• American Apparel Preparing Second Bankruptcy Filing In A Year

  Less than 9 months after emerging from Chapter 11 proceedings, American Apparel is allegedly preparing for another bankruptcy filing after turnaround efforts by the previous plan of reorganization sponsors, including Standard General, Monarch Alternative Capital, Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Pentwater Capital, have apparently failed.  While details are sparse given that the company is now privately held, a note from Bloomberg suggests that the company may be preparing a sale that would have to be implemented through a bankruptcy proceeding to allow new owners to shed leases and other liabilities associated with unprofitable stores.

  American Apparel Inc. is preparing for its second bankruptcy filing in as many years, according to people familiar with the situation, capping a tumultuous stretch that included tumbling sales, red ink and a split with controversial founder Dov Charney.

   

  The filing may come as soon as the next few weeks, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions aren’t public. The move could help set the stage for a sale of the Los Angeles-based company by letting it exit leases and shutter part of the retail operation, according to the people. Still, the plan isn’t yet final and could change as the holiday season approaches.

   

  The clothing maker only emerged from bankruptcy in February, when former bondholders — led by Monarch Alternative Capital — took over the company. A turnaround plan to return to American Apparel’s roots and focus on basic items like T-shirts and skirts didn’t improve results enough, according to the people. The company also has hired restructuring firm Berkeley Research Group for guidance, the people said.

   

  American Apparel hired investment bank Houlihan Lokey earlier this year to consider a sale after receiving interest, according to the people. The potential buyers are mainly interested in the company’s wholesale unit and the brand, they said. That leaves its roughly 200 retail stores in limbo.

  Of course, American Apparel just emerged from a pre-arranged bankruptcy filing back in February with CEO Paula Schneider promising renewed financial strength via new products and revamped stores. 

  “By improving our financial footing, we will be able to refocus our business efforts on the execution of our turnaround strategy,” Chief Executive Officer Paula Schneider said in the statement. The company plans to create new products, introduce new design initiatives, invest in new stores and expand its e-commerce business, she said.

  That said, given rumors of a new bankruptcy filing, we’re guessing that Moelis was “slightly” off in their financial projections filed in a Disclosure Statement with the court back in November 2015.  Frankly, we’re shocked as it seems like a pretty “reasonable” forecast…no hockey stick there…though we’re not sure we would have been very excited about attesting to the “feasibility” of a plan tied to this particular projection.

  

   

  And, like with many failed retail businesses, we suspect that the following liquidation analysis presented in the last disclosure statement now becomes the “upside” scenario for Monarch and Goldman.

  

  

  

• The Mayor Of London: "My Side" Versus Reality

  Submitted by Janet Tavakoli via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The number one reason British "Leave" voters backed Brexit was for self-determination. — Mega-poll by Lord Ashcroft.
  • Every time a social problem arises, one can randomly assign blame to a host country for not providing enough social support to newcomers. That benchmark, however, creates a shifting goalpost: how much is "enough"?
  • Mayor Sadiq Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.
  • Mayor Khan's presentation seemed designed to pacify Westerners and enable the spread of the rule of Islam.

  Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, addressed the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA) on September 15. Although his topic was "The Breakdown of Social Integration – The Challenge of Our Age," some crucial components of that challenge were notably absent from his presentation.

  Even though Mayor Khan said he believes that, "London is the powerhouse" for his country and is "proud that London was the only region in England to vote to remain in the European Union" (some boroughs voted 80% "Remain"), when it came to the United Kingdom as a whole, he said that "my side" lost the referendum.

  That strikes one as an odd way for the mayor of any city to talk. Isn't he the Mayor of all of London? Aren't the Londoners who voted for Brexit included on his "side"?

  Brexit Voters Want Self-Determination

  Mayor Khan claimed that for "Leave" voters, "immigration was the number one issue." However, Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll says otherwise. According to it, the number one issue for "Leave" (pro-Brexit) voters across Britain was "the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK."

  In other words, the number one reason they backed Brexit was self-determination. "Leave" voters did not like European Union officials –people they did not elect — making laws that could overrule laws passed by British Parliament. Immigration and trade concerns were apparently less important.

  Mayor Khan Appears to Prefer "Social Integration" to "Assimilation"

  Mayor Khan also observed that Britain's "levels of social integration are not keeping pace with our changing population and growing diversity." That is hardly surprising: according to Khan, "One of three Londoners were born outside the UK," and "the number of immigrants arriving in Britain every year has doubled between 1997 and 2015."

  Mayor Khan also said that he advocates "building bridges rather than walls" — a remark that was heard by many as a gratuitous sideswipe at the U.S. presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who is against illegal immigration and for vigorous vetting of legal immigrants. Mayor Khan later added: "Nobody mentioned Donald Trump here, which is very good." But of course he just had.

  Mayor Khan added that he would like more "asylum seekers" and "refugees," and advocated "social integration." "I don't mean assimilation," he stressed; "I mean social integration." He loosely defines social integration as "a level playing field" with a clear set of values and laws, but he left the difference between social integration and assimilation — perhaps intentionally — unclear. Doesn't Britain already have clear values and laws?

  What Mayor Khan seemed to be saying by advocating "social integration" rather than "assimilation" is that he not eager for Muslims to become more like the British ("assimilation") but that he would be comfortable with the British adapting to the Muslim way of life. The presence of more Muslims might accelerate this process of the British having to adapt to the way of life of a Muslim majority ("social integration"). What that would be followed by is anyone's guess. The historical pattern has been to invite the non-Muslims to convert, and those who do not are relegated to the status of second-class citizens or dhimmis, who willingly live under different laws for those of a lower status, who pay a yearly tax (jizya) to subsidize Muslims, and who accept being dominated rather than face up the threats of violence that would come from not accepting it.

  The Mayor never explained why assimilation — along the lines of the common culture melting pot of the United States — would not provide a level playing field and an even more harmonious society.

  Every time a social problem arises, one can randomly assign blame to a host country for not providing enough social support to newcomers. That benchmark, however, creates a shifting goalpost: how much is "enough"? This lack of clarity leaves the door open for perpetual unrest. No matter how much support a welcoming society provides for newcomers, it can always be accused of not doing "enough." Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers, not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.

  In a recent speech, London Mayor Sadiq Khan focused only on what Britain should provide to newcomers not on what newcomers should initiate on their own to fit into a country they entered willingly.

  Mayor Says Muslim, Mufti Says Apostate

  In the same speech, Mayor Khan claimed that being a Muslim is compatible with Western culture. That would only be true if "Muslim" meant one who ordered Islam à la carte. Islam means submission, and Muslims seem to disagree on how much submission is "enough." Also, at present, for non-Muslims in the West, zero submission to Islam is their right. Fundamentalist Muslim leaders such as Mufti Muhammed Aslam Naqshbandi Bandhalevi disagree with Mayor Khan's views that Muslims can accept laws in the West and still be called Muslim. Islam has never gone through a reinterpretation of its laws, or Reformation.

  What many people may not realize is that the "Caliph" of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has a PhD in Islam from the University of Baghdad, and that every single thing he does, even those that horrify us in the West, has a totally legitimate precedent in the official Islam of the Koran and the Hadith, the two texts, considered of equal importance, on which Islam is based.

  Contrary to what our leaders in the West have been telling us — that the murders and other atrocities we have been witnessing have "nothing to do with Islam" — they are, unfortunately, not only permitted in Islam but commended. This is what we have been seeing in Israel the past century, long before there was a dispute over territory. The fundamental dispute is over a people who have since the rise of Mohammad in the seventh century, refused to submit to Islam and who are therefore regarded as infidels.

  Mayor Khan himself has encountered this problem. He mentioned that there was a fatwa against him, but he did not mention who issued it; one wonders why.

  What occurred was that Mufti Muhammed Aslam Naqshbandi Bandhalevi, head imam of a mosque in Bradford, issued the fatwa declaring Khan an "apostate," one who has renounced Islam, because Khan supported same-sex marriage.

  Quite simply, traditional Islam seems incompatible with Western values.

