for a total of $7bn in September (vs. net inflows of +US$9bn in Aug), in light of the recently relaxed FX forward rule (recall “Yuan Tumbles After Beijing Gives Speculators Green Light To Short The Currencyfrom September 8)

    Below are the details from Goldman:

    Our usual preferred gauge of underlying flows suggests a total net FX outflow of US$7bn in Sep (US$2.4bn from net FX demand onshore plus US$4.9bn in FX outflow routed through the CNH market).

    • According to the SAFE dataset on “onshore FX settlement”, net CNY demand by non-banks onshore in Sep was -US$2.4bn (vs. +US$3.1bn in Aug). This is composed of +$5.1bn net inflows via net outright spot transactions and net outflow of US$7.5bn via net freshly-entered forward transactions. In particular, demand for short-CNY forwards rose significantly (from US$10bn in Aug to US$28bn in Sep), following the cut of reserve requirement for sales of FX derivatives to zero in early Sep, which made it less costly for onshore entities to hedge against CNY.
    • Another SAFE dataset on “cross-border RMB flows” shows that net flow of RMB from offshore to onshore was -US$4.9bn in Sep (vs. +US$5.8bn in Aug).

    Exhibit 1 the usual gauge of FX flows suggests a small net outflow of US$7bn in Sep

    Related, another data set called PBOC’s FX position (also released today) suggests no net FX purchases by the PBOC in Sep (in contrast with the earlier released FX reserve data that implies about $17bn in FX purchases).

    Two notes in terms of flow pattern for Sep:

    Foreigners’ investment in domestic fixed income products remained solid, rising by US$15bn in Sep according to bond custodian data (Exhibit 2), following a $12bn increase in Aug. But similar to the previous month, a large portion of this inflow was into domestic NCDs, which could reflect short-term arbitrage activity driven by the rate spread implied by CNH cross-currency swap and domestic NCD yields.

    Exhibit 2: Bond inflows were large in Aug and Sep, although a majority of these were into short-term NCDs

    Trading firms repatriated a larger portion of their trade surplus back onshore, up to 84% in Sep, from 59% in Aug and the average of 40% in the last two years. The absolute amount though was roughly flat vs. Aug (at c. $24bn).

    Separately, in a conference held on the sidelines of the Party Congress, Governor Zhou downplayed the pace of FX and outflow liberalization going forward. He said that the transition to CNY free convertibility is a long-term process; and that CNY band widening would signal more FX reform in future, but this is currently not a policy focus. In the near term, the authorities may continue to use a combination of daily guidance (via the fixing’s countercyclical factor) and occasional reinforcing FX intervention to manage the CNY, in our view.

    In other words, capital controls are here to stay, and the moment outflows go back to double digit territory, the PBOC will unleash all hell against the Yuan short all over again.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 19th October 2017

  • Ayatollah Blasts Trump's "Rants And Whoppers", Says Iran Will "Shred" Deal If US Pulls Out

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – who famously waited three months before offering a tepid endorsement of the JCPOA – largely echoed the threats of other Iranian government officials when he said Wednesday that Iran would adhere to the terms of the deal if other world powers respected it, but would “shred it” if the US were to pull out.

    Speaking publicly about the future of the deal for the first time since President Donald Trump refused to decertify it five days ago, Khamenei confirmed that Iran would likely terminate the deal – and restart its nuclear program – if the US Congress decides to unilaterally rule that Iran is not in compliance, opening the door to reimposing sanctions.

    The ayatollah’s proclamation puts Iran at odds with the deals other signatories, who’ve maintained that the US doesn’t have the power to terminate a multilateral accord certified by the United Nations. Khamenei welcomed the support of the other signers – Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union – but said it would not be enough to convince Iran to stay, Reuters reported.

    “Europe must stand against practical measures (taken) by America,” he said. If Trump ditched the deal, “Iran will shred it”.

    US lawmakers and President Donald Trump are presently pushing for a bill that would recertify the deal with one important caveat: Iran would be subject to “triggers” – like continued ballistic missile tests or evidence that it could build a nuclear weapon within a year’s time. Violating these conditions would lead to sanctions automatically being reimposed.

    However, Khamenei also vowed to continue Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the country claims is strictly for defensive purposes, suggesting that Iran wouldn’t brook the additional restrictions being considered by the US Congress.

    "Or to ask why Iran has missiles – well, why do you have missiles? Why do you have nuclear weapons? We will not accept the Europeans going along with America's bullying."

    The ayatollah also dismissed Trump's attacks on Iran as "rants and whoppers", adding that Iran will continue to abide by its commitments under the nuclear deal.

    "I don't want to waste my time on answering the rants and whoppers of the brute US president," Khamenei said in a speech to students in Tehran, published on his Telegram channel.

    The ayatollah insisted that ultimately Iran would prevail in its struggle against the US, adding that it would be unwise to underestimate the threat posed by the US because of Trump’s buffoonish persona.  

    "Everyone be assured that this time, too, America will be slapped and defeated by the nation of Iran."

    Khamenei said the world should not be fooled by Trump's public persona.

    "The US president displays stupidity, but this should not cause us to ignore America's mischief," he said.

    The Trump administration has pushed for a more aggressive approach to Iran’s missile program, repeatedly insisting that, while Iran is technically complying with the terms of the pact, it is more broadly violating the “spirit” of the agreement by continuing to test missiles and (allegedly) fund terrorist groups, AFP reported.

    While the US has worked itself into a lather over the Iranian missile program, the regime amusingly “punked” their American adversaries last month when they tested what was purported to be a new type of medium range ballistic missile. Intelligence sources initially trusted the Iranian media reports, but later government sources determined that Iran had never actually fired a missile, and that the footage was from a failed launch seven months ago.

    On Monday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Monday that the US would face stiff consequences if it withdraws from the JCPA – informally known as the Iran deal. He added that Iran "had a developed plan and a certain law,” should the United States withdraw from the agreement on Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would "regret it."

  • A Failing Empire, Part 3: China & Russia Are Transforming Enemies Into Friends

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    In the previous articles, the military and economic means by which the United States initially aimed for global hegemony were addressed, detailing how the US became the (declining) superpower it is today. In both analyses I highlighted how the threat of US military power is no longer credible, and how sanctions and the strong-arming behavior of corporate giants and international bodies (IMF, World Bank, BIS, etc) have ceased their effectiveness. This has made the United States increasingly irrelevant, leaving in the process a vacuum to be filled by emerging powers like China and Russia, which effectively ushers in a new world order based on multipolarity. In this third and final part of the series, I will dive into the specific events that show how the military, economic and diplomatic combination of Iran, Russia and China have forged, by known as well as less-known means, an alternative world order to the unipolar American one.

    Russia, China and Iran have in recent years drawn enormous benefit from the declining military and economic power of the United States, further propelled by a general mistrust of Washington's diplomatic and political abilities, both with Obama and now with Trump. The two previous articles showed that Moscow, Beijing and Tehran, even as they addressed different situations, shared similar interests and came to coordinate their military, economic and diplomatic strategy.

    The success of the Euro-Asian triptych is based on the essential principle of transforming enemies into neutral players, neutral players into allies, and further improving relations with allied nations. In order for this project to be realized, economic, military and diplomatic efforts are variously employed, depending on the country and the general regional context. The flexibility shown by Moscow and Beijing in negotiations has delivered historic deals, not only in the energy sector but also in the military sphere and also in education and poverty reduction, as seen in Africa.

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria are three countries that, when analysed individually, reveal this precise strategy of Russia, China and Iran. Particular attention is focused on the Middle East for several reasons. It is the region where America’s declining military power, unable to achieve its geopolitical objectives in Syria, meets with the progressive loss of Washington's economic influence, highlighted by the increasingly precarious position of the petrodollar that is about to be challenged by petroyuan deals between Saudi Arabia and China.

    From Enemies to Neutrals

    The military defeat of Syria's enemies was mainly due to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) together with Iran (plus Hezbollah) and Russia's military cooperation, together with Beijing’s diplomatic and economic support. Thanks to the strategy adopted by Putin in Syria, Russia was able to stop the advanced project of the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, France, the United Kingdom, Jordan and Israel to dismantle Syria. The Russian Federation gradually entered into the Syrian conflict, and the military results immediately favored the axis of resistance, the US military unable to intervene directly to change the course of events.

    The consequences of this choice have led historic allies in the region to doubt Washington’s real commitment to the region and America’s military ability to intervene in a conflict in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and change its course in favour of Riyadh, Doha, Ankara or Tel Aviv. The new Trump administration has showed itself not to live up to the expectations of Saudi regional hegemonic plans, even though the Kingdom agreed to buy up to $110 billion worth of US weapons and commit to further investments in the US.

    Riyadh is in an even tighter position than one would ordinarily think. It has to individually support the weight of the petrodollar, which is increasingly shaky thanks to the Chinese desire to eliminate forms of payment in US dollars by switching to the petroyuan. Moreover, Riyadh sees little tangible benefits to the US militarily backing its aggressive anti-Iran policies, even though Trump has shown to different ideas than Obama on the Iran deal. Saudi Arabia shares a common interest with Israel in the region with regard to their shared anger concerning Washington’s diminishing effectiveness in the region.

    From the Saudi point of view, everything went downhill within a relatively short period. The defeat in Syria that coincided with the agreement on the nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPOA) between Iran and the 5+1 countries. In both these scenarios, Riyadh feels the profound betrayal of its old North American ally. The Chinese economic pressure on Riyadh to accept yuan payments for oil, coupled with the growing ability of Moscow to effectively intervene in the region, and the renewed diplomatic and political role of Iran thanks to the JCPOA agreement, has left Riyadh on a certain path to destruction. The only solution is a strategic change that could affect the region in a significant manner.

    The visit of Saudi King Salman to Moscow to sign trade agreements (an investment fund of over 1 billion dollars has been created) was of symbolic importance. The King’s actions, conducted in person, reflected recognition of Russia’s new dominant role in the Middle East as a result of American intentions to withdraw influence in the region. The need for the Saudi king to appear in person in Moscow also directly concerns the succession to the throne, with Mohammed bin Salman to inherit the keys to the kingdom, in spite of the disasters in Yemen and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) crisis caused by the clash with Qatar. In a situation of extreme weakness, especially with oil prices so low, the Saudi monarchy is left with few cards to play and has to initiate a dialogue with Moscow and possibly start some kind of cooperation in various fields related to energy and investment. Initially, the main excuse for the Moscow meeting between Putin and the Saudi king was to coordinate the production and sale of petroleum and gas, a necessity for both countries given falling oil prices over the last 24 months.

    The first goal achieved by Putin and the Saudi king appears to be a spike in oil prices to acceptable levels, following Washington and Riyadh’s failed strategy to bankrupt Moscow by plunging oil prices.

    Secondly, the meeting focused on the acceptance of Riyadh’s defeat in Syria, recognizing Assad as the only legitimate leader of the Syrian Arab Republic.

    A lot is developing behind the scenes, and this is evident with Riyadh now recognizing a political solution as the only way to end the conflict, something never mentioned by Saudi state representatives. It will be very difficult for Riyadh to give up the regime-change project, even if the political, diplomatic, military and economic pressure from China and Russia increases. A common faith accompanies Riyadh and Tel Aviv, as shown with both repeatedly trying to persuade Putin to abandon his friendship with Iran and Assad, but without success. The loyalty demonstrated by Moscow to Tehran and Damascus has also had a positive effect on the Saudis, who must recognize that while Putin may have different views on certain issues, he is a man of his word; unlike the United States, where new administrations may sometimes throw friends under the bus, Putin maintains his promises, even under extreme pressure. In this sense, Trump's decision to decertify the Iran deal is a demonstration of good will to Israel and Saudi Arabia by the new administration.

    Saudi Arabia finds itself with very low monetary reserves as a result of the lowered price of oil and involvement in several wars. To add to this is a military defeat in Syria and an even bigger debacle in Yemen. To cap it all off, the United States, its most valuable ally, is increasingly disinterested in the fate of the Saudi monarchy and the kingdom, thanks to increasing energy independence as a result of fracking. Adding to this, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has split as a result of the economic warfare against Qatar, representing another example of Washington not supporting Riyadh to the full extent the monarchy in Saudi Arabia would have been expecting. The reasoning for Riyadh is as simple as it gets. If Washington is not able to support Saudi Arabia militarily, but Riyadh has to bear the burden economically, then the Kingdom is in enormous trouble and needs alternatives like Russia and China. It is unthinkable for Saudi Arabia to continue supporting petrodollar hegemony while Iran becomes a regional leader in the Middle East.

    The best way is by negotiating with the main players, and Russia looks like the perfect mediator, as recently announced. China is just waiting for all these disputes to settle down to bring to bear its  economic power to definitively relegate to the past the last forty years of chaos in the region stemming from Saudi-Iranian rivalry.

    For Riyadh, even if the attempt to separate Russia and Iran were to fail, it would nevertheless bring about relations that send a clear signal to the West. The purchase of S-400s is a clear demonstration of expanding Russian influence in the Middle East, and Riyadh perhaps has an understandable fear of American retaliation in the event that it starts to change course regarding the sale of oil in currencies other than the dollar.

    Moscow has achieved a diplomatic miracle with Saudi Arabia, thanks to the military efforts in Syria, Chinese economic pressure through the issuing of petroyuan, and Iranian diplomatic success, stemming especially from the nuclear energy agreement, which has served to rehabilitate Tehran on the international political scene.

    The purchase of advanced Russian weapons systems sends a clear signal and indicates that the Saudi kingdom is ready to assume a more neutral position and has started to knock on the door of the multipolar world, an acknowledgement of Chinese economic power and the military-technological predominance of the Russian Federation.

    From Neutral to Friends

    In transforming itself into a more neutral country, Riyadh may be attempting to balance American economic and military influence with Russian and Chinese support. The importance for Russia and China in having a neutral country with great spending capacity in the region should also be noted. In the case of Turkey, Russian intervention in Syria, coupled with Turkish aspirations to become a Euro-Asian energy centre, progressively pushed Moscow and Ankara together. As a result of effective diplomatic work following Turkey’s downing of a Russian jet, relations have gradually improved, occurring in parallel to the operational success achieved by the Syrian army and Russian Air Force against Turkish-backed terrorists. The military defeat of Turkey was already clear twelve months ago. In the last three to four months, Erdogan seems to have changed priorities, focusing on the Kurdish issue and on growing relations with Qatar (the political movement of the Muslim Brotherhood is key in both countries and essential to their relationship). In the meantime, Turkey is distancing herself from her NATO allies, gravitating more and more towards the orbit of the “axis of resistance” that consists of Iran, Iraq and Syria.

    The Syria peace talks held in Astana laid the foundation for diplomatic efforts by Tehran and Moscow to persuade Ankara to abandon the military option (even though this was already clear once Russia decided to intervene). Instead, Ankara would be encouraged to open up important energy deals between Ankara and Moscow. It seems that Ankara has now decided to become an energy hub, carrying Turkish Stream gas from Russia to Europe as well as gas from Qatar and Iran. It even seems that China has every intention of connecting with the Turkish facilities for the supply of gas and oil, thus increasing Ankara’s role as a central energy-transit hub for the region.

    The other aspect that has firmly convinced Erdogan to yield on Syria concerns the Kurdish issue. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), consisting mainly of Kurdish fighters, operate in Syria under the command and on behalf of the US-led international coalition. Ankara has nominated the Kurds of the SDF as an armed extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), considered a terrorist group in Turkey. This divergence between Washington and Ankara has continued to grow, even during the Trump administration, contrary to forecasts during the US election period.

    With the progressive use of the SDF in Syria by the international coalition headed by the US, Trump and Erdogan’s strategies have ended up clashing. Trump needs to give his domestic audience the impression that the US is devoted to fighting ISIS, even if this means relying on Kurdish soldiers that entails severing relations with Turkey. Erdogan sees this as a matter of national security. The situation has escalated to a point where a few days ago, a diplomatic dispute led to the suspension of the issuing of visas from the respective embassies in Ankara and Washington. Erdogan considers American aid to the Kurds as a betrayal of the worst kind from a NATO ally. A natural reaction to these actions by the US, therefore, was the the agreement between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey to preserve territorial integrity vis-a-vis the Kurdish issue.

    The blessing of the Chinese and Russians is evident in this situation. In order to pacify the region, rebuild it and incorporate it into the One Belt One Road project, the Maritime Silk Road, and the North-South Transport Corridor, wars have to stop and diplomacy must prevail. For Ankara, it is a unique opportunity to exit the war in Syria without appearing as one of the defeated factions (hence the Turkish participation in the Astana talks with Russia and Iran). At the same time, Turkey emphasizes the importance of its geographical position as a centre for energy distribution on the Eurasian supercontinent. This is all at the expense of the US, with Turkey breaking free from Washington’s pressure.

    Moscow has already removed all sanctions against Turkey, and vice versa, greatly increasing trade with considerable prospects for growth in the coming years. As for weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, Russian influence is expanding, thanks to the S-400 systems in the process of being sold to Ankara over the vehement protests of many NATO countries. The S-400 system is a further effort to deter US aggression, but is also the first indication of Ankara’s will to diversify, this time militarily, constituting a pillar of the new multipolar world order.

    Ankara, after numerous diplomatic and military failures, has rebuilt its role in the region alongside Iran and Qatar, in a context where its partnership with Moscow and Beijing will guarantee Erdogan a margin of maneuver to progressively disengage from the NATO system that has brought so many problems to the country. A future entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could seal Ankara’s passage into the multipolar world, becoming in the process a fully fledged ally of Moscow and Beijing. In the meantime, it is already possible to say that Moscow and its allies have succeeded in the unlikely task of turning a nation that was on the brink of a direct involvement in Syria in the effort to remove Assad into one of the most important guarantors of Syria’s territorial integrity. Erdogan has agreed to Assad staying in power into the near future, and has even agreed to help fight terrorists in Syria, as evidenced with the recent Turkish military operations in Idlib.

    How deep these new friendships between Moscow, Riyadh and Ankara are yet to be tested. Erdogan and the Saudi monarchs have been known not to keep their word. At it stands, this appears to be an economic, political and military masterpiece of the Iranian, Russian and Chinese triad. The war in Syria has almost been won; the terrorist groups supported by the Saudis and Turks have been neutralized; and the conditions for a full Eurasian economic and military integration of Riyadh and Ankara have been set.

    Supporting Friends in need.

    Ultimately, it is worth pointing out the contribution of Russia, China and Iran to the Syrian government and people. Over the six years of aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran has never failed to contribute in terms of manpower, equipment and logistical support in the battle against terrorism. Moscow, in the early stages of the conflict, even before intervening directly, took steps to settle the Syrian foreign debt to Russia, and in fact lent money by providing armaments, energy and logistics as a way of actively contributing to the defeat of terrorists in Syria.

    The People's Republic of China has already paved the way for the future of Syria in economic terms, declaring the country an important transit route and a final destination of a part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Chinese economic power will allow Damascus to rebuild a nation devastated by six years of terrorism and foreign aggression. With Russian military capabilities, Damascus will have all the necessary means to end the conflict and stabilize the country, laying the foundation to prevent any future Western aggression. From a political and diplomatic point of view, the joint actions of Tehran, Beijing and Moscow, together with Damascus, are an integral part of the axis that stretches from Iran to Iraq and Syria and arrives at the Mediterranean, or could even go to Turkey. With the combination of economic, military and political elements, Syria has survived almost unprecedented aggression, emerging as the winner, thus ensuring its ability to determine its future autonomously without external impositions.

    *  *  *

    Series Conclusions

    The path traced by Moscow, Beijing and Tehran is expected to stabilize the Middle East, thanks to the resolution of the Syrian conflict. Some key elements of this global change we are witnessing are: Chinese economic pressure on the Saudis to accept payment for oil in yuan; the eradication of terrorism in Iraq and neighbouring countries, thereby circumventing sanctions imposed on Iran by the US and its allies; and transforming Turkey into a regional energy-distribution centre.

    The RPC intervenes economically in a number of regions, particularly in the Middle East, to support Russian military power through money, diplomacy, economic investment (OBOR) and by providing liquidity to allies, as seen with Moscow when it was hit with Western sanctions. For Beijing, the decline in terrorism is a key factor in fostering China's development of the Silk Road 2.0 infrastructure, allowing Beijing to enter into areas destroyed in the Middle East to offer easy reconstruction plans. At the moment, Syria, Egypt, Libya and Pakistan seem to hold great importance for China's future strategies.

    Russia and China lead organizations such as the BRICS, the UEE, the SCO, and the AIIB. The grand strategy is to support the creation of an alternative to the US dollar-based neoliberal world order and to contain the effects of declining US empire. Nations will increasingly have to choose between two systems: whether the multipolar world order, based on friendship and win-win cooperation, or the unipolar one, based on the America’s declining military and economic power.

    Strong Chinese economic support, together with Russian military might as well as Iran’s importance in the Middle Eastern region, are successfully shielding countries like Syria from American military interventions, driving a wedge between old US allies and paving the way for Washington’s planned economic and military isolation in the region. Thus, countries similarly facing US pressure, such as South Korea, Mexico and Venezuela, will increasingly gravitate toward the multipolar world led by Russia and China, accelerating the decline and influence of the United States beyond the Middle East.

    The multipolar world order is here to stay. The US is no longer the lone superpower but rather one among two other nuclear-armed powers. The sooner the US realizes this, the better it will be for humanity and for peace around the world.

  • Chinese Army Documents Leak Set To Embarrass Beijing

    Authored by Jan van der Made via RFI,

    In the vaults of Amazon.com’s self publishing market place, a growing series of books exposing China’s dark secrets is seeing the light. Six books with colorful covers, which constitute the “China Secrets” series, introduce a reader to the fascinating world of China’s internal – or neibu – documents. But many questions remain.

    Since 2015, unnoticed by the large majority of the China watchers, the books, with titles like The China 1989 Army Documents, Spying against the United States, Spying against India and others can now be bought on Amazon.

    Author Ben Keiler [probably a pseudonym] claims the documents are being put before the public “for the first time ever”.

    They shed a new and unique light on events as diverse as the 1989 Tian’anmen Square massacre and the martial law imposed in Tibet three months before, the China-India border conflict culminating in hostilities in Bhutan earlier this year

    It also offers detailed descriptions of the state of Chinese army intelligence gathering in respect of the US, South Korea, Japan and other countries, since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

    Real or not?

    In total some 500 pages, filled with copies of documents, military maps and tables have been published.

    The big question is: are the documents real?

    For centuries, sinologists have struggled with the question of authentification of documents.

    Andrew Nathan and Perry Link published the Tiananmen Papers in 2001, a book with translated secret documents leaked or provided by “Zhang Liang,” a pseudonym, that minutely describe the policy process that lead to the Tian’anmen crackdown on June 4, 1989 in Beijing.

    They said in the preface that the documents went through a meticulous five-stage process of selection before publication was decided, and they still cannot confirm their veracity completely.

    Keiler criticizes the lack of access to the original documents in the Tiananmen Papers, saying that they “contain not a single copy of an original [ ] and this fact makes it easy to challenge the content.”

    Indeed, Keiler’s 1989 Army documents do show copies of maps and documents that list in minute detail the of the People’s Liberation Army [PLA]’s troops before and during the attack on Tian’anmen Square on June 4, 1989.

    The square had been occupied for weeks by students demanding an end to corruption, more transparency and a chance to participate in the politcal process. China's leaders had imposed martial law, and moved the army against Beijing's demonstrating civilians.

    Internal map showing the advances of the PLA into Tian'anmen Square on June 4, 1989

    There is a minute-to-minute army account of how PLA troops fight themselves through the crowds reaching the square and removing the remaining students by 04:00 am, as planned.

    In a preceding chapter of the book, Keiler illustrates – again showing highly classified neibu material –  how the PLA crackdown in Tibet, in March 1989, served as an example for the Tian’anmen attack.

    The author reproduces PLA policy documents and lists of material, including guns and vehicles used, down to the amount of bullets handed out to the martial law troops who were to control the Tibetan protesters.

    Who is Ben Keiler?

    None of the Chinawatchers contacted by RFI was familiar with Ben Keiler or his work, but some expressed doubts:

    “If the documents were authentic, major publishers would have been interested, and the Chinese Government would have reacted strongly against Amazon. So far I have not seen a prima facie case to do this,” says Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at the School for Oriental and African Studies [SOAS] in London.

    Perry Link, one of the two editors of the Tian’anmen Papers says that “one needs to be skeptical of these things, and yet it would be a mistake to reject them out-of-hand,” while Nathan insists that the documents can’t be authenticated “just by looking at them. It requires a lot of research,” he says.

    Others were more forthcoming. Michael Dillon, founder of the Center for Contemporary Chinese Studies at the University of Durham and author of Deng Xiaoping, the Man who Made Modern China, said, after “a preliminary look,” that he found the “level of detail [of the 1989 Army Documents] is convincing,” but admitted that it was not possible to be certain if they were originals.

    He also pointed out that the lack of the significant red stamps and handwritten autographs of relevant leaders on some of the documents presented could mean they are just a draft or print out.

    "[They]cast doubt on when and how they were issued and used. Even if they are genuine we cannot be sure that they were final drafts,” he says.

    But Song Yongyi, librarian with California State University, who himself did extensive work exposing cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution in the Guangxi Autonomous Region, going through massive amounts of secret documents, said that one set of documents about the Korean War looked very familiar to him.

    “When I was collecting documents about PRC history, I did see some of them. They are government publications [on] internal and classified level,” he writes in an email to RFI.

    Other volumes of the “China Secrets” series dig deep into Chinese intelligence sources, showing the detailed level of knowledge Beijing had of military positions of the Indian army during the 1962 border war, South Korean positions during the 1950-53 Korea war; always with many illustrations of colorful maps and [parts of] documents and extensive commentary.

     What does Keiler want?

    The identity of the author, as well the way he obtained the documents is shrouded in mystery.

    “Questions regarding who’s behind the China Secrets Series are secret and will not be answered,” he says in the preface.

    “Years of efforts and movements of persons went into the effort to make it as difficult as possible to hide the methods and all the persons involved” in obtaining the documents.

    The reason: under China’s stringent security laws and regulations, leakers of “state secrets” may face the death penalty.

    But Keiler explains why the risk may be taken: in the preface of the China 1989 Army Documents, he says that by exposing details about army units involved in the crackdown, “people responsible can be named and if possible persecuted … once places, units and names are known and officers can no more hide behind a screen of [a] 'state secret' it will become more difficult to find persons ready to use machine guns against civilians the next time such an incident happens in China.”

    Internal document showing PLA troops that got rewarded after the 1989 Tian'anmen crackdown

    Publication of Chinese intelligence on the US, India, South Korea and other countries would give researchers and, ultimately, politicians, a better insight in how the Chinese military acts under extreme circumstances.

    Meanwhile, production goes on. In 2017 some six volumes were produced, and 11 more are on the way.

    Among the new books will be the first publication of top secret documents on decoding, China’s 1979 war with Vietnam, a history on Chinese army mapping and a book on the Tibetan uprising in 1959 and the Chinese crackdown.

    Until now, the Chinese government has offered no reaction regarding the leaks.

  • Staggering Chart Shows Your Personal Share Of Your State's Underfunded Pension

    Back in March we shared the staggering results of a Bankrate survey which found that the average American household couldn’t afford to write a measly $500 check in the event of an unexpected emergency (see: “The Reality Is, Half Of Americans Can’t Afford To Write A $500 Check”).  Of course, as we note frequently, while the talking heads of daytime financial TV shows love to reference surging economic indicators like unemployment figures, the fact is that the number of Americans not participating in the work force remains near all-time highs and wage growth, despite “full employment” levels, has been practically non-existent since the great recession. 

    Given the above, we can only presume that the average person in New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, etc. is going to have a somewhat difficult time producing their $10,000 – $27,000 share of their state’s massive pension and debt obligations. 

    As CNBC points out today via S&P Global Ratings, decades of budget mismanagement and hollow pension promises to public employees has resulted in a mountain of debt that many states are unlikely to ever repay.

    New Jersey has set aside just 31 percent of what it needs to pay pensions costs. Kentucky, (31 percent) Illinois (36 percent) Connecticut (41 percent) and Hawaii (541 percent) are the worst off.

     

    States with the best funding levels include Wisconsin (98 percent), South Dakota (97 percent), New York (93 percent), Tennessee (88 percent) and North Carolina (87 percent).

     

    In New Jersey, the funding gap represents nearly 42 percent of the Garden State’s Gross State Product – or more than $27,000 for every resident, according to S&P Global Ratings.

     

    Other underfunded states include Connecticut ($22,700 per person), Hawaii ($15,700), Illinois ($15,900) and Alaska ($18,200).

     

    That compares with Nebraska, where the underfunding represents just $242 for every resident. Taxpayers in South Dakota ($598 per person), Idaho ($472), Iowa ($752), and Tennessee ($806) also face relatively low risk of having to make up for unfunded state liabilities.

    Pension

    Of course, we can’t help but notice that 8 of the 10 worst funded states in America just happen to be “deep blue” bastions of liberalism.  Could it be that perpetually higher taxes and overly burdensome regulations end up being negative for state budgets in the long term?

  • All Hail Chinese Emperor Xi Jinping: Will He 'Make China Great Again'?

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via Maven.net/MishTalk,

    At the nineteenth Communist Party meeting, Chinese president Xi Jinping consolidated his hold on power.

    But can he make China great again? What would it take?

    New Yorker columnist Jiayang Fan notes At the Communist Party Congress, Xi Jinping Plays the Emperor.

    Perhaps no event embodies the unyielding abstruseness and the unforgiving hierarchy of China’s ruling Communist Party as much as its Party Congress, the government’s most important leadership conference. Attended by some twenty-three hundred delegates from across the country, it is held every five years in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People—and when the weeklong meeting finally begins, one can be certain that the crucial politicking has already concluded. What proceeds is a choreographed spectacle bearing fastidiously scripted speeches, pro-forma elections of what has heretofore been determined (a leadership reshuffle in the seven-member Politburo, the highest echelon of power), and, in the case of the 19th Communist Party Congress, which opened today, high-spirited, propagandistic posters reminding the masses that “Life in China Is Good! Everyday Is Like a Holiday!”

     

    This is a message that Xi Jinping, who was appointed President at the previous Party Congress, in 2012, is eager to instill in a country that continues to grapple with a vertiginous pace of change and the outsize influence of politics in everyday life. Xi is almost certainly guaranteed another five-year term, if not longer. Since taking office, he has sought to launch the greatest ideological campaign since the days of Mao.

     

    Xi has made clear from the outset, he is intent on both defining a new world order and restoring to Chinese culture its former esteem.

     

    Yet Xi’s mission should be regarded in the context of a collective and profound post-traumatic stress disorder, the result of almost two centuries of cataclysmic events in China. For every Tang Taizong, who ushered in the golden years of the Tang Dynasty, there were many others like Empress Dowager Cixi, who usurped the throne, crippled the path of progress, and contributed to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty.

     

    As Xi made clear today, during his three-hour address to the Party Congress, he sees this moment as “a new historic juncture in China’s development”—and himself as the man to seize it. He seems to believe that the more power he amasses, the easier it will be for him to enact the kind of monumental changes necessary to transform China into the world’s leading superpower. In this sense, he is positioning himself as a savior with a cause noble enough to justify his autocratic turn. The logic is akin to that which animated the ambition of many of the Middle Kingdom’s five-hundred-odd emperors. Sure, Xi has rerouted all tributaries of power to run upstream to him, but isn’t it in the service of rejuvenation?

     

    Xi has also used his growing power to curb that of his citizens. Under his rule, China has become increasingly repressive. The media is censored and civil society has been muted. Activists have been silenced and human-rights lawyers arrested. More than a million officials have been disciplined. Despite paying lip service to the constitution—the Party devoted an entire plenary session during the 18th Congress to a discussion of “judicial independence”—Xi is steering the country away from the rule of law and toward the rule of the Party.

     

    Xi’s vision for China’s future suggests a great leap backward, in which old lessons remain unlearned.

    Bravo!

    A paradigm change is indeed underway, but it will be led by cars (autonomous driving and electrification), demographics (aging boomers), the demise of pension plans, a revolt by millennials, and a squashing of the current political class.

    A currency crisis is inevitable but it's too soon to say that gold will be back in the picture. Some suggest SDRs, but I dismiss that idea.

    King dollar is certainly not dead yet, and contrary to popular belief, having the reserve currency is more of a curse than a blessing.

    Why Dollar is King

    • The dollar is king because the US has open capital markets, property rights, and the world's biggest bond markets.

    • The US also has a Bill of Rights granting freedom of speech and protection from unwarranted searches. China imprisons people for speaking their mind.

    • China is a long way from competing with the US on those important issues. In addition, China repeatedly resorts to capital controls to stop monetary flight.

    China will not supplant the US for at least two decades and may not ever.

    I expounded on the topic in Marc Faber Banned from CNBC. Here are a few snips.

    What Made the US Great?

    The Constitution's Bill of Rights is what makes the US great. There is nothing else like it in the world. It's a unique constitution put together by a unique set of educated lawyers and other scholars.

    The First Amendment grants freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    That's what enables Faber to say what he did. And that's a good thing, whether you agree with him or not! China imprisons or kills people for saying something the state disagrees with. Numerous countries in Europe would fine Faber for such remarks.

    The First Amendment prohibits state-sponsored religion. Many Republicans who allegedly want a strict constitution, ought to take a closer look. School prayer does not fit in.