  "What," asked the biologist Richard Dawkins "is the penalty for apostasy?"

  Mohamad Mukadam, Chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools, replied: "If it is an Islamic country, the sharia is very clear. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty."

  When a mufti in Britain issues a fatwa, it is from the same Islam as that practiced in Muslim countries. In 2004, film director Theo van Gogh and Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a movie critical of Islam. Mr. van Gogh was later murdered, shot and stabbed in Amsterdam. Amsterdam is in the Netherlands, not a Muslim country. Somali-born former-Muslim Hirsi Ali, now a naturalized U.S. citizen in the United States, still lives in the shadow of a death fatwa.

  How many "asylum seekers" and "refugees" practice fundamentalist Islam and believe that sharia law should supersede laws passed by British Parliament?

  Mayor Khan touts a fatwa as if it validates his liberal credentials, but he is far too coy about enumerating the dangers of flinging open one's borders to people who issue fatwas, much less to their followers who may fulfill them. Mayor Khan says being a Muslim is compatible with Western culture, but either he does not know Islam, a probability that is questionable, or he is misleading the British.

  Khan also never once mentioned the social crisis of the rape of children in British cities, widely publicized in the British press. It is so shocking, with so many disturbing implications, that the Mayor's omission again seems to mislead Westerners about what immigration problems can occur.

  Political Correctness Has Been Enabling Child Sex Abuse Gangs in Britain

  The title of Khan's presentation was "The Breakdown of Social Integration – The Challenge of Our Age." However, isn't the epidemic rape of thousands of white children in Rotherham and other communities in England, and the official policy of ignoring the crisis for over a decade, the very definition of "breakdown of social integration"?

  Officials were so unwilling to "rock the multicultural boat," that children were exploited, raped, and brutalized for more than a decade.

  For several years, Sue Reid, a reporter for the Daily Mail, tried to expose these crimes. She was falsely accused of being a "liar and a racist."

  In 2014, Home Secretary Theresa May blamed "institutionalized political correctness" for police and council agencies' failure in their duty to protect at least 1,400 chiefly white Rotherham children from chiefly Muslim Pakistani-heritage rape gangs from 1997-2013.

  Similar crimes have occurred in other parts of the United Kingdom: Rochdale, Derby, Oxford, Bristol, Peterborough, and Keighley. In August, a fresh crisis was exposed in Telford, now dubbed the "child sex abuse capital."

  Taken as a whole, Mayor Khan's presentation seemed to ignore unpleasant facts which suggest that there is more incompatibility of values than he is willing to admit — in the interest of pushing an immigration agenda favored by his "side."

  Mayor Khan's presentation seemed designed to pacify Westerners and enable the spread of the rule of Islam.

  

  

• Why the Elite hate Russia

  In our previous article The Secret Truth about Russia Exposed, we elaborated on how Russia is a convenient enemy for politicians and specifically the Democratic party, to create an enemy that really, well – doesn’t exist to distract and confuse voters.  But like with any ‘enemy’ if you bomb a village, you may have some pissed off villagers.  As we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies – the world doesn’t work the way you see on TV – in fact, it works more closely as seen on Zero Hedge.  Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) – there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia.  It’s not because they’re Xenophobic, although there’s that too – it’s because of several key factors that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries.

  1. Russia is an independent country.  It’s not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries.  The Elite don’t like that!  Russia kicked out Soros “Open Society”:

  Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia’s General Prosecutor’s Office said two branches of Soros’ charity network — the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) — would be placed on a “stop list” of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed “undesirable” by the Russian state. 

  2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict.  Some other BRICs however, that’s not the case.  Say what you will about Russia’s military – it’s on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military.  And that’s not AN opinion, that’s in the opinion of top US military commanders:

  Late in September, we brought you “US Readies Battle Plans For Baltic War With Russia” in which we described a series of thought experiments undertaken by The Pentagon in an effort to determine what the likely outcome would be should something go horribly “wrong” on the way to landing the US in a shooting war with Russia in the Balkans. 

  The results of those thought experiments were not encouraging. As a reminder, here’s how Foreign Policy summed up the exercises:

  3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average “Elite” who pretends to be internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French.  For example, when the diplomat Clinton was Secretary of State, she presented a reset button translating the opposite meaning… ooops.

  “I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: ‘We want to reset our relationship, and so we will do it together.’ …

  “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” she asked Lavrov, laughing. “You got it wrong,” said Lavrov, as both diplomats laughed.

  “It should be “perezagruzka” [the Russian word for reset],” said Lavrov.”This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means ‘overcharged.’”

  Yes, it’s almost a certainty that if Clinton by some horrible fate is President there will be Nuclear war.  Wars have been started over much more subtle mistakes.  One would think, that Clinton would have had an advisor CHECK THIS before presenting it in a public ceremony, in front of reporters?  How much more blatantly unprofessional can one be?  If politicians worked in the private sector, they wouldn’t last a day!  How do these people advance so far in politics?  

  4. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.  While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don’t have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.  Or another good example is China, there’s this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the rest of our lives.  Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world but it’s not going to happen anytime soon.  

  Russia is one of the most highly misunderstood cultures in the West.  Which is strange, because Russia is more like America than any European country:

  • Both Russia and America share huge landmasses with large undeveloped territory
  • Both Russia and America are predominantly white christian majorities (although in last decades, America tries to be more of a melting pot whereas Russia favors ethnic cleansing)
  • Both Russia and America fought against Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2, the defining event of the last 60 years

  There have been numerous interesting situations where Russia helped America and America helped Russia on a number of levels, to learn more about it checkout the following books:

  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.  Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

  Most interestingly, during the Nixon administration Kissinger was prodding Nixon to partner with Russia that would, in Kissinger’s view would create an unstoppable alliance, that no one could compete with such a superpower axis.  But, it didn’t happen, as there were ‘neo-cons’ who were against it, mostly Polish Catholics who have some deep genetic fear of any culture using the Cyrillic alphabet.  Nixon instead chose China (what a mistake!) and created Forex.  But the point being that, through a small slip of fate, “China” may have been in this alternative Kissinger reality the ‘Great Evil Enemy’ hacking our elections, as we drive across the Alaskan-Siberian highway without any speed limit, oil would be ten cents a gallon, and we wouldn’t need to war with the Middle East.

  To learn more about how the world really works, checkout Splitting Pennies the book, or checkout Fortress Capital Trading Academy.

  
  

  

  

• New Evidence Links Voting Machines And Clinton Foundation

  Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

  Could these connections be enough to implicate the Clinton Foundation in the alleged early vote rigging in Texas?

  As usual, the internet has come through as the ultimate watchdog while the supposed safeguards of our democracy have failed.

  A Gab user by the name “Special Prosecutor Will Logan” has found some stunning information. 

  Note: as Gab is a members only site, you’ll have to join to see his actual posts, but we included all pertinent information in the article.

  Click to enlarge

  According to OpenSecrets, the company who provided the alleged glitching voting machines is a subsidiary of The McCarthy Group.

  The McCarthy group is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation – apparently donating 200,000 dollars in 2007 – when it was the largest owner of United States voting machines. Or perhaps the 200,000 dollars went to paying Bill Clinton for speeches?

  Either way, it doesn’t look good.

  But there’s more.

  As the same user notes in this post, Dominion Voting Systems and The Clinton Foundation did a 2.25 million dollar charity initiative in developing nations together called the DELIAN Project.

  According to the project’s own website:

  In 2014, Dominion Voting committed to providing emerging and post-conflict democracies with access to voting technology through its philanthropic support to the DELIAN Project, as many emerging democracies suffer from post-electoral violence due to the delay in the publishing of election results. Over the next three years, Dominion Voting will support election technology pilots with donated Automated Voting Machines (AVM), providing an improved electoral process, and therefore safer elections. As a large number of election staff are women, there will be an emphasis on training women, who will be the first to benefit from the skills transfer training and use of AVMs. It is estimated that 100 women will directly benefit from election technology skills training per pilot election.

  Of course, this is all speculation, and we are not making any claims of illegal activity by the Clinton Foundation.

  However, it presents a very troubling conflict of interest. Most Americans would certainly agree that voting machines should have zero connection to presidential candidates and their foundations.

  Consider the implications further abroad, as well. Could this DELIAN Project be designed to influence elections in developing nations?

  It can certainly be argued that electronic voting machines do not in fact provide an “improved electoral process” or provide “safer elections”

  Again, this is speculation.

  But we will be keeping an eye on this story if and when more information becomes available.

  

  

• Paul Craig Roberts Explains "What's At Stake In The Election"

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  Here Are The Presstitutes Who Control American’s Minds:

   

  

   

  Several top journalists and TV news anchors RSVPed “yes” to attend a private, off-the-record gathering at the New York home of Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary Clinton, two days before she announced her candidacy in 2015, according to emails Wikileaks has published from John Podesta’s purported accounts.

   

  I just heard an NPR presstitute declare that Texas, a traditional sure thing for Republicans was up for grabs in the presidential election. Little wonder if this report on Zero Hedge is correct. Apparently, the voting machines are already at work stealing the election for Killary.

  *  *  *

  From my long experience in journalism, I know the American public is not very sharp. Nevertheless, it is difficult for me to believe that Americans, whose jobs, careers, and the same for their children and grandchildren, have been sold out by the elites who Hillary represents would actually vote for her. It makes no sense. If this were the case, how did Trump get the Republican nomination despite the vicious presstitute campaign against him?

  It seems obvious that the majority of Americans who have been suffering terribly at the hands of the One Percent who own Hillary lock, stock, and barrel, will not vote for the people who have ruined their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

  Furthermore, if Trump’s election is as impossible as the presstitutes tell us – Hillary’s win is 93% certain according to the latest presstitute pronouncement – the vicious 24/7 attacks on Trump would be pointless. Wouldn’t they? Why the constant, frenetic, vicious attacks on a person who has no chance?

  There are reports that a company associated with Hillary backer George Soros is supplying the voting machines to 16 states, including states that determine election outcomes. I do not know that these reports are correct. However, I do know for a fact that the oligarchic interests that rule America are opposed to Trump being elected President for the simple reason that they are unsure that they would be able to control him.

  It is hard to believe that dispossessed Americans will vote for Hillary, the representative of those who have dispossessed them, when Trump says he will re-empower the dispossessed. Hillary has denigrated ordinary Americans who, she says, she is so removed from by her wealth that she doesn’t even know who they are. Clearly, Hillary, paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs for three 20-minute speeches, is not a representative of the people. She represents the One Percent whose policies have flushed the prospects of ordinary Americans down the toilet.

  What is really disturbing is the pretense by the presstitute scum that Trump’s lewd admiration for female charms is deemed more important than the prospect of nuclear war. At no time during the presidential primaries or during the current presidential campaign has it been mentioned that Russia is being assaulted daily by propaganda, threatened by military buildups, and being convinced that the United States and its European vassals are planning an attack.

  A threatened Russia, made insecure by inexplicable hostility and Western propaganda, is a danger manufactured by the neoconservative supporters of Hillary Clinton.

  If the American people are really so unbelievably stupid that they think lewd remarks about women are more important than avoiding nuclear war, the American people are too stupid to exist. They will deserve the mushroom clouds that will wipe them and everyone else off the face of the earth.

  Donald Trump is the only candidate in the primaries and the general election who has said that he sees no point in conflict with Russia when Putin has shown nothing but desire to work things out to mutual advantage.

  In contrast, Hillary has declared the thrice-elected president of Russia to be “the new Hitler” and has threatened Russia with military action. Hillary talks openly about regime change in Russia.

  Surely, in a free media at least one person in the print and TV media would raise this most important of all points. But where have you seen it?

  Only in my columns and a few others in the alternative media.

  In other words, we are about to have an election in which the important issue has played no role. And yet allegedly we are the exceptional, indispensable people, a people’s democracy protected by a free press.

  In truth, this mythical description of America is merely a cloak for the rule of the Oligarchs. And the Oligarchs are risking life on earth for their continual supremacy.

  

  

• Let Crude Crash: US Oil Producers Are Hedging At Levels Not Seen Since 2007

  As warned here one month ago after the farcical OPEC meeting in Algiers, the cartel’s latest jawboning ploy to keep prices artificially higher – if only for one more month – is fast falling apart. Just a few hours ago, Bloomberg reporter Daniel Kruger penned the following assessment of the situation:

  Production-Cut Talk Is as Good as It Gets for Oil. Some OPEC members are talking about cutting production again, and so prices are rising. Saudi Arabia and other producers both in and out of the cartel have done a good job fostering the storyline that there are terms under which parties can agree to pump less crude. Continuing signs of concord among producer nations have boosted oil prices to an average of $50 a barrel this month in New York. Yet several obstacles make it difficult for countries to commit to signing on to a deal. One obstacle is that sacrifices are needed for the agreements to succeed. Another is that those sacrifices aren’t shared equally.

   

  Having successfully raised $18 billion in the bond market, Saudi Arabia is better positioned to withstand the loss of some revenue. Iraq, OPEC’s second-biggest producer, was the latest to plead for an exemption from a cut, citing its fight against Islamic State as a cause of hardship. Ultimately, no one wants to pump less because the upside is so limited. Saudi Arabia’s 2014 decision to double down on production in a drive for market share succeeded in making it more difficult for higher-cost producers to thrive as they once had. But having committed to that goal, they also locked themselves into a fight to keep what they’d won.

   

  And while ConocoPhillips’ announcement this week that it plans to cut spending on major projects demonstrates the partial success of the Saudi plan to drive out rivals, it also shows producers see  diminishing chances for crude to climb much above $60, said Wells Fargo Fund Management’s James Kochan. The big reason, of course, is latent U.S. supply. Baker Hughes data shows the most rigs at work in the Permian Basin since January. Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Bob Brackett suggests the per-acre price of drilling lease land will rise to $100,000 from about $60,000 now.  

   

  The one agreement players seem to have reached is that oil isn’t able to go much higher.

  That oil’s upside is capped at this point is clear; in fact as both Goldman and Citi have warned, unless OPEC can come to a definitive and auditable agreement – no just another verbal can kicking – in which the member states, by which we mean almost entirely Saudi Arabia as most of the marginal producers are exempt or want to be, immediately curtail production, oil will promptly crash to $40 or below.

  But an even more amusing twist is that a plunge in oil prices may be just what US shale producers are waiting for. The reason for that is that while OPEC has been busy desperately jawboning oil higher, US producers have been thinking of the inevitable next step, oil’s upcoming reacquaintance with gravity. As a result, as the EIA reports, the amount of WTI short positions held be producers and merchants is just shy of a decade high.

  According to a recent EIA report, short positions in West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures contracts held by producers or merchants totaled more than 540,000 contracts as of October 11, 2016, the most since 2007, according to data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Banks have tightened lending standards for some energy companies as crude oil prices declined throughout 2014 and 2015, and some banks require producers to hedge against future price risk as a condition for lending.

  

  Short positions of WTI futures increased at a faster pace than futures contracts of Brent (an international crude oil benchmark) since summer 2016, suggesting U.S. producers are able to drill for oil profitably in the $50 per barrel range. In the Crude Oil Markets Review section of the October Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) discusses an increase in U.S. onshore producers’ capital expenditures that is contributing to rising drilling activity, which EIA projects will lead to an increase in U.S. onshore production by the second quarter of 2017.

  

  * * *

  Which closes the circle of irony: almost exactly two years ago, Saudi Arabia set off a sequence of events with which it hoped to crush US shale producers and its high cost OPEC competitors. It succeeded partially and briefly, however now the remaining US shale companies are more efficient, restructured, have less debt, a far lower all-in cost of production; and – best of all – they will all make a killing the next time oil plunges, as it will once OPEC’s hollow gambit is exposed.