    Democrats might wish to consider the Second Amendment.

    Everyone should appreciate the right to be secure in their home. That's the Fourth Amendment.

    The Sixth Amendment grants a speedy trial.

    Reader Comments

    The subject came up a third time today. In response to the above articles, reader Brindu had this to say:

    Hello Mish

     

    In your section "What Makes the US Great", you used the points made earlier in " King Dollar". This will be very educational for readers who normally don't dwell on constitutional issues.

     

    I have another point worth adding: "A credible, independent and impartial court system accessible to all.".

     

    To illustrate how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights worked real time, I reflected back to Nixon and the Watergate era (1972-74). Many of your readers were too young to remember or not even born. Here is a summary of relevant events showing how the points you listed under "What makes the US Great?" worked in actual practice.

     

    1. Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the NYT. Nixon went to court to stop publication, but the judge ruled against Nixon, saying there was no threat to national security. The NYT published the Pentagon papers in its entirety, This is a classic example of the first amendment at work. Many foreign leaders asked why Nixon did not shut down the press. (The UK has something called the Official Secrets Act and can shut down newspapers).

    2. Nixon's aides broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office looking for dirt. They went to jail. This is a classic example of the 4th amendment at work.

    3. Judge John Sirica systematically sent a dozen or more Nixon's aides (Haldeman, Erlichman, Dean etc.) to jail as Nixon watched helplessly. Again, foreigners, unfamiliar with the US separation of powers asked why Nixon just did not throw Judge Sirica in jail. Imagine a judge acting independently in China or in Erdogan's Turkey? This is a classic example of an independent judiciary at work.

     

    The parliamentary systems in Europe and Canada are inferior in protecting individual rights like our Bill of Rights. Under parliamentary law, the UK can shut down newspapers. They can wiretap, open mail without a warrant. There is no double jeopardy- in some places, they can try you again and again on the same charge even if you are acquitted.

     

    At one time, Australia did not allow its citizens to own foreign accounts. The UK, in the 1960's has capital outflow due to 90%+ marginal taxes. Folks were mailing British pounds abroad and the Government scanned outgoing mail to intercept this.

     

    Like you said, "The Constitution's Bill of Rights is what makes the US great. There is nothing else like it in the world."

    US Dollar Not Dead Yet

    Chinese history speaks for itself. Absolute power in the hands of a man whose actions are rubber-stamped by a mock-up Congress will not make China great.

    Wake me up when China has a Bill of Rights granting freedom of speech and protection from unwarranted searches.

    Add an independent judiciary, a free-floating currency, and the world's largest bond market to the list of China needs.

    
    

  • Drone Footage Reveals A First Look Of Trump's Border Wall Prototypes

    Over the past four weeks, workers have been toiling (mostly in intense 90+ degree heat) to put final touches on eight possible versions of President Donald Trump’s long-promised border wall, ahead of an October 26 deadline to finish the prototype border-wall designs located just a few dozen years from the border that divides San Diego from Tijuana. U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded eight contracts to six companies to build the prototypes. Four are made of reinforced concrete, and another four incorporate additional construction materials. Construction began on Sept. 26, giving companies 30 days to finish, according to the Arizona Republic.

    By Wednesday, five of the wall designs had already been completed and were fenced off with caution tape, but – as the following video shows – crews were still at work on others, installing vertical concrete panels on one design, using cranes and bulldozers to place them upright. Another two prototypes were in various stages of construction on the demonstration site, located about 2 miles east of San Diego’s Otay Mesa border crossing, in the foothills of the Otay Mountains. At roughly 30 feet, the designs dwarf the petite, primary fence that currently designates the international boundary — it’s made of rusted Vietnam War-era landing mats. They are also nearly twice the height of the secondary metal-mesh fence, which ends near where the prototypes are being built.

    Their height, officials quoted by the AZ Republic said, is intended to make a statement to criminals and would-be unauthorized crossers: Stay away.

    “The 30 feet is very impressive,” said Mario Villareal, the division chief for the San Diego Sector Border Patrol. “What we’re trying to accomplish is by putting tactical infrastructure on the border, by having all-weather roads, by putting Border Patrol agents on the immediate border is the deterrence.”

    Of course, whether the border-wall prototypes “keep people away”, is what matters, and will be closely scrutinized in the coming weeks. After they are done, CBP will move to the “test and evaluation” of each of the eight structures.

    What do the prototypes look like?

    One built by a Maryland company uses concrete at the base with the top two-thirds featuring blue metal panels. Another, built by an Alabama company, has a wide concrete base that gives way to a thinner frame halfway up the structure.  Also, only one of the completed designs incorporates see-through features that would allow Border Patrol agents to monitor activity on the other side of the border.

    Initially, Trump called for a solid reinforced concrete design, and several of the finished prototypes seemed to fit that description. Under advisement from CBP, the administration later included “see-through features” in its call for submissions. A second design by the Alabama company features metal bars for the first half of the prototype, narrowly spaced and resembling the bollard-style fencing commonly used at the border in Arizona’s urban areas. But the top half has what appears to be solid concrete panels.

    Quoted by the AZ Republic, Border Patrol Agent Theron Francisco said the ability to see across the border can be beneficial. It’s an option they don’t have now with landing-mat fencing in the area. “It’s good to be able to see through the south side. We can see them, they can see us,” he said. “But in a way, it can be negative because we’re always being watched. They always can see us. It goes both ways.” Meanwhile, the concrete design is made up of three long, concrete frames that gently slope upward from the U.S. side, but are completely vertical on the south side. The concrete is a light tan, nearly the same color as the dusty soil it stands on. 

    The cost of eight contracts ranges from $320,000 to $480,000. CBP has already appropriated the funds to pay for them. However, funding for additional construction is still up in the air and remains the object of major political disagreement in Congress.

    And until we find out if Trump’s wall will ever amount to anything more than a pipe dream, here is drone footage taken earlier today of the Border Wall prototypes.

  • Yield Curve Inverts, Yuan Slides As China GDP Growth Slows

    Despite all the talk of deleveraging, China did anything but according to its most recent data but the lagged impact of the tumbling credit impulse is starting to show up in the broader macro data. Despite the National Congress being under way (and recent credit spikes and positive PBOC hints) GDP growth limped lower to the expected +6.8% YoY, and fixed asset investment growth was the weakest in over 17 years…

    Ahead of tonight's data dump, China macro data had been disappointing notably, having tumbled for over a month to its weakest since August 2016…

    "A further acceleration in growth would surprise many investors who have taken their lead from measures to slow the property market, credit tightening moves and the government’s 6.5-percent or so growth objective for this year," said Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at AMP Capital Investors in Sydney.

    But amid The National Congress, and demands for calm in all markets, expectations for tonight's data were for the usual spot on 'meet' or even a 'beat' of well-managed expectations (following People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's hints last weekend that expansion may accelerate in the second half to 7 percent).

    China GDP YoY: MEET +6.8% vs +6.8% Exp (+6.9% prior) – missed the whisper number of +6.9% YoY

    China Retail Sales YoY: BEAT +10.3% vs +10.2% Exp (+10.1% prior)

    China Fixed Assets Investment YoY: MISS +7.5% vs +7.7% Exp (+7.8% prior) – lowest since Feb 2000

    China Industrial Production YoY: BEAT +6.6% vs +6.5% Exp (+6.0% prior)

    "Caution is needed in the Byzantine world of Chinese statistics," said Pauline Loong, managing director at research firm Asia-Analytica in Hong Kong. The data "traditionally deliver exactly what its leaders want to hear –- and what its leaders want the public and the market to hear – ahead of any sensitive political event."

    As a reminder, The IMF is convinced that China will overtake the eurozone GDP in 2019…

    Offshore Yuan had sold off heading into the data and extended losses after (remember Q3 was notable strength reverse into notable weakness after PBOC verbally intervened)

    Still, China's inverted yield curve suggests not everyone is so excited about the future…

  • "It's A Mad Max Situation" – Puerto Rico Doctors Practice Medicine In 'Post-Apocalyptic' Conditions

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Nearly four weeks after Hurricane Maria devastated the island of Puerto Rico, doctors are experiencing “post-apocalyptic” conditions. The reality doctors in Puerto Rico are facing is similar to that from a dystopian novel.

    Doctors are conducting surgical procedures in sweltering 95-degree heat, experience malfunctioning X-ray machines, and have seen medications literally melting. “We’re practicing disaster medicine in real life,” said Dr. William Kotler, a senior resident in emergency medicine at Florida Hospital in Orlando, who spent two weeks volunteering on the island earlier this month. “We improvise if we have to, with very little resources.”

    Arriving one week after Hurricane Maria made landfall, Dr. Kotler and four other emergency physicians from Florida Hospital in Orlando, finished up a volunteer mission on the devastated island. They were the first medical relief team the hospital sent to the island.

    “We went in blind,” said Dr. Julian Trivino, who was among the first team of volunteers.

    A second team arrived on October 8th and will stay for two weeks to assist those who need medical attention. When the physicians arrived in the town of Aguadilla on the northwestern tip of the island, the local hospital was in bad shape. The hurricane had almost completely taken down the entire electrical grid and knocked out communications.

    “I got there and immediately had a patient with serious head injuries from a car accident,” said Trivino, who is the chief resident in emergency medicine.

    Access to electricity was so poor that Trivino couldn’t conduct a CT scan, but he was able to do an X-ray. To review the films, he had to go outside and hold the films up to the sunlight to see anything. Afterward, he used one of the team’s two satellite phones to arrange for the patient to go to a trauma center.

    Dr. Trivino must use sunlight to examine x-rays since electricity is sporadic in Puerto Rico.

    The physicians are also becoming increasingly concerned that Puerto Rico could be headed toward a full-blown health crisis.

    “Trauma centers are overwhelmed. Basic surgeries are being postponed. I’ve seen people lose digits because they couldn’t be treated in time,” said Kotler.

    And the heat is making conditions even more extreme. At a hospital in Carolina on the northeastern coast, Kotler and Trivino had to perform an emergency surgery; attaching a temporary pacemaker to a patient whose heart rate was abnormally slow.

    “It was 95 degrees in this ER room. She was sweating profusely and vomiting,” said Kotler.

     

    “I held her hand and stroked her head. It’s what I could do to comfort her.”

    But there were also several patients who suffered the ultimate fate. In Aguadilla, it was a 42-year-old man in cardiac arrest.

    “He had a fever of 107 degrees. It was burning hot in the hospital. We scrambled to find ice packs to cool him down,” said Kotler. Nonetheless, he died the next day.

     

    “If you have a major heart attack in Puerto Rico, right now, the odds are stacked against you,” said Trivino.

    It isn’t just the sweltering heat that’s causing a post-apocalyptic medical crisis either. A lack of clean drinking water is compounding the problems. In one town, the medical team encountered an orphanage where children were on the verge of dehydration. The physicians flew in pallets of fresh drinking water to save the kids’ lives. Because of the lack of water,  Dr. Raul Hernandez, an internist based in San Juan, is bracing for an outbreak and possibly several deaths from waterborne diseases. He said Leptospirosis, a bacterial disease spread through the urine of infected animals such as rodents, is becoming a growing concern. Due to a lack of safe drinking water, people are drinking from whatever water sources they can find just to survive, he said. If that water contains urine from an infected rat, the disease will spread, he said. So far, at least two deaths have been attributed to Leptospirosis in Puerto Rico.

    Dr. Miguel Acevedo led the second team of emergency physicians from Florida Hospital. “They say it could take six to nine months for power to be restored fully in Puerto Rico. No hospital can plan to survive on generators for that long,” he said.

    What doctors are dealing with in Puerto Rico is a “Mad Max kind of situation, said Acevedo.

     

    The reality here is post-apocalyptic,” he said. “You can’t understand the seriousness of it unless you see it.”

  • A Look Inside The Secret Swiss Bunker Where The Ultra Rich Hide Their Bitcoins

    Somewhere in the mountains near Switzerland’s Lake Lucerne lies a hidden underground vault containing a vast fortune.

    It’s no ordinary vault, according to Quartz. Built inside a decommissioned Swiss military bunker dug into a granite mountain, it’s precise location is a closely guarded secret, and access is limited by myriad security precautions.

    But instead of gold bars, the bunker contains hard drives on which customers’ bitcoins are being kept in what’s call “cold storage” – i.e. the owners’ private keys are protected by an air-gapped hard drive. The vault is one of many operated by Xapo, an early bitcoin company known for its cold storage wallet products and a debit card that pays for transactions in digital currencies.

    The company won’t disclose how much bitcoin is stored in the vault, but one employee who spoke with Quartz said he sometimes takes customers with millions of dollars in bitcoin on tours of the vaults where their fortune is stored. Xapo was founded by Argentinian entrepreneur and current CEO Wences Casares, whom Quartz describes as “patient zero” of bitcoin among Silicon Valley’s elite. Cesares reportedly gave Bill Gates and Reed Hoffman their first bitcoins.

    As Quartz explains, the bitcoin vault doesn’t store actual bitcoin units. Instead, what’s being stored are the owners’ private cryptographic keys that allow the owner to access and transfer his or her bitcoins by matching the key with a public key that’s used to identify the coin on the blockchain. Gaining unauthorized access to someone’s private keys is akin to making off with a gold bar.

    The inexorable rise in bitcoin’s valuation has been marred by notable hacking incidents like the collapse of Mt. Gox, which ushered in the longest bear market in bitcoin’s history. Security fears appear to have subsided as bitcoin’s price has soared to all-time highs, but incidents like the collapse of the DAO have inspired investors with substantial bitcoin wealth to look into protecting it.

    To store the coins, Xapos contracts Deltalis, the company that technically operates the 10,000-square-foot data-center that now inhabits the decommissioned bunker.

    Server racks for banks, and any client who needs secure data processing, fill a cavity dug over 320 meters deep in the granite mountain. The Swiss military built the facility in 1947, and it served as the army’s secret headquarters during the Cold War, Agence-France Presse has reported. Inside, walls covered with detailed maps and ancient radio electronics serve as vestiges of its military past.

    To enter Xapo’s private vault in the Deltalis data center, visitors must endure an exhausting series of security procedures.

    Streiff leads us to a concrete facade jutting out of the mountainside, the bunker’s entrance. We step through about a foot of concrete and enter the lobby. I sign in as I would at any office building, except I also have to present my fingerprints and be photographed. After that I step through a “man-trap”—a phone booth-sized cylinder made of bullet-proof glass that shuts me in until an operator opens the door on the opposite side.

     

    Once through the man-trap, we touch our ID cards and pass through a set of steel revolving doors, then walk down a 100-meter long passageway through the granite. At the end of the passageway are two red steel doors that I’m told can survive a nuclear blast. Streiff invites me to try to close one—my 90 kg (198 pound) frame can’t budge it. “They’re closed every night,” he tells me, showing me how to hang off the handle and use his body’s momentum to gradually swing it shut.

     

    Streiff and Kon are taking me to see Xapo’s “private suite,” an ultra-secure, customized, portion of the data center. We pass through a second man-trap and then end up in front of a nondescript white door. “This is further than anyone outside Xapo has been,” Streiff tells me, as he unlocks it. Inside is a space about the size of a walk-in closet containing a cooling unit, and yet another door. But that’s as far as they’ll let me go, and I’m not allowed to take photographs.

    Security is similarly tight inside the vault. Nobody is allowed the enter the “cold room” where the bitcoins are stored on air-gapped hard drives. To protect against an electromagnetic pulse attack, the cold room is equipped with a Faraday cage, a type of barrier meant to block electromagnetic fields.

    Beyond that door, I rely on what Carlos Rienzi, Xapo’s head of security, tells me later, when I’m back in London. Rienzi chose the vault for Xapo, and he designed the private suite and its security protocols. His “threat model,” as computer security jargon goes, is to protect against attacks from “well-funded terrorist groups or hackers.”

     

    There are two more portals inside the suite: the first leads to an operators’ room, and the second to a “cold room.” The cold room is encircled with steel slabs to form a Faraday cage: a barrier that protects against a possible electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could wipe out the data—and thus the keys to the bitcoin—stored in the room. For digital assets like bitcoin, thick walls and a secret location are not enough. A shield against invisible modes of attack like an EMP bomb must be provided for.

     

    No one, not even the operator, enters the cold room. Its door is sealed with tape—like a crime scene—to ensure it’s not tampered with. The cold room contains hardware, which is never connected to the internet, used to sign bitcoin transactions. Signing a transaction can be performed offline. The operator accesses that hardware using “special cabling,” sending encrypted data to the hardware for signing. Finally, before a transaction can be approved, two more sign-offs, in two other vaults located on separate continents, must be performed.

     

    I ask Rienzi if he feels pretty confident about the security measures he has in place in Switzerland. “We are under attack 24/7,” he tells me, referring to the terrorists and hackers he designed the vault to guard against. “This is not a race. It is a chess game. You have to think about the opponent’s next movement. You can never relax.”