  Meanwhile, the last shred of OPEC credibility will be crushed, the truly high cost oil exporters within OPEC will suffer sovereign defaults and social unrest, as will Saudi Arabia. The good news for Riyadh is that at least it got a $17.5 billion in fresh cash from a bunch of idiots who will never get repaid. We are curious just how long that cash will last the country which burned through $98 billion just last year, before the threat of social unrest and financial system collapse returns? Two months? Three?

  

  

• "This Is About Whiteness" UC Berkeley Students Segregate Campus, Block Bridge With Human Wall

  Submitted by Robby Soave via Reason.com,

  Student protesters at the University of California-Berkeley gathered in front of a bridge on campus and forcibly prevented white people from crossing it. Students of color were allowed to pass.

  The massive human wall was conceived as a pro-safe space demonstration. Activists wanted the university administration to designate additional safe spaces for trans students, gay students, and students of color. They were apparently incensed that one of their official safe spaces had been moved from the fifth floor of a building to the basement.

  According to video footage of the protest, demonstrators blocked off the bridge completely. Students who needed to get to class had no choice but to cross the stream by jumping from rock to rock. Dozens of people can be seen doing so.

   

  In the video, the activists appeared to let several students of color pass unmolested, but white students were forced to find other routes. A few who tried to force their way through were violently rebuffed. Protesters shouted "Go around! Go around!" at a white man on a bicycle.

  Another student was told, "This is bigger than you," by a protester. "This is about whiteness."

  Afterward, the protest moved to the campus bookstore, where activists posted an eviction notice informing the owners that their building was being reclaimed as a safe space for queer and trans students.

  "You are hereby notified by the students of the University of California, Berkeley, to vacate the premises immediately," the eviction notice stated. "University administration wrongly allocated this two-story facility to a third-party corporation, keeping in line with its intensifying legacy of prioritizing financial profit over student needs."

  The protesters then marched through the student union, reportedly disrupting students who were studying.

  I get that they are trying to make a point—they don't think campus is a safe place for marginalized students, etc. – but racism in the service of activism is still racism. These students consider themselves progressives, but what's progressive about punishing people—making it more difficult for them to get to class—because they were born with the wrong skin color?

  Indeed, leftist student activism has become increasingly backward on race and identity issues as of late. The Berkeley protesters are demanding formal, university-sanctioned safe spaces for students who belong to particular identity groups. They want what can only be described as a kind of official segregation: separate spaces for students of color, trans students, queer students, etc.

  Students have the right to sort themselves into whatever groups they want. But it's baffling—to me, at least—that they would want these groups endorsed and managed by the administration, which creates the impression that identity-based division is some kind of university goal.

  Berkeley's public areas—its quads, common rooms, parks, student union, libraries, classrooms, and yes, bridges—should be safe, welcoming spaces for all students. What happened over the weekend didn't look very inclusive to me.

  

  

• Trigger-Free Trick-Or-Treat Guide To Halloween Costumes

  “It’s Halloween and that can only mean one thing… people who wear offensive costumes are literally Hitler.”

  This Halloween, don’t be Hitler and have a trigger-free trick-or-treat by following the advice of Lauren and Faith from Rebel Media…

  

  

• "The Fed Failed…" And That Changes Everything

  Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

  There is a growing body of public work that suggests Federal Reserve officials are prepared now for a very different sort of normalization than what had been envisioned up until this year. That comes, as noted earlier, with the realization that the economy is not just in rough shape but likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

  

  The important caveat left off that bleak pronouncement is actually ceteris paribus. So long as the current policy and monetary system remains firmly in place, there is little hope the global economy will just spontaneously ignite. Since economists and central bankers have made it clear they aren’t going anywhere despite being wrong about everything up to now, here we are.

  

  Even Janet Yellen has been forced to concede that even if the Fed does manage to get on with further rate hikes, the ultimate destination for them in nominal terms is much less than prior “cycles.” Current thinking seems to be aiming for around 3% for the federal funds rate rather than 5% as had long been accepted. The way things are going, and as the Japanese showed, they will be lucky to get even half that far.

  But in what can be only another sign of just how twisted, upside down, and easily receptive to pretzel logic the mainstream is now, that is supposed to be a good thing especially for stocks. Writing today for BloombergView, Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic advisor for Allianz, makes this exact argument.

  Equity investors have also been reassured by the growing — and correct — recognition that this Fed hiking cycle will depart drastically from historical norms. Instead of following a relatively linear path of increases at regular intervals, it will have pronounced “stop-go” characteristics. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the endpoint — or what economists call the “neutral rate” — will be considerably lower than recent historical averages.

  How in the world is that a good thing that would “reassure” equity investors? Truly rational investors make decisions based on discounted information about the future, and what El-Erian suggests here (and he hasn’t been alone) is that stock investors show more preference for “accommodative” monetary policy than actual growth. A lower rate ceiling implies without much ambiguity continued awful economic conditions here and elsewhere around the world. But to the screwed up nature of mainstream thought, so long as monetary policy is lower overall continued stagnation is forgiven, perhaps even to be mildly celebrated?

  What does it mean by claiming “accommodation” that gives “investors” so much apparent comfort? It can’t mean that in economic terms for obvious reasons; instead we are led to believe that low (meaning desperately insufficient) growth isn’t all that bad so long as interest rates don’t rise too far. Investors are supposed to be paying for growth, not the failure of interest rate “stimulus” to seed it. If the Fed feels it can’t raise rates all that much, with a true “ceiling” yet to be determined, it is a much riskier, not less risky, environment.

  The idea of a lower R* or r-star is truly a defining defeat, though it is, like El-Erian’s attempt here, being spun into what is nothing more than rationalization. As I wrote in September, the falling R-star can mean nothing else:

  There is more complexity when we talk about inflation, of course, but by and large it is commodity prices that have thwarted John William’s (or Janet Yellen’s) “normalizing” narrative. Commodities have been falling more intensely since the middle of 2014 but really dating back to the middle of 2011. Both of those inflections recall and are related to obvious eurodollar or global wholesale money events. Thus, even subscribing to Wicksell’s theory, the current rate must now be, as it has been, above the natural rate, unambiguously indicating “tight” money. Whether it is via Friedman’s interest rate fallacy or Wicksell’s natural rate hypothesis, both arrive at the same conclusion due to seemingly intractable market prices.

   

  Central banks assume that means they have to “stimulate” more when in fact it is just their math telling them they haven’t stimulated at all – at least not where it counts and has been needed. Translating depression into econometrics is a long and costly affair, but it is at least starting to be done, slowly and in discrete pieces. R* may yet be of some great value, insofar as further calculating just how little monetary authorities know about money.

  Reception of and belief about QE have been very much cult-like and it was thus too thinly constructed to withstand being so thoroughly debunked. This is not even close to making the best of a bad situation; it is instead claiming positive attributes that just don’t exist, being downright offensive to common sense. How anyone, let alone El-Erian, wrote that paragraph (contained within an article further rationalizing the latest of the “rising dollar”) without awareness of its very basic flaw can at best be described as intentionally obtuse while still bordering upon nakedly deceiving. The world of the near future is going to be bad, worse than everything “we” have been expecting, but take heart, the Fed’s monetary policy will reflect just that. Translating it from the original mainstream thought-bubble language truly reveals its truly absurd premise… The Fed failed, and that changes everything; including and especially what is to be made of “accommodation” and what it is that might have “reassured” equity investors in the past and might do so (or not) going forward.

  

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Paul Craig Roberts: "Putin's Nukes Could Wipe Out Entire American East Coast" In Minutes

  Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

  

  Suffice to say, though children are at play, this is not a game.

  Those who have been toying with outright war against Russia, and an escalation of the conflict in Syria, are putting the lives of all Americans at risk.

  Of course, the threat of nuclear annihilation has been with us since the earliest days of the Cold War, but Russia has now positioned itself with the largest and most destructive nuclear arsenal of any country in the world.

  Economist and political critic Dr. Paul Craig Roberts explains how diplomatic relations have broken between Russia and the United States, after the U.S. knowingly attacked pro-Assad Syria forces… that, of course, was the cherry on top of a host of insults, deliberate antagonism and a strategy that could only result in further chaos and war.

  The end of negotiations is unfortunately, given that fighting it out could mean thermonuclear war that would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look trivial in comparison.

  After a period of some patience, Russia is now warning that the United States is dangerously close to turning a proxy war into a direct world war – and they are deadly serious about defending the motherland and their sworn allies – namely Assad.

  Any further attack could result in immediate destruction.

  Putin is a formidable opponent and Russia a powerful enemy. At present time, they have the capability of wiping the entire East Coast of the United States off the map – where more than 100 million people live. Will the ranking misleaders in Washington continue to gamble with all of our lives?

  via the Express:

  VLADIMIR Putin’s nuclear stockpile could completely destroy the east coast of the US in one clean swipe should the Russian leader launch an attack on the West, an expert has warned.

   

  A staggering 112.6million people could be at risk of extermination from the deadly missiles.

   

   

  Russia has the largest haul of nuclear weapons of any country in the world and reportedly has the most powerful bomb named the SS-18 – menacingly nicknamed the Satan.

   

   

  Experts estimate Russia has 55 of the deadly weapons, but only five would be needed to destroy the East Coast of the US.

   

  […]

   

  “Five or six of these ‘Satans’ as they are known by the US military, and the East Coast of the United States disappears.”

   

  Dr Roberts said: “The atomic bombs that Washington dropped on these helpless civilian centres while the Japanese government was trying to surrender, were mere popguns compared to today’s thermo-nuclear weapons.

  What’s more, the Russian have hinted strongly at the possibility that they would be able to disable electronics, communications and defense shields in the U.S. via electromagnetic warfare – perhaps an EMP.

  Worst of all, the American misleaders haven’t even got a good reason for putting the population at such a risk – strategy in the middle east is muddied at best, and prodding for war with Russia doesn’t carry a clear narrative either.

  The world could change, and American power could end in a few decisive minutes.

  Hopefully it would never come to that, but we shouldn’t live in a false world where we pretend these situations can’t harm us.

  

  

• The Dark Agenda Behind Globalism And Open Borders

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  When people unfamiliar with the liberty movement stumble onto the undeniable fact of the “conspiracy” of globalism they tend to look for easy answers to understand what it is and why it exists.  Most people today have been conditioned to perceive events from a misinterpreted standpoint of “Occam’s Razor” — they wrongly assume that the simplest explanation is probably the right one.

  In fact, this is not what Occam’s Razor states. Instead, to summarize, it states that the simplest explanation GIVEN THE EVIDENCE at hand is probably the right explanation.

  It has been well known and documented for decades that the push for globalism is a deliberate and focused effort on the part of a select “elite;” international financiers, central bankers, political leaders and the numerous members of exclusive think tanks. They often openly admit their goals for total globalization in their own publications, perhaps believing that the uneducated commoners would never read them anyway. Carroll Quigley, mentor to Bill Clinton and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is often quoted with open admissions to the general scheme:

  “The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank… sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” – Carroll Quigley, Tragedy And Hope

  The people behind the effort to enforce globalism are tied together by a particular ideology, perhaps even a cult-like religion, in which they envision a world order as described in Plato’s Republic. They believe that they are “chosen” either by fate, destiny or genetics to rule as philosopher kings over the rest of us. They believe that they are the wisest and most capable that humanity has to offer, and that through evolutionary means, they can create chaos and order out of thin air and mold society at will.

  This mentality is evident in the systems that they build and exploit. For example, central banking in general is nothing more than a mechanism for driving nations into debt, currency devaluation, and ultimately, enslavement through widespread economic extortion. The end game for central banks is, I believe, the triggering of historic financial crisis, which can then be used by the elites as leverage to promote complete global centralization as the only viable solution.

  This process of destabilizing economies and societies is not directed by the heads of the various central banks.  Instead, it is directed by even more central global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements, as outlined in revealing mainstream articles like Ruling The World Of Money published by Harpers Magazine.

  We also find through the words of globalists that the campaign for a “new world order” is not meant to be voluntary.

  “… When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” – HG Welles, Fabian Socialist and author of The New World Order

   

  “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” – Richard Gardner, member of the Trilateral Commission, published in the April, 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs

   

  “The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the single most significant component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.” – Henry Kissinger, World Action Council, April 19, 1994

  I could quote globalists all day long, but I think you get the general idea. While some people see globalism as a “natural offshoot” of free markets or the inevitable outcome of economic progress, the reality is that the simplest explanation (given the evidence at hand) is that globalism is an outright war waged against the ideal of sovereign peoples and nations. It is a guerrilla war, or fourth generation warfare, waged by a small group of elites against the rest of us.

  A significant element of this war concerns the nature of borders. Borders of nations, states and even towns and villages, are not just lines on a map or invisible barriers in the dirt. This is what the elites and the mainstream media would like us to believe. Instead, borders when applied correctly represent principles; or at least, that is supposed to be their function.

  Human beings are natural community builders; we are constantly seeking out others of like-mind and like-purpose because we understand subconsciously that groups of individuals working together can (often but not always) accomplish more. That said, human beings also have a natural tendency to value individual freedom and the right to voluntary association. We do not like to be forced to associate with people or groups that do not hold similar values.

  Cultures erect borders because, frankly, people have the right to vet those who wish to join and participate in their endeavors. People also have a right to discriminate against anyone who does not share their core values; or, in other words, we have the right to refuse association with other groups and ideologies that are destructive to our own.

  Interestingly, globalists and their mouthpieces will argue that by refusing to associate with those who might undermine our values, it is WE who are violating THEIR rights. See how that works?

  Globalists exploit the word “isolationism” to shame sovereignty champions in the eyes of the public, but there is no shame in isolation when such principles as freedom of speech and expression or the right to self defense are on the line. There is also nothing wrong with isolating a prosperous economic model from unsuccessful economic models. Forcing a decentralized free market economy to adopt feudal administration through central banking and government will eventually destroy that model. Forcing a free market economy into fiscal interdependencey with socialist economies will also most likely undermine that culture. Just as importing millions of people with differing values to feed on a nation after it has had socialism thrust upon it is a recipe for collapse.

  The point is, some values and social structures are mutually exclusive; no matter how hard you try, certain cultures can never be homogenized with other cultures. You can only eliminate one culture to make room for the other in a border-less world. This is what globalists seek to achieve.  It is the greater purpose behind open border policies and globalization – to annihilate ideological competition so that humanity thinks it has no other option but the elitist religion.  The ultimate end game of globalists is not to control governments (governments are nothing more than a tool).  Rather, their end game is to obtain total psychological influence and eventually consent from the masses.

  Variety and choice have to be removed from our environment in order for globalism to work, which is a nice way to say that many people will have to die and many principles will have to be erased from the public consciousness.  The elites assert that their concept of a single world culture is the pinnacle principle of mankind, and that there is no longer any need for borders because no other principle is superior to theirs. As long as borders as a concept continue to exist there is always the chance of separate and different ideals rising to compete with the globalist philosophy. This is unacceptable to the elites.

  This has led not so subtle propaganda meme that cultures that value sovereignty over globalism are somehow seething cauldrons of potential evil. Today, with the rising tide of anti-globalist movements, the argument in the mainstream is that “populists” (conservatives) are of a lower and uneducated class and are a dangerous element set to topple the “peace and prosperity” afforded by globalist hands.  In other words, we are treated like children scrawling with our finger paints across a finely crafted Mona Lisa.  Once again, Carroll Quigley promotes (or predicts) this propaganda decades in advance when he discusses the need for “working within the system” for change instead of fighting against it:

  “For example, I’ve talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are pretty generally in this group.” – Carroll Quigley, from Dissent: Do We Need It?

  The problem is that these people refuse to confront the fruits of globalization that can be observed so far. Globalists have had free reign over most of the world's governments for at least a century, if not longer. As a consequence of their influences, we have had two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Great Recession which is still ongoing, too many regional conflicts and genocides to count and the systematic oppression of free agent entrepreneurs, inventors and ideas to the point that we are now suffering from social and financial stagnation.