    Of course, all the security measures in the world can’t protect investors from a sudden plunge in the bitcoin price. However, the digital currency’s indomitable – for now – performance has silenced at least one of its most prominent critics. Then said, unlike precious metal specie, one carefully targeted EMP would be all it takes to sever the ownership chain for a long, long time.

    Still, with the digital currency recently reaching yet another record high, despite relentless jawboning and rhetoric by everyone from Jamie Dimon to central bankers to China, we can only imagine the business of protecting bitcoin fortunes is set to boom.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 18th October 2017

  • Carney Reveals Europe's Potential Achilles Heel in Brexit Talks

    This morning, BoE Governor Mark Carney discussed the risks of a hard Brexit during his testimony to the UK Parliamentary Treasury Committee. There was renewed weakness in Sterling during his testimony.

    Ironically, given the fall in Sterling, Carney explained why Europe’s financial sector is more at risk than the UK from a “hard” or “no-deal” Brexit. We wonder whether Juncker and Barnier appreciate the threat that a “no-deal” Brexit poses for the EU’s already fragile financial system?

    When asked does the European Council “get it” in terms of potential shocks to financial stability, Carney diplomatically commented that “a learning process is underway.” Having sounded alarm bells about clearing in his last Mansion House speech, he noted “These costs of fragmenting clearing, particularly clearing of interest rate swaps, would be born principally by the European real economy and they are considerable.”

    Calling into question the continuity of tens of thousands of derivative contracts, he stated that it was “pretty clear they will no longer be valid”, that this “could only be solved by both sides” and has been “underappreciated” by Europe. Moving on to the possibility that there might not be a transition period, Carney had a snipe at Europe for its lack of preparation “We are prepared as we should be for the possibility of a hard exit without any transition…there has been much less of that done in the European Union.”

    Maybe it’s Europe, not the UK, that needs the transition period most.

    In Carneys view “It’s in the interest of the EU 27 to have a transition agreement. Also, in my judgement given the scale of the issues as they affect the EU 27, that there will ultimately be a transition agreement. There is a very limited amount of time between now and the end of March 2019 to transition large, complex institutions and activities…If one thinks about the implementation of Basel III, we are alone in the current members of the EU in having extensive experience of managing the transition for individual firms of various derivative and risk activities from one jurisdiction back into the UK. That tends to take 2-4 years. Depending on the agreement, we are talking about a substantial amount of activity.”

    Returning to the theme of financial stability, he stated “As a general thing, in an uncooperative outcome, at least initially, the UK will be long financial services. We will have more capacity, capital, individuals, collateral in the UK. The EU will be short of financial services because not all of that capacity will be able to go across. The entire economic impacts are greater for the UK but, from a financial stability perspective, they are greater for the EU.”

    On further questioning, Carney outlined the other two major issues, along with derivatives and wholesale banking, which would be affected, i.e. cross-border provision of insurance (UK domiciled entities would be unable to pay out) and data protection and transfer (there is more data in the UK which is relevant to the EU than vice versa).

    Summing up, Carney stated “These issues are bigger for Europe than they are for us, but they’re material for us.” That comment prompted the following question “In which case we have much more leverage in order to get a deal?” The diplomatic reply was “I wouldn’t want to use financial stability issues as leverage. I wouldn’t want them to be addressed in a bloodless technocratic way in the interests of all the citizens.” Didn’t he just describe Juncker’s modus operandi.

  • Could the Next Fed Appointment Crush the Housing Market?

    As the end of Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen’s first term approaches, financial markets are beginning to digest the increased likelihood that US President Donald Trump will opt to appoint a more hawkish individual to the position.  Even though the Federal Reserve is largely expected to continue tightening monetary policy over the coming months as it pares down the balance sheet and contemplates a dovish hike, Trump’s appointment could send shockwaves through the housing market. 

    One of the nastier side effects of operating at or near the zero-bound for interest rates has been the rapid expansion of asset valuations.  Lower interest rates encourage individuals and companies to finance their purchases and then reinvest for more aggressive returns. However, this rapid valuation expansion has not been limited strictly to financialized assets, but also physical assets like real estate.  When seen in the context of the more hawkish leanings of Trump’s recent Fed Chair interviewees, the Administration’s next Fed appointment could pose the risk of a serious correction across asset classes.

    Fed Frontrunners Exhibit More Hawkish Bent

    Financial news outlets have been rife with reports covering the potential picks for Fed Chairman, with two of the leading candidates including Economist John Taylor and former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh.  Taylor, who currently serves as an economics professor at Stanford University, received high marks from Trump according to a Bloomberg report on the matter.  Trump was purportedly very impressed with his credentials, though unlike other candidates, Taylor is among the fiercest advocates of having policy measures closely reflect economic conditions.  

    The “Taylor Rule”, titled after the economist, stipulates rates should rise when inflation is running at an elevated pace or unemployment is below the “full employment” threshold and should fall in the opposite scenario.  Applying this set of rules to current economic conditions indicates that the key Fed Funds rate should be 3.74% to reflect high levels of employment and rising prices.  At nearly 3 times the present rate, a selection of John Taylor to chair the Fed could rapidly dampen overextended valuations in equities and the housing market.  Already his interview with Donald Trump caused a palpable dip in gold prices considering his overtly hawkish stance.

    By comparison, Kevin Warsh has also advocated for a tighter monetary policy regime, greater deregulation, and a general makeover of the Central Bank.  His attitude towards reform has won him positive mentions as well.  However, his overall degree of hawkishness and stated desire to overhaul the inflation target could put him at the epicenter of a dramatic policy shift that departs from the more cautious approach of current Chair Janet Yellen.

    Factors Outside the Fed’s Control

    While easy to label the rebuilding efforts in Texas and Florida as positive for the overall housing market, this deals more with the supply angle than demand.  On the buy side, a Fed determined to raise interest rates will assuredly presage rising mortgage costs which could in turn subject buyer interest to some downside as financing costs climb.  Though it is tempting to cite the foreclosure rate at an 11-year low as a sign of strength, it does not necessarily imply that the housing market is on stable footing, especially as prices reach past the realm of affordability.

    Considering income growth has kept nowhere near the same pace as price growth for homes according to the monthly Case-Shiller home price index, the lack of affordable solutions may be another factor that hurts demand and concurrently weighs on pricing.  For the year through July, average hourly earnings climbed by 2.50% while housing prices of 20 major US metropolitan areas increased by 5.80% over the same period. With price growth outpacing wages by such a significant margin, the surge in values should be a worrying sign for prospective buyers thinking about diving in while mortgage rates remain not far from record lows.

    However, a more concerning indication apart from unaffordability is the degree to which flipping has reemerged.  The move is eerily reminiscent of the years leading up to the last financial crisis as lending standards are relaxed.  House flipping reached the highest point since 2007 during the second quarter of 2017 and nearly 35% of the transactions were accompanied by mortgages.  Even Goldman Sachs is getting into the flipping game with its recent acquisition of Genesis Capital LLC, a move designed to help the institution build a bigger presence in the lending sphere.  Should mortgage rates rise in tandem with interest rates, it could spell doom for this substantial portion of residential real estate activity.

    The Fed as the Deciding Factor

    With the shortlist for the next Federal Reserve Chair realistically narrowed down to 5 candidates, those under consideration for the job have significantly more hawkish leanings than current Chair Janet Yellen and her predecessor Ben Bernanke.  While ultimately housing prices are a function of the interaction of supply and demand, demand largely behaves inverse to interest rates.  As rates climb, mortgage costs will echo the gains, potentially reducing interest.  Should demand fall, housing prices are likely to experience a correction as well after a near 8-year unabated rise in values.  Considering the unaffordability aspect and the degree of house flipping, the approaching Fed appointment has a higher propensity to cause a downturn compared to another leg of the ongoing housing market rally.

     

     

  • Washington: The Bleeder Of The 'Free World'?

    Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Among the many self-flattering epithets it gives itself, the US has always claimed to be the “leader of the free world”. It’s a rather patronizing notion that America views itself as a selfless protector and benefactor of its European allies and others. This fairytale depiction of the world is coming to a rude awakening as American power buffets against the reality of a multi-polar world.

    Less a world leader and more like a blood-sucking leech on international relations.

    We got a clear view of the contradiction in America’s narcissistic mythology with US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was disavowing the multinational nuclear accord with Iran last Friday.

    Trump didn’t axe American participation in the deal just yet, but he has put it on notice that he or the US Congress may terminate the accord over the next two months. How’s that for high-handed arrogance?

    However, there was near-unanimous push back around the world to Trump’s disparagement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was originally signed in July 2015 by the US, Russia, China, European Union and Iran. All the signatories uniformly rebuked Trump’s attempt to undermine the deal, which is supposed to lift international economic sanctions off Iran in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.

    While Trump accused Iran of “multiple violations” of the accord, all the other stakeholders asserted satisfaction that Iran has in fact fully implemented its obligations to restrict uranium enrichment and weaponization of its nuclear program. The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, also responded to Trump’s claims by reaffirming that eight consecutive monitoring reports have found Iran to be fully compliant with the JCPOA.

    Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, have firmly said that the nuclear deal – which took two years to negotiate during Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House – is not for renegotiation. A point which was reiterated too by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

    The deal is also written into international law, having been ratified unanimously by the UN Security Council back in 2015. In a stinging admonishment to Washington, the EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Morgherini said: “This deal is not a bilateral agreement … The international community, and the European Union with it, has clearly indicated that the deal is, and will, continue to be in place.”

    Russia also denounced Trump’s over-the-top aggressive rhetoric towards Iran. The American president was almost foaming at the mouth when he labelled Iran “the world’s top terror sponsor” and accused Tehran of fueling conflict across the Middle East. Moscow said such rhetoric was unacceptable and inappropriate. Iran dismissed Trump’s accusations as baseless lies.

    Evidently, Russia, China and the Europeans do not share America’s debased caricature of Iran. And who in their right mind would? The hackneyed American allegations against Iran are – as usual – not backed up with any evidence. They rely on bombastic assertion repeated ad nauseam. It is especially ironic and odious for Washington to accuse others of sponsoring terrorism, given the litany of illegal wars it has launched across the Middle East and the steadily emerging evidence of US links to terror groups in Syria’s six-year war.

    Thus, the commitment by all the signatories – except Washington – to the Iranian nuclear deal is a stunning rejection of Trump’s aggressive stance towards Iran.

    Ahead of Trump’s anticipated disavowal of the JCPOA on Friday, Germany’s foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel warned that such a move would “drive a wedge between Europe and the US”. Significantly, Gabriel said that Trump’s spurning of the accord was “driving the EU towards Russia and China”.

    France’s finance minister Bruno Le Maire also warned the US not to interfere in Europe’s growing commercial ties with Iran. He was quoted as saying: “The US must not appoint itself as the world’s police man”.

    Trump’s hostility towards the Iran nuclear treaty has created dissent within his own cabinet. His secretary of state Rex Tillerson and the defense secretary James Mattis are among those who were urging Trump to uphold the JCPOA. In the Congress, there are also many opponents to Trump’s desire to axe the deal, even among his Republican party. It remains to be seen if the Congress will call for new sanctions on Iran over the next 60 days, as Trump has requested. If Congress does, it will mean the US crashing out of the accord.

    In theory, of course, the EU, Russia and China can continue to uphold the nuclear accord with Iran and conduct international trade and investment without the Americans. Russia and China have signed major oil and gas pacts with Iran over the past two years.

    The European states have also lined up huge commercial projects and investments with Tehran in sectors of energy, engineering and infrastructure.  Germany and France in particular have seen their exports to Iran soar since the signing of the JCPOA. With Iran’s 80 million population and vast oil and gas reserves, the Persian nation represents lucrative opportunities for Europe, given too the geographical proximity.

    But the US is still able to exert tremendous power over international banking to the extent that it is having a chilling effect on other countries doing business with Iran. The European states are particularly vulnerable to American pressure.

    In a Bloomberg report, it headlined: ‘Trump's Iran Decision Throws Uncertainty Into Business Plans’.

    The report goes on: “Since a landmark nuclear agreement freed Iran’s economy from crippling economic sanctions, investors eager to tap the country’s energy reserves and its 80 million consumers have waited for signs it was safe to enter the market in full force… Donald Trump is about to signal that they should keep waiting.”

    The US view of Iran is so warped – much of it from relentless propaganda demonizing the Islamic Republic – that it is evidently incapable of normalizing relations as it is obligated to do under the multilateral nuclear deal. Trump ironically accused Iran of “not living up to the spirit of the accord” when it is the US that has worked assiduously to undermine it.

    Since Trump took office, he has reportedly cancelled all export licenses to Iran. His administration and the Congress have slapped more “secondary sanctions” on Iran over allegations that it is destabilizing the Middle East and for its support to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

    These bilateral US sanctions inevitably have a deterrent effect on other nations doing business with Iran out of fear that they may be penalized in the future. Long-term investments over several years are prone to prohibitive risks due to the uncertainty about what Washington’s capricious policy towards Iran will be.

    America’s unilateral, hegemonic conduct – accentuated under Trump – is rapidly alienating other nations. This president seems to operate a “withdrawal doctrine”, as Richard Haass, president of the DC-based Council on Foreign Relations, commented. Trump’s contempt for multilateral obligations peaked with his announcement back in June on backing out of the Paris Climate Accord. It has peaked again with his repudiation of the UN-backed Iran nuclear deal.

    What is becoming increasingly apparent is that US unilateralism is all about pandering to its own selfish interests. Trump’s administration has hit Russia with more sanctions and has warned that European energy companies involved in developing the Nord Stream 2 gas project with Russia’s Gazprom will also be sanctioned. The flagrant agenda here is for the US to replace Russia as Europe’s gas supplier, selling its own more expensive fuel to Europe.

    Likewise US hostility and sanctions on Iran are not just limited to its own perverse policies.

    Washington also wants to block others from also doing legitimate business and trade with Iran. For the Europeans struggling to boost their flagging economies, the impediments being thrown in their way by the US over Iran are another source of resentment towards American unilateralism.

    This is not the idealized conduct of the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world”. America is increasingly seen as the “bleeder” – a declining power which wants to suck the economic lifeblood from others in order to sustain itself. This untenable American unipolar craving is inevitably hastening the reality of a multipolar world, as Europeans in particular realize that they can no longer afford to prop up America’s economic obesity.

  • Ethereum (ETHUSD) Daily MACD Trying to Negatively Cross

    Ethereum (ETHUSD) Weekly/Daily

    Ethereum (ETHUSD) sold off sharply yesterday and continues sliding in today’s Asia morning, arguably breaking below ascending wedge support (on the weekly/daily chart).  ETHUSD is now just a day’s volatility away from the psychologically key 300 whole figure level.  A ETHUSD break below 300 in the next day or so would likely confirm the first red weekly candle in 5 weeks.  Bears will be patiently awaiting any deeper slide in the next few weeks to below the September low, which would signal the start of a downtrend of lower lows.  The October high so far is lower than the August high, which was also lower than the June high.  Weekly RSI, Stochastics and MACD are showing signs of fatigue, and are increasingly weighed down by the already weak daily equivalents.

     

    ETHUSD (Ethereum) Weekly Technical Analysis

     

    ETHUSD (Ethereum) Daily Technical Analysis

     

    Bitcoin (BTCUSD) Weekly/Daily

    Bitcoin (BTCUSD) has defied bears so far, and remains in a strong uptrend.  Nevertheless, BTCUSD appears to have made a short-term top just below 6000 as leading Alt Coin Ethereum (ETHUSD) increasingly weakens.  The tiring daily RSI and Stochastics, and soon to negatively cross daily MACD do not bode well for BTCUSD bulls today.  Nevertheless, upchannel support (on the daily and weekly chart) coincides with the psychologically key 5000 whole figure level and should contain the pullback these next few days assuming the weekly MACD blue line has not flattened and turned lower by then.

    BTCUSD (Bitcoin) Weekly Technical Analysis

     

    BTCUSD (Bitcoin) Daily Technical Analysis

    Click here for today’s technical analysis on Cocoa

    Tradable Patterns was launched to demonstrate that the patterns recurring in liquid futures, spot FX and cryptocurrency markets can be analyzed to enhance trading performance. Tradable Patterns’ daily newsletter provides technical analysis on a subset of three CME/ICE/Eurex futures (commodities, equity indices, and interest rates), spot FX and cryptocurrency markets, which it considers worth monitoring for the day/week for trend reversal or continuation. For less experienced traders, tutorials and workshops are offered online and throughout Southeast Asia.

  • Trump Plans Massive Increase In Federal Immigration Jails, Report

    Following a 43% year over year surge in illegal immigrant arrests between January 22, 2017 and September 9, 2017, the USA Today is reporting that the Trump administration is quietly reaching out to private prison operators with requests to house some 4,000 detainees of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

    The Trump administration is planning an increase in federal immigration jails across the country for the thousands of additional undocumented immigrants its agents are arresting.

     

    In recent weeks, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has put out requests to identify privately-run jail sites in Chicago, Detroit, St. Paul, Salt Lake City and southern Texas, according to notices published on a federal contracting website. It did not publicly announce its plans to house 4,000 more detainees at the facilities.

     

    The detention expansion would represent the latest step in President Trump’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.

    And here is an example of one Request for Information posted to FedBizOpps.gov for an “existing, renovation or new construction” facility in South Texas.

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) to identify one or more facilities (existing, renovation, or new construction) to be turnkey ready and able to provide housing, medical care, guard services, meals, and the day to day needs for approximately 1000 ICE adult male and adult female detainees within 50 ground-commute miles of Interstate 35. If utilizing multiple facilities, there may be no less than 200 beds per facility. The preference is for facilities to be dedicated for ICE detainees exclusively, but shared facilities may be considered. ICE anticipates issuing a single award, indefinite delivery – indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for this requirement.

     

    This RFI is issued to identify potential sources that can provide the physical structure, equipment, personnel, and vehicles in a properly staffed and secure environment under the authority of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. The intent of this RFI is to obtain market information in accordance with FAR 15.201(e) for planning purposes and to determine appropriate strategies to meet the Agency’s requirements. If the results of market research and other factors indicate that it is in the Government’s best interest, ICE may release Requests for Proposals (RFP) for these potential requirements in the near future. However, this RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a commitment to an RFP in the future. Responses to this notice are not considered offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative cost incurred in response to this announcement and information submitted in response to this RFI will not be returned.

    Immigration

    Currently, ICE houses anywhere between 31,000 and 41,000 detainees each day in federal prisons, privately-operated facilities and local jails.

    Of course, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies said it’s by no means a coincidence that 4 out of the 5 cities identified by the Trump administration for new detention facilities are in so-called “santuary cities” where local police forces have been instructed to not cooperate with federal ICE agents.

    Trump supporters say the new jails are necessary to tackle an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

     

    Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which backs Trump’s immigration enforcement, noted that four of the cities identified for new jails — Chicago, Detroit, St. Paul and Salt Lake City — are all “sanctuary cities.”

     

    One of the core disputes is that some cities refuse to detain undocumented immigrants in their local jails for federal immigration agents.

     

    “ICE cannot rely on local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with them in holding deportable criminal aliens, so they have to acquire their own space that they control,” Vaughan said. “This is very encouraging.”

     

    ICE still has a long way to go before it can open any facilities. The notices invite private companies to provide information on possible locations, and whether it would be necessary to build new facilities or renovate existing ones.

    Meanwhile, reports of the new facilities was welcome news to shareholders of GEO Group, one of the largest private pension operators in the country, which has rallied over 60% since Trump’s election and is one of the most likely recipients of any new awards.

  • If North Korea Can Kill 90% Of Americans In A Year, Why Did DoD Just Defund The Congressional EMP Commission?

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    At a House hearing yesterday, experts warned members of Congress that a North Korean EMP attack could kill 90% of Americans within one year, calling it an “existential threat.”

    But despite this looming crisis, the Department of Defense has decided now was the time to defund the Congressional committee that has been studying the threat since 2001.

    The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack has been around for nearly two decades, but their efforts have mostly been restricted to making sure that the U.S. national command authority and U.S. strategic forces could continue to function. Meanwhile “no major efforts were then thought necessary to protect critical national infrastructures.” Apparently, the plan was that our defense would be so effective, no further steps were needed.

    This has all changed with recent strides in nuclear weaponry by North Korea. The results of an EMP strike could be apocalyptic.

    With the development of small nuclear arsenals and long-range missiles by new, radical U.S. adversaries, beginning with North Korea, the threat of a nuclear EMP attack against the U.S. becomes one of the few ways that such a country could inflict devastating damage to the United States. It is critical, therefore, that the U.S. national leadership address the EMP threat as a critical and existential issue, and give a high priority to assuring the leadership is engaged and the necessary steps are taken to protect the country from EMP. (source)

    What a lot of people didn’t know was that just a couple of weeks ago, Sept. 30, 2017, the Department of Defense terminated the funding for the EMP Commission. At the same time, “North Korea detonated an H-Bomb that it plausibly describes as capable of “super-powerful EMP” attack and released a technical report “The EMP Might of Nuclear Weapons” accurately describing what Russia and China call a “Super-EMP” weapon.”  The EMP Commission has been urging EMP preparedness on a national level for 17 years, but no one has been listening, despite alarming strides toward that goal in just the past six months.

    Recent events have proven the EMP Commission’s critics wrong about other highly important aspects of the nuclear missile threat from North Korea:

    • Just six months ago, most experts thought North Korea’s nuclear arsenal was primitive, some academics claiming it had as few as 6 A-Bombs. Now the intelligence community reportedly estimates North Korea has 60 nuclear weapons.
    • Just six months ago, most experts thought North Korea’s ICBMs were fake, or if real could not strike the U.S. mainland. Now the intelligence community reportedly estimates North Korea’s ICBMs can strike Denver and Chicago, and perhaps the entire United States.
    • Just six months ago, most experts thought North Korea was many years away from an HBomb. Now it appears North Korea has H-Bombs comparable to sophisticated U.S. two-stage thermonuclear weapons.
    • Just six months ago, most experts claimed North Korean ICBMs could not miniaturize an ABomb or design a reentry vehicle for missile delivery. Now the intelligence community reportedly assesses North Korea has miniaturized nuclear weapons, and has developed reentry vehicles for missile delivery, including by ICBMs that can strike the U.S.1

    After massive intelligence failures grossly underestimating North Korea’s long-range missile capabilities, number of nuclear weapons, warhead miniaturization, and proximity to an H-Bomb, the biggest North Korean threat to the U.S. remains unacknowledged—nuclear EMP attack.  (source)

    So, for 17 years, this group has been ringing the warning bell and no one has been listening. Now that the threat is at our doorstep, their funding has been pulled. Something doesn’t add up.

    The technology exists for a North Korean EMP attack

    A successful attack doesn’t even require a Super-EMP weapon. The Commission concluded that even a primitive weapon could successfully render our infrastructure obsolete.

    “Therefore, terrorists or state actors that possess relatively unsophisticated missiles armed with nuclear weapons may well calculate that, instead of destroying a city or military base, they may obtain the greatest political-military utility from one or a few such weapons by using them—or threatening their use—in an EMP attack.” (source)

    But that isn’t the worst of in. In 2004, two Russian generals told the EMP Commission that their design for a Super-EMP weapon was “accidentally transferred to North Korea.”

    Let that sink in. Somehow, North Korea has had their hands on the design for an incredibly powerful EMP weapon for more than a decade. The report says:

    In 2004, two Russian generals, both EMP experts, warned the EMP Commission that the design for Russia’s Super-EMP warhead, capable of generating high-intensity EMP fields over 100,000 volts per meter, was “accidentally” transferred to North Korea. They also said that due to “brain drain,” Russian scientists were in North Korea, as were Chinese and Pakistani scientists according to the Russians, helping with the North’s missile and nuclear weapon programs.

     

    In 2009, South Korean military intelligence told their press that Russian scientists are in North Korea helping develop an EMP nuclear weapon. In 2013, a Chinese military commentator stated North Korea has Super-EMP nuclear weapons.

     

    Super-EMP weapons are low-yield and designed to produce not a big kinetic explosion, but rather a high level of gamma rays, which generates the high-frequency E1 EMP that is most damaging to the broadest range of electronics. North Korean nuclear tests, including the first in 2006, whose occurrence was predicted to the EMP Commission two years in advance by the two Russian EMP experts, mostly have yields consistent with the size of a Super-EMP weapon. The Russian generals’ accurate prediction about when North Korea would perform its first nuclear test, and of a yield consistent with a Super-EMP weapon, indicates their warning about a North Korean Super-EMP weapon should be taken very seriously. (source)

    The report says that while everyone is focused on the future, when Pyongyang may develop “highly reliable intercontinental missiles, guidance systems, and reentry vehicles”, a North Korean EMP attack wouldn’t require that level of accuracy.

    EMP attack does not require an accurate guidance system because the area of effect, having a radius of hundreds or thousands of kilometers, is so large. No reentry vehicle is needed because the warhead is detonated at high altitude, above the atmosphere. Missile reliability matters little because only one missile has to work to make an EMP attack against an entire nation. (source)

    It would be a strategic initial strike to take down the American power grid to disable the maority of the country before undertaking any other form of attack.

    How would a North Korean EMP attack be likely to occur?

    Potential vehicles of attack are submarines or freighters, which could launch an EMP weapon to the relatively low altitude of 30 kilometers over the United States.  Unsettlingly, “even a balloon-lofted warhead detonated at 30 kilometers altitude could blackout the Eastern Electric Power Grid that supports most of the population and generates 75 percent of U.S. electricity.”

    A more likely choice would be a satellite.

    A Super-EMP weapon could be relatively small and lightweight, and could fit inside North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong-3 (KMS-3) and Kwangmyongsong-4 (KMS-4) satellites. These two satellites presently orbit over the United States, and over every other nation on Earth– demonstrating, or posing, a potential EMP threat against the entire world.

     

    North Korea’s KMS-3 and KMS-4 satellites were launched to the south on polar trajectories and passed over the United States on their first orbit. Pyongyang launched KMS-4 on February 7, 2017, shortly after its fourth illegal nuclear test on January 6, that began the present protracted nuclear crisis with North Korea.

     

    The south polar trajectory of KMS-3 and KMS-4 evades U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radars and National Missile Defenses, resembling a Russian secret weapon developed during the Cold War, called the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that would have used a nuclear-armed satellite to make a surprise EMP attack on the United States. (source)

    The report goes on to explain that our defense systems are completely unready for any of these scenarios.

    There’s a lot of misinformation about the threat of EMPs.

    The report counters a great deal of misinformation about the threat of EMPs. While no one really wants to consider the devastating effects, many “uninformed persons posturing as experts” completely deny the possibility. However, the Commission says that the empirical basis for an EMP attack is better established than that of a cyber attack.

    They offered numerous examples of hard data regarding the effects of EMPs.

    • The U.S. STARFISH PRIME high-altitude nuclear test in 1962 over Johnston Island that generated an EMP field over the Hawaiian Islands, over 1,300 kilometers away, causing widespread damage to electronic systems.
    • Six Russian EMP tests 1961-1962 over Kazakhstan that with a single weapon destroyed electric grids over an area larger than Western Europe, proving this capability six times.
    • 30 years (1962-1992) of U.S. underground nuclear testing that included collecting data on EMP effects.
    • Over 50 years of testing by EMP simulators, still ongoing, including by the Congressional EMP Commission (2001-2008) that proved modern electronics are over 1 million times more vulnerable to EMP than the electronics of 1962.
    • “Radio Frequency Weapons were used in separate incidents against the U.S. Embassy in Moscow to falsely set off alarms and to induce a fire in a sensitive area.”
    • “In Kzlyar, Dagestan, Russia, Chechen rebel commander Salman Raduyev disabled police radio communications using RF transmitters during a raid.”
    • “In June 1999 in Bellingham, Washington, RF energy from a radar induced a SCADA malfunction that caused a gas pipeline to rupture and explode.”
    • “In 1999, a Robinson R-44 news helicopter nearly crashed when it flew by a high-frequency broadcast antenna.”
    • North Korea used a Radio Frequency Weapon, purchased from Russia, to attack airliners and impose an “electromagnetic blockade” on air traffic to Seoul, South Korea’s capital. The repeated attacks by RFW also disrupted communications and the operation of automobiles in several South Korean cities in December 2010; March 9, 2011; and April-May 2012.(source)

    The threat is real. So, again, why would the Department of Defense withdraw funding from the Commission that wants to take steps to harden our infrastructure against this possibility?

    What would the aftermath of an EMP attack look like?

    The Commission cited several examples of real-world electrical grid failures and their catastrophic consequences.

    • The Great Northeast Blackout of 2003–that put 50 million people in the dark for a day, contributed to at least 11 deaths, and cost an estimated $6 billion—originated from a single failure point when a powerline contacted a tree branch, damaging less than 0.0000001 (0.00001%) of the system.
    • The New York City Blackout of 1977, that resulted in the arrest of 4,500 looters and injury of 550 police officers, was caused by a lightning strike on a substation that tripped two circuit breakers.
    • The Great Northeast Blackout of 1965, that effected  (sic) 30 million people, happened because a protective relay on a transmission line was improperly set.
    • India’s nationwide blackout of July 30-31, 2012—the largest blackout in history, effecting (sic) 670 million people, 9% of the world population—was caused by overload of a single high-voltage powerline.
    • India’s blackout of January 2, 2001—effecting 226 million people—was caused by equipment failure at the Uttar Pradesh substation.
    • Indonesia’s blackout of August 18, 2005—effecting 100 million people—was caused by overload of a high-voltage powerline.
    • Brazil’s blackout of March 11, 1999—effecting 97 million people—was caused by a lightning strike on an EHV transformer substation.
    • Italy’s blackout of September 28, 2003—effecting 55 million people—was caused by overload of two high-voltage powerlines.
    • Germany, France, Italy, and Spain experienced partial blackouts on November 4, 2006 effecting (sic)10-15 million people—from accidental shutdown of a high-voltage powerline.
    • The San Francisco blackout in April 2017 was caused by the failure of a single high voltage breaker (source)

    My mind immediately goes to the down-grid disaster occurring right now in Puerto Rico.

    The death toll from such a disaster would be unprecedented:

    The result could be to shut down the U.S. electric power grid for an indefinite period, leading to the death within a year of up to 90 percent of all Americans—as the EMP Commission testified over eight years ago.

    We’re talking about the deaths of more than 270 million people.

    President Trump signed an Executive Order in May called “Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure” which will hopefully harden our country against both cyber attacks and EMPs. The Commission provided a list of actionable suggestions on pages 11-14 of this report, but will the steps be undertaken before it’s too late? Especially now that they’re defunct.

    How do you prep for something so massive?

    It doesn’t seem as though the government is very interested in taking steps to protect our power grid. We can look at what is happening in Puerto Rico as a glimpse of the apocalyptic future that would follow such an attack. Restoring power after an EMP could take multiple years, and things in America would never be the same after a sustained change in our way of life.

    The result of an EMP attack would be a protracted blackout that would put at risk the lives of millions of people. Climate control, a lack of off-grid survival skills, looting, lawlessness, lack of medication, starvation, waterborne disease – all of these threats to our survival cannot be overlooked. If you haven’t read the book One Second After, I recommend you do so for a fictionalized yet nonetheless realistic look at life after the grid. If that doesn’t inspire you to prepare for such an event, nothing will.

    The best resource for preparing for an attack like this is Disaster Preparedness for EMP and Solar Storms, by Dr. Arthur T. Bradley. A NASA scientist, Dr. Bradley has spent years studying the aftereffects of such a catastrophe. His book dispels many myths an provides realistic, lifesaving information. My personal plan is a low-tech one – I am not spending a fortune on generators and fancy gadgets I wouldn’t be able to use once the fuel runs out.

    Preparing for something this massive is beyond the scope of this article. I strongly encourage you to begin researching and create your own low-tech plan. Don’t put it off until you get your perfect homestead in the boondocks or you talk your family members into it. Disasters like this don’t wait for a convenient time – in fact, strategically speaking, the less convenient it is, the more the attacker benefits.

    If World War 3 starts off with an EMP, it renders many of our plans moot. We have been warned in the strongest terms possible, but will it be enough?

  • Chicago Politician Pushes Ban On Businesses Banning Cash

    In July, Visa officially entered the global 'war on cash', adding to a long list of academics, elites, and bankers urging the removal of one of the last freedoms 'for the good of the rest of us'. However, if Alderman Edward Burke has his way, that 'war on cash' will end in Chicago after he submitted an ordinance at last week's City Council meeting to ban businesses from banning cash.

    According to the ordinance, "credit card giant Visa announced it is 'launching a major effort to encourage businesses to go cashless," through a campaign called the Visa Cashless Challenge offering $500,000 for 50 businesses to go cash-free.

    As DNAInfo.com reports, the ordinance cites Argo Tea, SweetGreen, Epic Burger and Goddess and the Baker as Chicago businesses that have already gone cashless, but the stores themselves don't seem to have had any issues…

    Xuan Tea, a shop at 1816 N. Milwaukee Ave. in Bucktown, opened in September and is credit card-only.

    "It's been working out fine. Some are taken aback initially, but we haven't had any problems with it," manager Will Quanstrom said.

     

    "Mostly everyone has a credit card in their pocket, even if they're just out for a jog. It's easier and it's simpler for us. We don't have to go to the bank, or count drawers out." The tea shop has a sign at the front counter that says it only takes credit cards.