  The globalists have long been in power, yet, the existence of borders is blamed for the storm of crises we have endured for the past hundred years? Liberty champions are called “deplorable” populists and fascists while globalists dodge blame like slimy slithering eels?

  This is the best card the globalists have up their sleeve, and it is the reason why I continue to argue that they plan to allow conservative movements to gain a measure of political power in the next year, only to pull the plug on international fiscal life support and blame us for the resulting tragedy.

  There is no modicum of evidence to support the notion that globalization, interdependencey and centralization actually work. One need only examine the economic and immigration nightmare present in the EU to understand this. So, the globalists will now argue that the world is actually not centralized ENOUGH. That’s right; they will claim we need more globalization, not less, to solve the world’s ailments.

  In the meantime, principles of sovereignty have to be historically demonized — the concept of separate cultures built on separate beliefs has to be psychologically equated with evil by future generations. Otherwise, the globalists will never be able to successfully establish a global system without borders.

  Imagine, for a moment, an era not far away in which the principle of sovereignty is considered so abhorrent, so racist, so violent and poisonous that any individual would be shamed or even punished by the collective for entertaining the notion. Imagine a world in which sovereignty and conservatism are held up to the next generation as the new “original sins;” dangerous ideas that almost brought about the extinction of man.

  This mental prison is where globalists want to take us. We can break free, but this would require a complete reversal of the way in which we participate in society. Meaning, we need a rebellion of voluntary associations. A push for decentralization instead of globalization. Thousands upon thousands of voluntary groups focusing on localization, self reliance and true production. We must act to build a system that is based on redundancy instead of fragile interdependencey. We need to go back to an age of many borders, not less borders, until every individual is himself free to participate in whatever social group or endeavor he believes is best for him, as well as free to defend against people that seek to sabotage him; a voluntary tribal society devoid of forced associations.

  Of course, this effort would require unimaginable sacrifice and a fight that would probably last a generation. To suggest otherwise would be a lie. I can’t possibly convince anyone that a potential future based on a hypothetical model is worth that sacrifice. I have no idea whether it is or is not. I can only point out that the globalist dominated world we live in today is clearly doomed. We can argue about what comes next after we have removed our heads from the guillotine.

  

  

• Stock Funds Suffer Biggest Outflow Since 2011; Hedge Funds Most Since 2009

  One month ago we pointed out that the pain for active money managers is fast approaching unbearable status when according to a recent BofA analysis, the outflows from active funds in 2016 have surpassed a record $200 billion, with the bulk of cash outflows shifting over to much cheaper (and better performing) passive funds, though as BofA notes, flows have slowed since last year suggesting that there may be a broader cash outflow from the equity asset class, as increasingly more Americans retire and pull out of the market entirely.

   

  

  We have covered the underlying dynamics behind this shift for years, which mostly involves activist central bankers, lack of market volatility, underperformance of short books, high fees charged by active managers and generally an inability to generate significant alpha by the active investment community.

  And unfortunately for the active managers of the world, the latest fund flow data from ICI shows no signs that the pain will relent any time soon. As Reuters reported today, U.S.-based stock mutual funds reported the largest outflows in five years, based on ICI data. $16.9 billion was pulled from stock mutual funds in the seven days through Oct. 19, more than in any other week since August 2011.

  While most of the money was withdrawn permanently, some of the funds were reallocated, as has been the frequent case in the past 5 years, to passive strategies: stock exchange-traded funds took in $2.4 billion. And why not: with ETFs charging a fraction of what active managers demand, and closely hugging market indices which for the 7th year in a row will outperform the vast majority of hedge funds, this seems like the sensible thing to do, even if it means that many hedge and mutual fund managers will soon be out of a job.

  “The trend to passive ETFs has persisted throughout the year,” said Todd Rosenbluth, director of ETF and mutual fund research at CFRA. “Active funds have failed to keep up with common benchmarks this year, and investors are looking for lower-cost alternatives.”

  The outflows from stock mutual funds come ahead of the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election and a potential interest-rate hike by the Federal Reserve that could push equities lower.

  “Investors sharply rotated out of large- and mid-cap mutual funds last week, just as the start of earnings season kicked off,” said Rosenbluth.

  Meanwhile, while the broader active universe had a bad week, the more focused hedge fund world had an even worse month and an absolutely abysmal quarter. According to eVestment, hedge funds suffered $10 billion in outflows in September, while in the third-quarter investors pulled $29.2 billion from the hedge funds industry, which has clearly lost its allure and mystique to would be investors, who are now far more interested in getting their money out, rather than in. This would be the largest quarterly outflow from hedge funds since the first quarter of 2009. 

  For all of 2016, outflows have grown to a total of $60 billion and rising.

  The good news is that the hedge fund industry still manages roughly $3 trillion at end of September. The bad news is that the outflows are soaring at a time when the S&P is trading at all time highs which means that “it is only downhill from here.” The even worse news is that as we reported last week, hedge fund compensation is set for a “massive” pay cut, with portfolio managers expecting a 34% reduction in their compensation this year.

  But perhaps the best news is that as the following chart from Bloomberg shows, it has now become virtually impossible to launch a hedge fun, with only those with an immaculate track record or existing rainmakers able to obtain the seed capital needed to do their own thing.

  

  This means that a generation of some of the brightest young men and women will have no choice but to seek jobs that contribute at least marginally to society, even if it means collecting far lower pay.

  

  

• Hyperinflation Looms As 'Black Market' Egyptian Pound Crashes To Record Low

  With all eyes on the drop in the British Pound, it is another 'pound' that is utterly collapsing. Despite its official exchange rate is 8.88 per dollar, Egypt’s pound dropped to 16.11 per dollar in the black market, another record that extends declines over the past month to 19% and down over 40% since it devalued in March.

  

  The Sovereign CDS market (which prices for both default and devaluation) is pricing in a further dramatic devaluation of the official rate…

  

   

  Bloomberg reports that Africa’s third-biggest economy will close a $12 billion lifeline from the International Monetary Fund within two months, according to Prime Minister Sherif Ismail, as pressure grows on the country to weaken its currency to lure foreign investment and stimulate growth.

  Ever since General Sisi ousted the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian economy has remained in shambles. Businessmen are fed up.  They are ignoring government gag orders, and are making their voices heard. And why not?  They are losing sales, missing deadlines, and scrapping expansion plans because of limited access to U.S. dollars.

  Where are the greenbacks that Egyptians demand? Well, even though General Sisi has passed the begging bowl, the cupboard is pretty bare (as the accompanying chart shows).  This, in part, is due to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Brotherhood did one thing well: they blew through foreign exchange reserves like wildfire.   Not surprisingly, the Sisi administration is squeaky tight about holding on to its limited reserves.

  As we noted in March, the only sure-fire way to save the pound and eliminate Egypt’s USD shortage is to install a currency board.  This would allow the quantity of pounds in circulation to be determined by a free-market mechanism.

  So, just what is a currency board? Operating under currency board rules, a monetary authority issues notes and coins convertible on demand into a foreign anchor currency at a fixed exchange rate. As reserves, a currency board holds low-risk, interest-bearing bonds denominated in the anchor currency.  The reserve levels are set by law and are equal to 100 percent, or slightly more, of its monetary liabilities. A currency board generates profits
  (seigniorage) from the difference between the interest it earns on its reserve assets and the expense of maintaining its liabilities. By design, a currency board has no discretionary monetary powers and cannot engage in the fiduciary issue of money. Its operations are passive, and automatic. The sole function of a currency board is to exchange the domestic currency it issues for an anchor currency at a fixed rate.  Consequently, the quantity of domestic currency in circulation is determined solely by market forces, namely the demand for domestic currency.

  There have been many currency boards, and none have failed.  By design, they can’t be broken. Even the currency board designed by John Maynard Keynes, which was installed in North Russia, during the civil war, worked like a charm. 

  But, you may ask, what about Argentina’s Convertibility System (1991 2001). That system was not a currency board.  It might have had the appearance of a currency board, but appearances can be deceiving, particularly in Argentina.  Even though it linked the peso to the USD at a one-to-one rate, the Convertibility System was a system that operated with monetary discretion – unlike a currency board.  And over long periods of time,
  the discretion was wild.