    Nevertheless, as DNAInfo.com notes, the ordinance, however, points out that credit card companies typically tack on a 1 percent to 3 percent fee on transactions, "a business cost typically passed on to consumers via increased pricing."

     Burke called his ordinance a "fair and equal access" issue and calls out Visa's repression of the poor and young…

    "A 'no cash' sign is a 'not welcome' sign for many without ready access to credit, including those who are low- or fixed-income, homeless, undocumented, young or victims of identity theft," he said.

     

    It adds that those under 18 can't apply for credit cards, making a cash ban "de facto age discrimination," while many low-income families can't even afford to open a bank account.

    The ordinance would make it illegal to decline cash as payment at any business in retail sales or food and drink, under the penalty of fines starting at $1,000 and up to $2,500 a day.

    *  *  *

    As we noted previously, this ongoing push for a cashless society in EuropeAsia, and the Americas is about much more than just phasing out paper money – it’s about central planners solidifying control over the public’s wealth. This ongoing merger of corporate and government interests is the definition of crony capitalism. Regardless of the blatant collusion, the choices individuals make will still ultimately decide the direction for the future. Buying material goods on credit has become a lifestyle for millions, but the long-term costs of those decisions must be understood if there’s any chance for progress.

    Americans have made a huge mistake by running up a staggering $1 trillion dollars in credit card debt with an average interest rate of over 16%. Thanks to the Federal Reserve system, companies like Mastercard, Discover, and American Express can issue bonds paying extremely low-interest rates to the investors while simultaneously lending that money out to credit card holders at sky high rates. Companies will always take advantage of opportunities to increase profits, but the people’s willingness to keep borrowing from them is at the core of the problem.

    Access to cheap capital has been extended to the largest corporations for over a decade, but when it comes to small businesses or individuals there is a completely different set of standards. The pressure to consistently increase revenues and stock prices has led to an unnatural parasitic relationship between these companies and their customers. Cash is one of the last options that allows people a way to avoid dealing with this kind of shakedown.

    More than 30% of all payments in the U.S. are still conducted in cash, but financial intermediaries that charge processing fees are joining with the State and central banks to ensure the public has no room to innovate.

  • FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions

    As the mainstream media continues to obsess over $100,000 worth Facebook ads allegedly purchased by Russian spies in 2016 seeking to throw the presidential election, we’re almost certain they’ll ignore the much larger Russian bombshell dropped today in the form of newly released FBI documents that reveal for the very first time that the Obama administration was well aware of illegal bribery, extortion and money laundering schemes being conducted by the Russians to get a foothold in the atomic energy business in the U.S. before approving a deal that handed them 20% of America’s uranium reserves…and resulted in a windfall of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    As we pointed out last summer when Peter Schweizer first released his feature documentary Clinton Cash, the Uranium One deal, as approved by the Obama Administration, netted the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation millions of dollars in donations and ‘speaking fees’ from Uranium One shareholders and other Russian entities.

    Russian Purchase of US Uranium Assets in Return for $145mm in Contributions to the Clinton Foundation – Bill and Hillary Clinton assisted a Canadian financier, Frank Giustra, and his company, Uranium One, in the acquisition of uranium mining concessions in Kazakhstan and the United States.  Subsequently, the Russian government sought to purchase Uranium One but required approval from the Obama administration given the strategic importance of the uranium assets.  In the run-up to the approval of the deal by the State Department, nine shareholders of Uranium One just happened to make $145mm in donations to the Clinton Foundation.  Moreover, the New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, with ties to the Kremlin, around the same time.  Needless to say, the State Department approved the deal giving Russia ownership of 20% of U.S. uranium assets 

    Now, thanks to newly released affidavits from a case that landed one of the Russian co-conspirators, Vadim Mikerin, in jail, we learn that not only was the Obama administration aware the Russians’ illegal acts in the U.S. but it may have also been fully aware that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.”  Per The Hill:

    Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

     

    Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

     

    They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

    Clinton Cash

    Of course, when Schweizer’s book first made Uranium One a political hot topic in 2015, both the Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions and insisted there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for anyone to oppose the deal.  That said, we now know that the FBI was aware of wrongdoing going back to at least April 2009 even though the deal wasn’t approved until October 2010.

    But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

     

    The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

     

    In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

    And guess who ran the FBI’s investigation into this particular Russian plot?  As The Hill notes, the Mikerin probe began in 2009 under Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, and ended in late 2015 under the controversial, former FBI Director James Comey who was relieved of his duties by President Trump.

    Ironically, when the DOJ finally arrested Mikerin in 2014, following 5 years of investigations in a massive international bribery and money-laundering scheme, rather than publicly celebrate, they seemingly swept it under the rug.  In fact, there was no public release concerning the case at all until a full year later when the DOJ announced a plea deal with Mikerin right before labor day.

    Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.

     

    But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.

     

    The only public statement occurred an entire year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

     

    By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.

     

    The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

    Perhaps this is what the “most transparent” President in history meant when he told Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” after his 2012 election.

     

    Below are the affidavits released today:

     

     

  • US Army Is Preparing For Decades Of Hybrid Wars

    Released on Monday, the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, or TRADOC, drafted a new strategy for how US ground forces will operate, fight, and campaign successfully across multiple domains—space, cyberspace, air, land, maritime—against all enemies in the 2025-2040 timeframe.

    The new strategy calls for “super-empowered individuals and small groups”, who are mobile and can simultaneously fight in every domain of warfare, which will replace the conventional large units like today.

    Since the end of the Cold War, US and Joint Forces have enjoyed considerable amounts of freedom across all domains. The purpose of this new concept is to prepare the US for an increasing number of actors who challenge US global hegemony.

    The reported titled “Multi-Domain Battle: Evolution of Combined Arms for the 21st Century, 2025-2040?, repeats one key point over and over again according to Defense One.

    Adversaries will make life as difficult as possible for U.S. troops by not declaring themselves to be the enemy, or, as the concept puts it, by “combining regular and irregular forces with criminal and terrorist enterprises to attack the Joint Force’s vulnerabilities while avoiding its strength.”

    The world got a whiff of this new concept in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine through the use of local paramilitaries and proxy forces. “Adversaries have blurred the distinction between actions ‘below armed conflict’ and ‘conflict,’ enabling the achievement of strategic military objectives short of what the U.S. traditionally considers ‘war,” the report says.

    Defense One then summarizes four more reasons why the US Army has to evolve onto a multi-domain battlefield or face the risk of losing America’s global empire:

    1. The exponential speed of information technology. U.S. forces can’t assume that they will have the best phones, drones, or computer hardware on the battlefield. As computers get smaller, cheaper, and more widely available, U.S. tech advantages will disintegrate.
    2. Warfare will be much more urban. Some 60 percent (conservatively) of the Earth’s population will live in cities in 2030, many in megacities with populations of more than 10 million. This is where adversaries will try to engage U.S. forces, not in open fields or deserts where today’s Army and it senormous battle vehicles have the advantage.
    3. The internet will be a key aspect of the battlefield, not just in terms of trading cyber attacks with enemy hackers but in the need to constantly and expertly shape global opinion about the conflict. Troll armies spreading fake news and disinformation, coupled with enough social-media traffic to overwhelm open-source analysts, could “complicate the [Army’s] ability to gain and maintain an accurate, up-to-date, intelligence-driven understanding of the situation, as well as control of the information environment,” the document says.
    4. Every bad guy becomes The Joker. The Army sees a rise of “Super-empowered individuals and small groups” who can “use access to cyberspace, space, and nuclear, biological, radiological, and chemical weapons of mass effects to change the battlespace calculus and redefine the conditions of conflict resolution.” Read that to mean: lone wolves and minescule teams with the power to rival many of today’s nation-states.

    Glancing at the American Empire, there are nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. To maintain this global force,  the US Senate approved a $700 billion military bill this year. The amount eclipses $549 billion military spending cap established by 2011 Budget Control Act.

    Summing up, America’s Army is going through a drastic overhaul after the failed conventional wars in the Middle East. The idea of small and decentralized nodes loosely connected operating across multiple domains–space, cyberspace, air, land, maritime seems to be today’s answer for tomorrow’s warfare. The concept has already been implemented in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine with not the best results. Meanwhile, as the American Empire unravels, the military–industrial complex is set to profit from years of war, as outlined in the report.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 17th October 2017

  • Road To World War 3 Unveiled: Is China Planning To Deploy Its Army Against North Korea?

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    New photos of a recent highway construction in China could be part of a contingency plan to invade North Korea or amass a huge army on their shared border.

    Experts fear this newly uncovered plot could stoke the fires of World War 3, inevitably involving the United States.

    According to The Express UK, communist China has traditionally been North Korea’s closest ally, but Kim Jong-un’s continued nuclear and ballistic missile tests have tested Beijing’s patience on the rising tensions worldwide. These new revelations also come as North Korea was spotted transporting 30 Scud missiles from Hwangju, south of the capital Pyongyang, to Nampo, on the Korea Bay coast opposite China.

    New photos have emerged and they reveal that the Communist superpower is building a six-lane highway in its desolately populated northeast on route to North Korea.

    With most Chinese peasants not able to afford the luxury of a car, the construction of the G1112 Ji’an–Shuangliao Expressway, has led experts to believe it will be used for quick deployment of tanks and troops to its North Korean border.

    The photos obtained by Daily Star Online show Chinese construction workers digging tunnels through the mountains and massive cranes constructing bridges over rivers.

    Chinese workers construct a six lane highway to North Korea’s border.

    Scott Snyder, senior fellow for Korea studies and director of the program on US-Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Daily Star Online:

    “China’s Jilin province has even budgeted and paid for improvements in road infrastructure inside some parts of North Korea in recent years in order to improve logistical access to the Rason port inside North Korea.”

    Dean Cheng, an Asia security expert at the Heritage Foundation, a think tank in Washington, said Beijing would have a ”vast array” of contingency plans involving military options to seize Kim Jong-un’s nuclear weapons. And just last week, a highly respected security think tank warned that the . In the bombshell report, the Rand Corporation said any conflict between North Korea and South Korea and the US would quickly spiral into World War 3.

    If it’s decided upon by a nation to “take out” the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un, American and Chinese troops would then rush across the border in a race to take control of the tyrant’s nuclear weapons and missile facilities colliding in a clash between China and the US, effectively spawning WW3. A whopping 85% of North Korea’s nuclear facilities are believed to be located within 62 miles of the Chinese border.

     last month. The communist nation said that Donald Trump had made a “serious miscalculation” over North Korea. Photos uncovered by a North Korean monitoring site suggested . But there were other confusing and conflicting signs that  next week.

    It looks like the world is steamrolling its way to a third world war.

     

  • Iranian Parliament Speaker Says US "Will Regret" Withdrawing From Nuclear Deal

    Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Monday that the US would face stiff consequences if it withdraws from the JCPA – informally known as the Iran deal.

    Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran "had a developed plan and a certain law,” should the United States withdraw from the agreement on Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would "regret it,” Sputnik reported.

    Larijani made the statement in St. Petersburg where he was taking part in a parliamentary forum.

    President Donald Trump elicited cries of protest from the US’s co-signers of the pact, after saying last week that his administration had decided not to certify Iran's compliance with the deal and would instead leave the final decision up to Congress. The Trump administration has repeatedly insisted that, while Iran is technically complying with the terms of the pact, it is more broadly violating the “spirit” of the agreement by allegedly continuing to fund terrorist groups and developing and testing ballistic missiles.

    Trump’s speech, in which he also accused Iran of being a threat to global security, elicited howls of disapproval from the US’s partners in negotiating the deal.

    "We encourage the US Administration and Congress to consider the implications to the security of the US and its allies before taking any steps that might undermine the JCPOA, such as re-imposing sanctions on Iran lifted under the agreement," French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May said in a joint statement.

    In Brussels, Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief, said the Iran deal is an international agreement and "it is not up to any single country to terminate it."

    In a statement after Trump's speech, Russia's foreign ministry said there was no place in international diplomacy for "threatening" and "aggressive" rhetoric, adding that such methods were doomed to fail.

    "It is a hangover from the past, which does not correspond to modern norms of civilised dealings between countries," the statement said.

    "We viewed with regret the decision of the US President not to confirm to Congress that Iran is fulfilling in good faith" the nuclear deal, it added.

    During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed the US is trying to stay in the Iran nuclear deal while hoping to achieve more from it, days after President Donald Trump threatened to pull the US out of the agreement.

    The 2015 deal, reached between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the European Union, saw Tehran curtailing its nuclear program in exchange for the easing of crippling economic sanctions.

    In an amusing development, Trump has urged lawmakers to adopt a bill co-sponsored by Senator “Little” Bob Corker (who has recently traded barbs with the president after saying he wouldn’t seek another term in the senate) that would impose so-called “triggers” like Iran continuing its provocative missile launches, or advancing its nuclear-enrichment capabilities to the point to where it could build a nuclear bomb in a year’s time. Any of these actions would result in sanctions immediately being reimposed.

    The US's allies – not to mention President Donald Trump's political enemies – have insisted that Trump's decision to throw a wrench in the works of the deal could lead to its collapse, which in turn would result in Iran resuming its nuclear program, reviving the possibility of a future military showdown with a nuclear-armed Iran.

  • Car-Bomb Kills "One-Woman WikiLeaks" Who Led The Panama Papers Revelations

    Meet Daphne Caruana Galizia, the journalist who led the Panama Papers investigation into corruption in Malta.

    A blogger whose posts often attracted more readers than the combined circulation of the country’s newspapers, Caruana Galizia was recently described by Politico as a “one-woman WikiLeaks”.

    To John Dalli, a former European commissioner whom she helped bring down in a tobacco lobbying scandal, Galizia is “a terrorist.”

     

    To opposition MPs, she’s a political force of nature, one who fortunately has her guns aimed at the other side of the aisle.

     

    “She single-handedly brought the government to the verge of collapse,” says one MP. “The lady has balls,” says another.

     

    Galizia’s mantra was simple: blog relentlessly about the “cronyism that is accepted as something normal here. I can’t bear to see people like that rewarded.”

    Her blogs were a thorn in the side of both the establishment and underworld figures that hold sway in Europe’s smallest member state.

    Well, sadly, all that is over now, as Galizia was killed today when her car, a Peugeot 108, was destroyed by a powerful explosive device which blew the car into several pieces and threw the debris into a nearby field.

    As The Guardian reports, her most recent revelations pointed the finger at Malta’s prime minister, Joseph Muscat, and two of his closest aides, connecting offshore companies linked to the three men with the sale of Maltese passports and payments from the government of Azerbaijan.

    No group or individual has come forward to claim responsibility for the attack.

    Malta’s president, Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, called for calm.

    “In these moments, when the country is shocked by such a vicious attack, I call on everyone to measure their words, to not pass judgment and to show solidarity,” she said.

     

    “Everyone knows Ms Caruana Galizia was a harsh critic of mine,” Muscat at a hastily convened press conference, “both politically and personally, but nobody can justify this barbaric act in any way”.

    The Nationalist party leader, Adrian Delia – himself the subject of negative stories by Caruana Galizia – claimed the killing was linked to her reporting.

    “A political murder took place today,” Delia said in a statement.

     

    “What happened today is not an ordinary killing. It is a consequence of the total collapse of the rule of law which has been going on for the past four years.”

    Responding to news of the attack, the German MEP Sven Giegold, a leading figure in the parliament’s Panama Papers inquiry, said he was “shocked and saddened”.

    “It is too early to know the cause of the explosion but we expect to see a thorough investigation,” said Giegold.

     

    “Such incidents bring to mind Putin’s Russia, not the European Union. There can be absolutely no tolerance for violence against the press and violations of the freedom of expression in the European Union.

    It doews make one wonder just what is happening in Europe, as Greece's former finance minister tweeted…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Interesintgly, Muscat announced in parliament that FBI officers were on their way to Malta to assist with the investigation, following his request for outside help from the US government.

     

    Caruana Galizia was 53 and leaves a husband and three sons.

  • WORLD’S LARGEST OIL COMPANIES: Deep Trouble As Profits Vaporize While Debts Skyrocket

    SRSrocco

    By the SRSrocco Report,

    The world’s largest oil companies are in serious trouble as their balance sheets deteriorate from higher costs, falling profits and skyrocketing debt.  The glory days of the highly profitable global oil companies have come to an end.  All that remains now is a mere shadow of the once mighty oil industry that will be forced to continue cannibalizing itself to produce the last bit of valuable oil.

    I realize my extremely unfavorable opinion of the world’s oil industry runs counter to many mainstream energy analysts, however, their belief that business, as usual, will continue for decades, is entirely unfounded.  Why?  Because, they do not understand the ramifications of the Falling EROI – Energy Returned On Invested, and its impact on the global economy.

    For example, Chevron was able to make considerable profits in 1997 when the oil price was $19 a barrel.  However, the company suffered a loss in 2016 when the price was more than double at $44 last year.  And, it’s even worse than that if we compare the company’s profit to total revenues.  Chevron enjoyed a $3.2 billion net income profit on revenues of $42 billion in 1997 versus a $497 million loss on total sales of $114 billion in 2016.  Even though Chevron’s revenues nearly tripled in twenty years, its profit was decimated by the falling EROI.

    Unfortunately, energy analysts, who are clueless to the amount of destruction taking place in the U.S. and global oil industry by the falling EROI, continue to mislead a public that is totally unprepared for what is coming.  To provide a more realistic view of the disintegrating energy industry, I will provide data from seven of the largest oil companies in the world.

    The World’s Major Oil Companies Debt Explode Since The 2008 Financial Crisis

    To save the world from falling into total collapse during the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed and Central Banks embarked on the most massive money printing scheme in history.  One side-effect of the massive money printing (and the purchasing of assets) by the central banks, was that it pushed the price of oil to a record $100+ a barrel for more than three years.  While the large oil companies reported handsome profits due to the high oil price, many of them spent a great deal of capital to produce this oil.

    For instance, the seven top global oil companies that I focused on made a combined $213 billion in cash from operations in 2013. However, they also forked out $230 billion in capital expenditures.  Thus, the net free cash flow from these major oil companies was a negative $17 billion… and that doesn’t include the $44 billion they paid in dividends to their shareholders in 2013.  Even though the price of oil was $109 in 2013; these seven oil companies added $45 billion to their long-term debt:

    As we can see, the total amount of long-term debt in the group (Petrobras, Shell, BP, Total, Chevron, Exxon & Statoil) increased from $227 billion in 2012 to $272 billion in 2013.  Isn’t that ironic that the debt ($45 billion) rose nearly the same amount as the group’s dividend payouts ($44 billion)?  Of course, we can’t forget about the negative $17 billion in free cash flow in 2013, but here we see evidence that the top seven global oil companies were borrowing money even in 2013, at $109 a barrel oil, to pay their dividends.

    Since the 2008 global economic and financial crisis, the top seven oil companies have seen their total combined debt explode four times, from $96 billion to $379 billion currently.  You would think with these energy companies enjoying a $100+ oil price for more than three years; they would be lowering their debt, not increasing it.  Regrettably, the cost for companies to replace reserves, produce oil and share profits with shareholders was more than the $110 oil price.

    There lies the rub….

    One of the disadvantages of skyrocketing debt is the rising amount of interest the company has to pay to service that debt.  If we look at the chart above, Brazil’s Petrobras is the clear winner in the group by adding the most debt.  Petrobras’s debt surged from $21 billion in 2008 to $109 billion last year.  As Petrobras added debt, it also had to pay out more to service that debt.  In just eight years, the annual interest amount Petrobras paid to service its debt increased from $793 million in 2008 to $6 billion last year.  Sadly, Petrobras’s rising interest payment has caused another nasty side-effect which cut dividend payouts to its shareholders to ZERO for the past two years.

    Petrobras Annual Dividend Payments:

    2008 = $4.7 billion

    2009 = $7.7 billion

    2010 = $5.4 billion

    2011 = $6.4 billion

    2012 = $3.3 billion

    2013 = $2.6 billion

    2014 = $3.9 billion

    2015 = ZERO

    2016 = ZERO

    You see, this is a perfect example of how the Falling EROI guts an oil company from the inside out.  The sad irony of the situation at Petrobras is this:

    If you are a shareholder, you’re screwed, and if you invested funds (in company bonds, etc.) to receive a higher interest payment, you’re also screwed because you will never get back your initial investment.  So, investors are screwed either way.  This is what happens during the final stage of collapsing oil industry.

    Another negative consequence of the Falling EROI on these major oil companies’ financial statements is the decline in profits as the cost to produce oil rises more than the economic price the market can afford.

    Major Oil Companies’ Profits Vaporize… Even At Higher Oil Prices

    To be able to understand just how bad the financial situation has become at the world’s largest oil companies, we need to go back in time and compare the industry’s profitability versus the oil price.  To find a year when the oil price was about the same as it was in 2016, we have to return to 2004, when the average oil price was $38.26 versus $43.67 last year.  Yes, the oil price was lower in 2004 than in 2016, but I can assure you, these oil companies weren’t complaining.

    In 2004, the combined net income of these seven oil companies was almost $100 billion….. $99.2 billion to be exact.  Every oil company in the group made a nice profit in 2004 on a $38 oil price.  However, last year, the net profits in the group plunged to only $10.5 billion, even at a higher $43 oil price:

    Even with a $5 increase in the price of oil last year compared to 2004, these oil companies combined net income profit fell nearly 90%.  How about them apples.  Of the seven companies listed in the chart above, only four made profits last year, while three lost money.  Exxon and Total enjoyed the highest profits in the group, while Petrobras and Statoil suffered the largest losses:

    Furthermore, the financial situation is in much worse shape because “net income” accounting does not factor in the companies’ capital expenditures or dividend payouts.  Regardless, the world’s top oil companies’ profitability has vaporized even at a higher oil price.

    Now, another metric that provides us with more disturbing evidence of the Falling EROI in the oil industry is the collapse of  the “Return On Capital Employed.”  Basically, the Return On Capital Employed is just dividing the company’s earnings (before taxes and interest) by its total assets minus current liabilities.  In 2004, the seven companies listed above posted between 20-40% Return On Capital Employed.  However, this fell precipitously over the next decade and are now registering in the low single digits:

    In 2004, we can see that BP had the lowest Return On Capital Employed of 19.68% in the group, while Statoil had the highest at 46.20%.  If we throw out the highest and lowest figures, the average for the group was 29%.  Now, compare that to the average of 2.4% for the group in 2016, and that does not including BP and Chevron’s negative returns (shown in Dark Blue & Orange).

    NOTE:  I failed to include the Statoil graph line (Magenta)  when I made the chart, but I added the figures afterward.  For Statoil to experience a Return On Capital Employed decline from 46.2% in 2004 to less than 1% in 2016, suggests something is seriously wrong.

    We must remember, the high Return On Capital Employed by the group in 2004, was based on a $38 price of oil, while the low single-digit returns by the oil companies in 2016 were derived from a higher price of $43.  Unfortunately, the world’s largest oil companies are no longer able to enjoy high returns on a low oil price.  This is bad news because the market can’t afford a high oil price unless the Fed and Central Banks come back in with an even larger amount of QE (Quantitative Easing) money printing.

    I have one more chart that shows just how bad the Falling EROI is destroying the world’s top oil companies.  In 2004, these seven oil companies enjoyed a combined net Free Cash Flow minus dividends of a positive $34 billion versus a negative $39.1 billion in 2016:

    Let me explain these figures.  After these oil companies paid their capital expenditures and dividends to shareholders in 2004, they had a net $34 billion left over.  However, last year these companies were in the HOLE for $39.1 billion after paying capital expenditures and dividends.  Thus, many of them had to borrow money just to pay dividends.

    To understand how big of a change has taken place at the oil companies since 2004, here are the figures below:

    Top 7 Major Oil Companies Free Cash Flow Figures

    2004 Cash From Operations = …………$139.6 billion

    2004 Capital Expenditures = ……………..$67.7 billion

    2004 Free Cash Flow = ………………………$71.9 billion

    2004 Shareholder Dividends = …………..$37.9 billion

    2004 Free Cash Flow – Dividends = $34 billion

    2016 Cash From Operations = ……………..$118.5 billion

    2016 Capital Expenditures = ………………..$117.5 billion

    2016 Free Cash Flow = …………………………..$1.0 billion

    2016 Shareholder Dividends = ……………….$40.1 billion

    2016 Free Cash Flow – Dividends = -$39.1 billion

    Here we can see that the top seven global oil companies made more in cash from operations in 2004 ($139.6 billion) compared to 2016 ($118.5 billion).   That extra $21 billion in operating cash in 2004 versus 2016 was realized even at a lower oil price.  However, what has really hurt the group’s Free Cash Flow, is the much higher capital expenditures of $117.5 billion in 2016 compared to the $67.7 billion in 2004.  You will notice that the net combined dividends didn’t increase that much in the two periods… only by $3 billion.

    So, the lower cash from operations and the higher capital expenditures have taken a BIG HIT on the balance sheets of these oil companies.  This is precisely why the long-term debt is skyrocketing, especially over the past three years as the oil price fell below $100 in 2014.  To continue making their shareholders happy, many of these companies are borrowing money to pay dividends.  Unfortunately, going further into debt to pay shareholders is not a prudent long-term business model.

    The world’s major oil companies will continue to struggle with the oil price in the $50 range.  While some analysts forecast that higher oil prices are on the horizon, I disagree.  Yes, it’s true that oil prices may spike higher for a while, but the trend will be lower as the U.S. and global economies start to contract.  As oil prices fall to $40 and below, oil companies will begin to cut capital expenditures even further.  Thus, the cycle of lower prices and the continued gutting of the global oil industry will move into high gear.

    There is one option that might provide these oil companies with a buffer… and that is a new even larger Fed and Central Bank money printing scheme which would result in severe inflation and possibly hyperinflation.  But, that won’t be a long-term solution, instead just another lousy band-aid in a series of band-aids that have only postponed the inevitable.

    The coming bankruptcy of the once mighty global oil industry will be the death-knell of the world economy.  Without oil, the global economy grinds to a halt.  Of course, this will not occur overnight.  It will take time.  However, the evidence shows that a considerable wound has already taken place in an industry that has provided the world with much-needed oil for more than a century.

    Lastly, without trying to be a broken record, the peak and decline of global oil production will destroy the value of most STOCKS, BONDS and REAL ESTATE.  If you have placed most of your bests in one of these assets, you have my sympathies.

    Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

  • Ex-DEA Agent Blasts Congress And Drug Industry For Creating The Opioid Crisis

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Whistleblower Joe Rannazzisi is telling all when it comes to placing blame for the nation’s opioid crisis. He says drug distributors pumped opioids into communities in the United States knowing that people were dying and that the US government is helping.

    Joe Rannazzisi is a tough and blunt former DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) deputy assistant administrator with a law degree, a pharmacy degree, and a growing rage at the unrelenting death toll from opioids. Congress has often been complicit in atrocities, especially when a politician profits off of the removal of the rights of others. So it should not come as a surprise that Rannazzisi is blaming Congress and the drug industry for the opioid epidemic gripping the nation.

    Rannazzisi ran the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, the division that regulates and investigates the pharmaceutical industry. Now in a joint investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post, Rannazzisi tells the inside story of how, he says, the opioid crisis was allowed to spread. Its quick spread was also aided by Congress, lobbyists, and a drug distribution industry that shipped, almost unchecked, hundreds of millions of pills to rogue pharmacies and pain clinics providing the rocket fuel for a crisis that, over the last two decades, has claimed 200,000 lives.

    The DEA responded to the explosive report that the government is helping keep Americans addicted to opioids so that pharmaceutical companies can continue to boast big profits. The DEA says it has taken actions against far fewer opioid distributors under a new law. A Justice Department memo shows 65 doctors, pharmacies, and drug companies received suspension orders in 2011. Only six of them have gotten them this year.

    “During the past seven years, we have removed approximately 900 registrations annually, preventing reckless doctors and rogue businesses from making an already troubling problem worse,” the DEA said in a written statement.

     

    “Increasingly, our investigators initiated more than 10,000 cases and averaged more than 2,000 arrests per year.”

    But Rannazzisi says this is an industry that is out of control and the DEA isn’t making a dent in this crisis.

    “What they [big pharma] wanna do, is do what they wanna do, and not worry about what the law is. And if they don’t follow the law in drug supply, people die. That’s just it. People die.”

    The harsh reality is that the burgeoning issue of the opioid epidemic is lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry and the politicians who help fuel it, so there’s no real rush to stem the bleeding of this crisis.

    “This is an industry that allowed millions and millions of drugs to go into bad pharmacies and doctors’ offices, that distributed them out to people who had no legitimate need for those drugs,” Rannazzisi said.

    Most of his anger is reserved for the distributors of opioid drugs. Some of them are actually multibillion-dollar, Fortune 500 companies. They are the middlemen that ship the pain pills from manufacturers, like Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson to drug stores all over the country. Rannazzisi accuses the distributors of fueling the opioid epidemic by turning a blind eye to pain pills being diverted to illicit use.

    “This is an industry that allowed millions and millions of drugs to go into bad pharmacies and doctors’ offices, that distributed them out to people who had no legitimate need for those drugs,” Rannazzisi said.

     

    “The three largest distributors are Cardinal Health, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen. They control probably 85 or 90 percent of the drugs going downstream,” he added when prompted.

    Rannazzisi said it’s a “fact” that the big pharmaceutical companies knew they were pumping drugs into people unnecessarily for profits and that people were dying.

    In the late 1990s, opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone became a routine medical treatment for chronic pain. Drug companies assured doctors and congressional investigators that the pain medications were effective and safe. With many doctors convinced the drugs posed few risks, prescriptions skyrocketed and so did addiction.

    Big pharma had a plan. It was solely a business plan. Their plan was to sell a lotta pills and make a lot of money. And they did both of those very well.

  • Move To Digital Currencies Accelerates As PBoC Successfully Tests Algos For Digital Money

    In a story that seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the western press, the China Daily reported that the PBoC has successfully designed a prototype that can regulate its future supply of digital fiat currency.

    In a report, “PBoC inches closer to digital currency”, the newspaper stated that China’s central bank “has completed trial runs on the algorithms needed for digital currency supply, taking it a step closer to addressing the technological challenges associated with digital currencies, according to a top official associated with the project.”

    China’s has been preparing for digital currency since 2016. In June this year, the PBoC “finished several digital money trials involving fake transactions between it and some of the country’s commercial banks.” Given over-invoicing of imports and the shenanigans in the shadow banking/WMP sector, we suspect that the commercial banks took to these trials like proverbial flies to feces.

    The China Daily article goes on to suggest that, while there is no timetable, “China is likely to become the first country that would deploy a digital fiat currency.”

    Far be it for us to question the accuracy of the China Daily – which Wikipedia notes is often used as a guide to Chinese government policy – but we were expecting Sweden (already the world’s most cashless society) to be first.  It has been widely reported that the introduction of an “e-krona” is being investigated by the Riksbank. Forbes noted last month that “The inquiry is expected to be finalized in late 2019.” It would not replace cash, which accounts for 1% of transactions in Sweden according to a recent BBC report, but operate alongside physical cash initially.

    So…while China expects to be first, it will be “some time before the currency goes public”. According to Di Gang, a senior engineer of the Institute of Digital Money at the PBOC, a number of concerns need to be solved like “managing risks and improving efficiency.” He added that “the government also needs to factor whether the public would use the currency.”

    We know the answer to that.

    Yes, although it would be much quicker if Chinese citizens could somehow use it to get their savings out of the country.

    Back to the serious work of the PBoC’s Institute of Digital Money. Yao Qian, the director-general no less, said that the successful simulation of money supply had paved the way for the central bank to become the future sole regulator and policymaker governing the value of digital currency. That sounded like a veiled explanation for the recent heavy-handed clampdown on Bitcoin trading in the Middle Kingdom. Indeed, the story notes that “Unlike Bitcoin or other digital money issued by the private sector, the digital fiat currency has the same legal status as the Chinese yuan”

    As this will be a government-backed digital currency, we wonder whether Jamie Dimon will be an investor or early adopter? Alternatively, he might be able to buy a Russian version in due course.

    Yesterday, Cointelegraph reported that local news sources in Russia had been informed by the Minister of Communications, Nikolay Nikiforov, that President Putin has approved a plan for the issue of a “CrypoRuble.” There was no detail, however, on timeline and no any subsequent confirmation that we’ve seen. Coincidentally, or not, Nikiforov is quoted as saying “I confidently declare that we run (sic) CryptoRuble for one simple reason: if we do not, then after 2 months our neighbors in the EurAsEC will.”

    So, the world might be moving towards digital, sovereign-backed currencies faster than many people realized. For the time being, however, Bitcoin and its private sector rivals continue to have the playing field to themselves.

    Portfolio managers who want exposure to the cryptos either remain on the sidelines or, as Cathie Wood, CEO, CIO and Founder, of Ark Investment Management, said on Bloomberg TV earlier, are forced to pay a premium via the GBTC (Bitcoin Investment Trust).

     

    Wood commented that “We are a registered investment company, Ark Invest, we can only own financial securities…our funds own GBTC which sells at a premium to the underlying bitcoin investment trusts…the premium is because of the scarcity value. In my IRA, for example, I can’t get any to crypto, except through a GBTC. No one can and the same with our funds…We’ve tried to buy the underlying, but the New York Stock Exchange preferred a traded security and that’s how we ended up with a GBTC.”