  A currency board would give Egypt stability, and while stability might not be everything, everything is nothing without stability.

  

  

• America After Election 2016: The Gullible & The Shattered

  Submitted by David Kearns via Strategic-Culture.org,

  I'm looking forward to a market crash to awaken the electorate out of our rut, honestly. Because if a Loony Tunes candidate {meaning Donald Trump – DK} doesn't give Democrats the courage to put up a push-left candidate {Bernie Sanders, or some facsimile – DK}, then catastrophe is the only correction we have left. – commenter «Snapshotist»

  Both inside the US and around the world, political observers have been waiting a long time for an election that would promise relief from the most noxious features of the American system, such as neoliberal economic austerity policies that hamstring governments' ability to maintain basic services and safety nets, military aggression and destabilization of regimes across a wide swathe of the globe, wholesale violation of privacy via NSA surveillance, trade agreements designed to maximize the power of international corporations over national governments, facilitation of fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure in the face of dire climate change consequences, a financial system sucking wealth away from the population and accelerating wealth inequality, and more.

  Alas, while it is high time that the US lead the way in reversing these trends, the outcome of the 18 month struggle to elect a new presidential administration looks likely to scuttle all hopes for serious leadership and reform on any of these critical issues. It follows, therefore, that in the near term (if not longer), progress will not be possible unless new forms of politics arise to deliver pressure from below on Washington, DC. But how much hope can we have for that?

  

  When will see this again? Crowds lining up hours in advance for a Bernie Sanders rally, New York, April 13^th, 2016

  A Trump Contribution?

  By all indications, Clinton will win the election on November 8th, and virtually every political commentator will rejoice at the apparent demise of the Donald Trump phenomenon. As strange as it may seem, however, some of the passion of the Trump movement could provide fuel to the fire of reformist politics in the US. To be sure, Trump's campaign has gone far towards legitimizing and normalizing bigotry and ignorance, and this residue will persist. But Trump has also galvanized powerful resentment against an insular, self-serving political class. This sentiment dovetails with a major thrust of Bernie Sanders's advocacy of social democratic policies and empowerment of the population to reverse the accumulation of all power in the hands of wealthy campaign donors and corporations.

  Further, let us not forget, Trump has consistently promoted the idea of shelving antagonism towards Russia in favor of cooperation, together with reducing the role of the US military around the world. The point is not whether Trump genuinely means what he says (although one of his advisors who spoke with us insists that he does). The point is that Trump brought these positions out into the light, which has allowed increasing numbers of Americans to question the nation's reflexive reliance on military might, expansion, and aggression as a pillar of its foreign policy. If the left is truly serious about unseating Washington's neoliberal status quo, it should make every effort to harness some of the frustration that coalesced into the Trump movement towards broadly shared goals – getting the money out of politics being the most obvious.

  The Gullible Left

  For the moment, of course, the huge majority of the left is consumed with the impending election, and with the perceived imperative of defeating Trump by supporting Clinton as the «lesser evil» candidate. At first glance this seems eminently reasonable. But the certitude that has swept the country regarding the preferability of Clinton over Trump ought to give us pause. For those paying close attention, it is not necessarily clear which candidate is the lesser evil. The flaws marring each candidate are so grotesque, and the variables confronting the next administration are so uncertain, that one can easily support a case in either direction. A small segment of the left will reject both Brahmins and cast affirmative votes for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, of course. But the readiness of much of the left – the gullible left – to ignore Clinton's corruption, crimes, and cynicism is preemptively sapping the strength of the resistance that will be needed to push Madame President to pursue even half-baked progressive reforms on any issue.

  Meanwhile, as the gullible left and center coalesce meekly around Clinton, the real election is taking place behind the scenes: Clinton and her inner circle are lining up the key personnel who will largely determine the course of policy in her administration. Thanks to Wikileaks' publication of Clinton's current campaign chairman, John Podesta, we know very well that this process is far advanced by now. As David Dayen put it recently in «The New Republic»:

  If the 2008 Podesta emails are any indication, the next four years of public policy are being hashed out right now, behind closed doors…. Who gets these cabinet-level and West Wing advisory jobs matters as much as policy papers or legislative initiatives. It will inform executive branch priorities and responses to crises. It will dictate the level of enforcement of existing laws. It will establish the point of view of an administration and the advice Hillary Clinton will receive. Its importance cannot be stressed enough, and the process has already begun. This is a fight over who dominates the Democratic Party’s policy thinking in the short and long term.

  Dayen adds that «…if liberals want to have an impact on that process, waiting until after the election will be too late». Well, one wonders why Dayen is so optimistic. Another Wikileaks release revealed that Clinton had more or less decided on Tim Kaine as her running mate all the way back in mid-2015 (!). Surely many of the top positions have long since been scripted, and for those still in play, can anyone – even David Dayen — imagine public pressure making a difference in the selection?

  In short, the world should prepare itself for a Hillary Clinton administration that is full of Washington establishment clones and is diligently protected from criticism by a like-minded media establishment. Moreover, and more important, we can already see the Clinton administration maneuvering to avoid the gridlock that minimized President Obama's effectiveness by pushing key foreign and domestic policies further to the right, into the arms of the Republican Party. It is not difficult to locate telling indications on this score…

  «Sorry, I can't vote for Mrs. Strangelove»

  – commenter «natureboy», renouncing Clinton for her hawkishness

  The implications of Clinton's ascendancy on US foreign policy are already coming into view, and they are more than a little disturbing. An article from Washington Post White House correspondent Greg Jaffe on October 20^th delivered news just as bad as we expected:

  The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House…. the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflects a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite. This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East… Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.

  Clinton is preparing a foreign policy more aggressive than Obama's, in other words. And – take note – she'll enjoy bipartisan support for it.

  «The entire concept is a form of corporate blackmail»

  — David Dayen, characterizing Clinton's preparation of a tax repatriation policy that will permanently lower the tax obligations of large corporations.

  As far as domestic policy is concerned, meanwhile, all recent revelations point to a posture even more friendly to large corporate interests than that which has obtained under Obama. For example, an important investigation from David Dayen just a few days ago exposed the Clinton circle's coordination with top Democrats and Republicans in preparing an enormous and permanent reduction on taxation of profits corporations earn abroad. As journalist Matt Taibbi once described a similar proposal: «Let's give a big tax break to the biggest tax cheats».

  Yes, we can expect a few corporate-written trade deals to follow the tax reduction on profits earned overseas. And Wall Street will not be left out. Clinton has many options to assist her finance sector sponsors, including an important plan David Sirota and Avi Asher-Shapiro revealed last week. It would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars worth of individuals' retirement accounts into the hands of asset managers employing aggressive alternative investment strategies, and net the managers billions a year in fees.

  Campaign contributions do indeed bring corporations colossal returns in the US.

  

  

• Texas County Enacts "Emergency Paper Ballots" After "Software Glitch" In Voting Machines

  Just yesterday we noted several social media complaints from Texas voters who alleged that when they voted a straight republican ticket that voting machines were switching their presidential selection to Clinton/Kaine.  While most undoubtedly dismissed these reports as conspiracy theories, new official reports from Chambers County, Texas suggest that there might be some truth to the voting machine “irregularities”.  According to an NBC affiliate, polling stations in Chambers County had to enact emergency protocols yesterday and revert back to paper ballots
  after a “glitch” was discovered in the county’s voting
  machines.

  The issue was actually discovered on Monday morning when Chambers County Clerk Heather Hawthorne was casting her own ballot and the voter next to her noticed that one of her votes was not filled in when she reviewed her electronic ballot  Hawthorne told 12News on Tuesday.

   

  An error in the voting machine programming by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) caused votes for one statewide court of appeals race not to be entered when a voter tried to vote straight ticket in either party according to a release from Chambers County.

   

  ES&S is the vendor that Chambers County contracts with to program their voting machines.