    As the Bloomberg guests went on to discuss, the situation may not change unless and until Bitcoin futures are approved by the CFTC, perhaps in early/mid-2018. That could pave the way for the currently stalled approvals for ETFs with the SEC and bring additional institutional capital into crypto.

  • 7 Years & Counting – Trump's Looming EV Time-Bomb

    Authored by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

    In just seven years’ time – unless Trump does something before his four years are up – the average fuel efficiency of the average car will have to almost double. From 35.5 MPG (now) to 54.5 MPG by 2025. So reads the fuel economy fatwa issued by Trump’s predecessor.

    No matter how much it costs, no matter what it takes.

    To put this in perspective, as of 2018, there is only one car available that is capable of meeting the 2025 “goal” – as these forced-on-us things are styled: It is the Toyota Prius Prime plug-in hybrid. Nothing else comes close.

    Well, except electric cars.

    These average infinity – as far as gas consumption goes. Which is very helpful insofar as the averages. The federal fuel economy fatwa is formally the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, which is an arbitrary number pulled out of a hat by federal regulatory ayatollahs, who have somehow become the arbiters of how much fuel the cars we buy ought to use.

    Those cars which use more gas than the arbitrarily decreed figure are subject to punitive “gas guzzler” fines meant specifically to discourage their manufacture as well as their purchase, by making them artificially more expensive to manufacture and more expensive to buy.

    In case you wondered, this is why larger vehicles and vehicles with larger engines are becoming both scarce and exotically priced. If you’re young – 30 or less – you probably will not remember but there was a time when most Americans, including working-class Americans, routinely drove large cars with large engines. Bought them brand-new. Smaller cars with smaller engines were also available, but people bought them because that’s what they wanted – not because they were forced to by government fatwas that put larger and larger-engined cars out of their reach, as today.

    It is also why suburbanites routinely drive SUVs today. “SUVs” are a made-up class of vehicle that did not exist prior to the CAFE fatwa. The class was made-up by the car industry as a way to get around the fatwa – which (at the time) granted a partial exemption to what were then just trucks, which were considered work vehicles. But if you enclosed the truck’s bed and added seats – you could carry people. Voila!

    The SUV.

    It took Uncle a few years to catch on – and for the CAFE regs to catch up. In the interim, vast fleets of SUVs hit the streets, because people still wanted large vehicles with large engines and the truck-derived SUV’s ground clearance and available 4×4 only made the combo even more appealing. Certainly more so than the “downsized” (and down-engined) cars the car companies were being forced to build, even though the demand was elsewhere.

    Uncle did catch up, of course. The fatwa was changed to envelope SUVs and other “light trucks.” They are now on the endangered species list, too.

    As are mid-sized cars with mid-sized engines. It is no random thing that six cylinder engines, which were as recently as two years ago abundantly available in the mid-sized/family car class of vehicle – are becoming extremely uncommon, if not unavailable. Most of the cars which used to offer them – examples include the Mazda6 and Honda Accord – no longer do.

    Deep within the EPA . . .

    Just as – a generation ago – V8s were all-but-eliminated from the mid-priced/family car class.

    The current fatwa – 35.5 MPG on average – is already a bar too high. None shall pass. Not without radical redesigns, already becoming obvious in the person of nine and ten speed transmissions and aluminum bodies and other such artifices of desperation. Inevitably,  diminution in power and capability and also size will have to be resorted to – to get from 35.5 to 54.5 MPG.

    That, or build far fewer larger (and even medium-sized) cars. And even fewer trucks and SUVs.

    Or, build lots of electric cars.

    Averages, remember.

    This is the practical reason behind the weirdly sudden bum’s rush by every major car manufacturer to build electric cars. As many as possible – even if they don’t sell. Even if they have to be given away at a considerable loss per car (the loss made up by tax write-offs, “carbon credits” and other subsidies).

    Because each electric car – which uses no gas at all – is extremely helpful mathematically, as a regulatory dodge – even if a disaster economically and practically. The presence of one EV on the left side of the scale balances the SUV (or even the car) on the right side of the scale. The more they build of the one, the more they can sell of the other.

    It is the only way.

    Because there is no other way that any car – except a very small hybrid car – is ever going to average 54.5 MPG. Not without extreme lightening up, at least – which will never happen because then the car would be “unsafe” – not able to comply with all the federal bumper-impact, roof crush and other such fatwas.

    Or with a diesel – which the regulatory ayatollahs have also effectively outlawed.

    So without vast fleets of electric cars to balance out the scales, other-than-small (and small-engined) cars will become much harder to justify building at all, because their cost to buy will become exorbitant, such that very few people will be able to afford them.

    Yet people still want the larger (and larger-engined) cars.  Notice the demand for “gas guzzlers’ has not slackened, which must frustrate the fuel efficiency fatwa-issuers. Who are determined to force fuel economy down people’s throats no matter how much they didn’t ask for it.

    Here’s where Trump comes in – or could.

    He is, after all, the elected representative of the people – to invoke the monk-chant of “democracy” – while the regulatory ayatollahs represent no one except themselves and perhaps a few Claybrookian Clover types who are simpatico with the idea of forcing other people to do as they think best even when it’s none of their business and they ought to just mind their own.

    Trump could – and should – simply countermand the CAFE fatwa. Tear the thing up, throw the pieces up over his head, confetti style. It was not, after all, passed by Congress – the representatives of the people. It was imposed by regulatory bureaucrats.

    If we truly do live in a democracy – as we are constantly told – then the will of the people ought to prevail.

    This would, of course, trigger wild ululations among the ayatollahs but wouldn’t that be almost as gratifying as a really top-drawer steak dinner with all the trimmings?

    Trump would probably also assure his re-election, despite everything – because the people give a damn. Not about fuel efficiency. But about being left free to buy the type of car – or SUV  – that meets their needs.

    The ayatollahs be damned.

    *  *  *

    If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! Our donate button is here.

  • Is This The Bizarre Reason Why Tesla Is Struggling To Ramp Model 3 Production?

    A little over a week ago, we noted the damning – if unsurprising – report from the Wall Street Journal revealing that Tesla’s massive production miss on the Model 3, after only producing a tiny fraction of the 1,500 Model 3 sedans that it promised customers, might have been attributable to the fact that key parts of the cars were still being assembled by hand.

    But according to a new report from the WSJ and Automotive News this morning, the real problem with Tesla’s Model 3 production might be even more basic and embarrassing…the company can’t figure out how to weld steel.

    What’s behind Tesla’s manufacturing woes? It could be something as simple as steel.

     

    Based on details in a Wall Street Journal report and in a video of the production line posted on Twitter by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, experts say the electric vehicle maker appears to be struggling with welding together a mostly steel vehicle, as opposed to the primarily aluminum bodies of the Model S and Model X.

     

    The Model 3’s aluminum and steel body requires more welding rather than the adhesive and rivets in aluminum bodies, experts say.

     

    Harbour described the difference between the body of the Model 3 and those of the Model S and Model X as “partly cloudy vs. partly sunny.” The change in materials would require processes new to Tesla.

     

    “There’s a big difference there. They haven’t been doing a lot of spot welding on the first two vehicles because they’re all aluminum,” Harbour said. “The learning curve is pretty steep.”

    As automotive manufacturing consultant Michael Tracy of Agile Group pointed out, the clues of Tesla’s steel problems came from a video posted by Musk himself of the Model 3 assembly line.  Referencing Musk’s video, Tracy said a well functioning auto assembly line would not produce the sparks seen in the video below which are symptomatic of welds spots overheating or poor alignment of components.

    After the Journal report, Musk tweeted a of the Model 3 production line, which was operating at one-tenth of its potential speed. In the video, sparks fly as two robotic arms assemble parts of the vehicle frame. He followed with another on Wednesday, Oct. 11, showing body panel stamping at full speed.

     

    “Resistance welding should make a little smoke, but when you see stuff popping out like that, that’s called expulsion,” automotive manufacturing consultant Michael Tracy of Agile Group in Howell, Mich., said of the first video. “It’s symptomatic of weld spots getting too hot because they’re poorly planned, or in this case, the metal not being pulled all the way together.”

     

    Poor welds can increase the damage to a vehicle in an accident, and can lead to rattling and squeaking as the car ages, Tracy said.

    A post shared by Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on Oct 8, 2017 at 3:20pm PDT

    //platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js

     

    Meanwhile, Tracy says that mistakes like these are things that most auto OEMs would catch and fix 6 months before production launch…which raises the question “is the expertise there?”

    Tracy said slowed assembly lines do little to prove production is running smoothly because lines perform differently when running at full speed.

     

    “At this point, you would only be running it slow if you were having troubles and you were afraid the welds you were going to make weren’t going to be good,” Tracy said. “It has to be able to run at rate for acceptance testing.”

     

    The types of problems Tesla is dealing with are normally worked out long before the assembly line is expected to be working at capacity, Harbour said.

     

    “This is something a plant typically goes through four to six months in advance of a production launch,” Harbour said. “This raises the question: ‘Is the expertise there?'”

    Of course, as we’ve pointed out multiple times of late (see: Porsche And Mercedes Plot Musk Offensive With “Anything Tesla Can Do, We Can Do Better” Strategy), Tesla has historically been somewhat shielded from the negative financial consequences of their manufacturing inefficiencies because they’ve been the only EV game in town…but that’s all about to change in a big way.

    With an influx of competitive EVs on the horizon, Tesla must iron out its manufacturing problems in the next few months or risk losing its competitive edge before the Model 3 reaches a larger audience.

     

    “Before, there was only Tesla. Now, there’s going to be dozens of alternatives,” said Ron Harbour, a manufacturing consultant at Oliver Wyman. “They’re going to have to get really efficient at manufacturing. They have to be cost competitive and price competitive to stay in the business.”

     

    Since July, automakers have been one-upping each other on plans to electrify their lineups. Volvo said it would introduce only electrified vehicles starting in 2019. Jaguar Land Rover said it would offer electrified versions of all of its vehicles by 2020. BMW expects to be able to mass-produce EVs by 2020, offering 12 models by 2025. Mercedes said it will electrify its lineup by 2022.

     

    Detroit also has been turning its attention to electrification. Ford Motor Co. plans to introduce 13 electrified vehicles in the next five years, including a crossover with 300 miles of range. General Motors introduced the Chevrolet Bolt last year, with at least 20 all-electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles coming by 2023 — two such vehicles will be introduced in the next 18 months.

    Perhaps this is why Daimler’s CEO didn’t seem to be all that worried about having a manufacturing competition with Tesla?

  • "We Don't Know How To Replace The Vast Gold Deposits Of The Past"

    Authored by Christoff Gisiger via Finanz und Wirthschaft,

    Pierre Lassonde, chairman of Franco-Nevada, expects production in the gold mining sector to decline significantly and foresees a price push for the yellow metal.

    Few people have achieved more success in the mining business than Pierre Lassonde. The savvy Canadian is the co-founder and chairman of Toronto based Franco-Nevada (FNV 99.91 -0.94%) and pioneered the royalty business model in the gold mining sector based on the model used in the oil-and-gas industry. For investors this strategy has paid off golden returns. Today however, Mr. Lassonde points out that the gold industry hasn’t made any large discoveries for years which will put heavy upward pressure on prices in the years to come. He also thinks that US President Donald Trump is good for the yellow metal and that investors will fare better with gold than with stocks.

    Mr. Lassonde, after a few difficult years gold seems to get its shine back. What’s next for the gold price?
    Right now, there is more demand for paper gold than for physical gold. For instance, when you look at the refineries in Switzerland they will tell you that they’ve got the bouillon but they’re not busy. It’s not like a year and half ago when they had no stock and the gold bars basically were flying off their shelf the minute they were produced. So the pressure is in the paper gold market, the futures market.

    What’s the reason for that?
    Part of the recent strength of gold is what I call a risk premium on the world. There is a lot of speculation that has to do with the tensions around North Korea and President Trump. I don’t have a personal relationship with Mr. Trump but I know the man a little bit. When he was elected, my prediction was that he was going to tie up the US administration in a knot because he’s totally unpredictable. Nobody knows where he’s going and you cannot run a country that way.

    And what does this have to do with gold?
    Anyone else in the Oval Office would not make such outlandish statements as Mr. Trump makes. Gold is benefiting from that. After the US election, my prediction was that the dollar was going to suffer from Mr. Trump being in office. The price of gold is intimately related to the dollar. Gold is essentially the »anti-dollar»: If the dollar is strong, gold is weak and if the dollar is weak, gold is strong. So what we are seeing now is exactly what I have expected: a lower dollar and therefore a stronger gold price.

    So where do you think the gold will go from here?
    My view has been between $1250 to $1350 per ounce for this year and then slightly ramping up next year to around $1300 to $1400. But for gold to get into the next real bull market we need signs of inflation. So far we haven’t seen them. The Federal Reserve and other central banks have piled up huge reserves. But there is no inflation because the money is sitting within the banks and they are not lending it. Therefore, you don’t get a multiplier effect. But what happened recently in the US – the one-two punch with respect to the hurricanes »Irma» and »Harvey» – is going to require an enormous amount of reconstruction. This could finally move the needle on inflation. Also, Europe is doing much better. So at some point I suspect we are going to see inflation start to pick up a little bit.

    What does this mean for the mining industry?
    First of all, at a gold price of $1300 the industry by and large is doing well. I tell my peers: »If you are not making money at $1300 you should not be in this business.» So it’s a good price and you should be making good money. But the industry has had to shrink a lot. When the gold price dropped to $1000 at the end of 2015 everybody in the business was too fat. So the industry laid people off, consolidated, shrunk and many junior companies have been wiped out.

    What are the consequences of that?
    Production is declining and this is going to put an enormous amount of pressure on prices down the road. If you look back to the 70s, 80s and 90s, in every of those decades the industry found at least one 50+ million ounce gold deposit, at least ten 30+ million ounce deposits and countless 5 to 10 million ounce deposits. But if you look at the last 15 years, we found no 50 million ounce deposit, no 30 million ounce deposit and only very few 15 million ounce deposits. So where are those great big deposits we found in the past? How are they going to be replaced? We don’t know. We do not have those ore bodies in sight.

    Why aren’t there any large discoveries anymore?
    What the industry has not done anywhere near enough is to put money back into exploration. They have not put anywhere near enough money into research and development, particularly for new technologies with respect to exploration and processing. The way our industry works is it takes around seven years for a new mine to ramp up and then come to production. So it doesn’t really matter what the gold price will do in the next few years: Production is coming off and that means the upward pressure on the gold price could be very intense.

    Why didn’t the industry put more money into exploration?
    The industry has had to shrink a lot. Also, the boom in Exchange Traded Funds has changed the capital markets in a huge way: Companies that are part of an ETF get treated like chosen sons. But when you’re not in an ETF you’re getting marginalized. You become an orphan and the junior companies in particular have been completely orphaned.

    How does that impact the funding of mining?
    The thing with this industry is that you have to have an incredible amount of patience and you have to have money. And right now, it’s hard to get money. The risk appetite of investors has been gone for many, many years. If you are not one of the chosen few you can’t get money. You sit on the sideline and wait. In the past, more than half of the new discoveries have been made by junior companies. But they haven’t had any money now for like 10 years. So how are you going to find anything if you don’t fund the junior companies?

    What’s your advice for investors who are interested in gold?
    It’s very interesting. When you look over a hundred years back there are periods of 10 to 30 years where you would rather be in the stock market. But then, there are other periods from 10 to 15 years where you would rather be in gold.

    In which period are we today?
    Let’s take the Dow Jones  Industrial. To my mind, the Dow is essentially an expression of financial assets. Gold on the other hand is what represents hard assets: real estate, paintings and other hard assets. So when you look at the gold cycle from 1966 to 1980, you can see that the ratio between the Dow and the gold price at the beginning topped out at almost 28:1: It took 28 units of gold to buy one unit of the Dow. Then the long term trend reversed and the ratio went all the way down to 1:1. A similar cycle took place in the 30s. The Dow crashed from around 360 in 1929 to 36 in the next years. So it lost like 90% of its value. On the other hand, the gold price went from 20 to 34 and the ratio essentially bottomed out at almost 1:1, like at the end of 1966 to 1980 cycle.

    And what does that mean for investors today?

    Today, the Dow is over 22,000 and the price of gold is around $1300. This equals a ratio of almost 18:1 and you can clearly see that the trend is starting to roll over. So what does it mean if we go down to a ratio of 1:1 once again? The gold price would hit a big number and nobody is prepared for that. I don’t know any more than anybody else because it’s about the future. But it happened already twice in the past 100 years. So I think the odds that it’s going to happen a third time are pretty good. History does repeat itself, never exactly in the same fashion, but in the same form. Therefore, I would rather own a little bit more gold than not. So I think for an average investor, it should be the absolute rule to hold around 5 to 10% gold in your portfolio, like rule number one.

Digest powered by RSS Digest