   

  The Texas Secretary of State’s office informed Hawthorne to create emergency paper ballots to continue voting until the problem could be fixed according to the release.

  Below is the official press release from the Chambers County Clerk:

  

   

  Of course, these confirmed reports from Chambers County seem eerily similar to problems reported yesterday on social media from people who also experienced problems when voting a “straight republican ticket.”

  

   

  The following report also surfaced in Arlington, Texas from a person who voted a straight republican ticket only to find just before submitting her ballot that her presidential choice had been switched to Clinton/Kaine.  After reporting the error to polling officials, the voter was told that these errors “had been happening.”

  

   

  This Reddit user also noted multiple reports of voting errors across the state of Texas.

  

   

  Of course, the real question is how many people submitted erroneous ballots before this “glitch” was caught and how many other “software glitches” exist in other counties around the country that will never be caught?

  

  

• Project Veritas 4: Robert Creamer's Illegal $20,000 Foreign Wire Transfer Caught On Tape

  Project Veritas has just released Part IV of it’s multi-part series exposing numerous scandals surrounding the DNC and the Clinton campaign, including efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies and, at least what seems to be, illegal coordination between the DNC, Hillary For America and various Super PACs.

  Part IV focuses on a $20,000 foreign donation made by an undercover Project Veritas journalist to Americans United for Change (AUFC).  Ironically, shortly after the $20k donation wire was released, the contributor’s “niece” was offered an internship with Creamer’s firm, Democracy Partners.

  In the new video, Creamer says: “Every morning I am on a call at 10:30 that goes over the message being driven by the campaign headquarters … I am in this campaign mainly to deal with what earned media with television, radio, with earned media and social media, not with paid media, not with advertising.” He also mentions a conference call discussing a woman potentially coming forward to accuse Trump of inappropriate behavior.

  Creamer, a seasoned Chicago activist who is married to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), whose Republican opponent, Joan McCarthy Lasonde has called for her to resign over her husband’s activities, also talks about his work with Barack Obama, whom he says he has known since the 1980s, when Obama was a community organizer in Chicago: “He’s a pro, I’ve known the President since he was a community organizer in Chicago.”

  Elsewhere, Creamer adds: “I do a lot of work with the White House on their issues, helping to run issue campaigns that they have been involved in. I mean, for immigration reform for the… the health care bill, for trying to make America more like Britain when it comes to gun violence issues.”

  In the effort to prove the credibility of the undercover donor featured in the videos and to keep the investigation going, Project Veritas Action made the decision to donate twenty thousand dollars to Robert Creamer’s effort. Project Veritas Action had determined that the benefit of this investigation outweighed the cost. And it did.

   

  “First thing, like I said, thank you for the proposal.  And I’d like to get the $20,000 across to you.  The second call I’m going to make here is to my money guy and he’s going to get in touch with you and auto wire the funds to you,” said the PVA journalist.

   

  Creamer told the PVA journalist to send the money to Americans United for Change. Shortly after the money was released, the “donors” “niece” – another Project Veritas Action journalist – was offered an internship with Creamer.

   

  In an effort to see how far Creamer would go with the promise of more money, another Project Veritas journalist posing as the donor’s money liaison requested a meeting with Creamer. During that meeting, Creamer spoke about connections he had with Obama and Clinton.

  AUFC President, Brad Woodhouse, subsequently returned the money, after Project Veritas started to release their undercover videos, citing “concerns that it might have been an illegal foreign donation.”  Oddly, Woodhouse was not terribly concerned about the “legality” of the donation when he chose to accept it a month prior.

  In an unexpected twist, AUFC president Brad Woodhouse, the recipient of the $20,000, heard that Project Veritas Action was releasing undercover videos exposing AUFC’s activities.  He told a journalist that AUFC was going to return the twenty thousand dollars.  He said it was because they were concerned that it might have been an illegal foreign donation. Project Veritas Action was pleased but wondered why that hadn’t been a problem for the month that they had the money.

   

  While the latest video focuses on the “$20,000 illegal foreign contribution” from an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the following comments from Robert Creamer were also rather intriguing in light of recent White House efforts to vehemently deny any connections between he and President Obama.

  “Oh Barack Obama’s was the best campaign in the history of American politics, I mean the second one, I mean the first was good too.  I was a consultant to both, the second one, was everything hit on every level and every aspect.

   

  He’s a pro.  I’ve known the President since he was a community organizer in Chicago.

   

  I was just at and event with him in Chicago actually, on Friday last.  He is just as good as ever.  I do a lot of work with the White House on their issues.  Helping to run issued campaigns that they have been involved in.  I mean, for immigration reform for the…the health care bill…trying to make America more like Britain when it comes to gun violence issues.”

  * * *
  

  As a reminder, video 3 directly linking Donna Brazile and Hillary Clinton to efforts to disrupt Trump events.
  

   

  Video 2 provided the democrat playbook on how to commit “mass voter fraud”:

   

  Video 1 revealed DNC efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

  

  

• "We Are Late In The Game": David Rosenberg On The Market's Flashing Red Signs

  Last week, some readers were left wondering why, if the economy is as strong as the president is pretending it is (even though a leaked email from Donna Brazile revealed the truth behind the propaganda), did Gluskin Sheff strategist recommend unleashing a multi-trillion, “helicopter money” stimulus drop. The reason: we can officially close the book on the “bullish” Rosie and welcome back the old, grizzled, much more familiar version of the former Merril Lynch strategist: one bearish enough that the following litany of indicators that are “flashing red” for a late cycle economy, brings us back in time to some of his vintage pre-crisis writing.

  Courtesy of the Financial Post, here is David Rosenberg explaining why “all signs are flashing this market is ‘late in the game’”

  * * *

  Late in the game: that is precisely where we are. And it’s not even an opinion any more. It is a market fact.

  The TSX has not made a new high in over two years and it has been 17 months for the broad NYSE Composite stock index.

  The yield curve is flattening. Leading economic indicators are sputtering.

  Uber-tight credit spreads and ultra-low cap rates in real estate serve as confirmations of late-cycle pricing.

  Traditional valuation metrics for equities are every bit as high if not higher than they were in the Fall of 2007.

  We are well past the peak in autos and just passed the peak of the housing cycle.

  Not just that but the broad measures of unemployment have stopped going down as well.

  And the mega Merger Mania we are seeing invariably takes place at or near cycle peaks, as companies realize that they can no longer grow their earnings organically. We have just witnessed five multi-billion dollar deals this past week alone — $207 billion globally (AT&T/Time Warner; TD Ameritrade/Scottrade) in what has been the most active announcement list since 1999 … what do you know, near the tail end of that tech bull market too.

  We also were at the receiving end of a really disappointing consumer confidence report out of The Conference Board — sliding to a three-month low of 98.6 in October from 103.5 in September, the sharpest slide of the year.

  And it wasn’t just the politics or gas prices — just a general malaise.

  Assessments of business conditions now and perceptions for the next six months deteriorated significantly, as they did for the jobs market and spending intentions for homes and appliances.

  This sentiment index generally peaks between 60% and 70% of the way through the cycle and so if that traditional pattern holds for this one, it would mean bracing for a recession to start any time from October 2017 to May 2018.

  Forewarned is forearmed.

  There also is this little issue of excess valuations, as ‎in the 24x price-to-earnings multiple on reported GAAP earnings which is about 40% “rich” compared to the norm of the past 80 years.

  On top of that, we have twice as many bulls as bears in the sentiment survey data.

  That said, there is not the same level of euphoria as there usually is at the top of the market, and this is reflected by the wave of mutual fund redemption in equities for much of this year and the fact that global portfolio managers are sitting tied for the highest cash ratios of the past 15 years.

  So while cautious, the lack of extreme bullishness is actually a good thing and suggests that whatever correction or even bear market we see, the selloff should be limited and no, it will not look anything like 2008/09.

  That said, having cash on hand, reducing the beta of the portfolio, focusing on the running yield, and stepping up in quality across the capital structure, are all going to pay off in terms of preserving the capital and generating decent mid-single digit net returns at the very least. That’s with a view towards allocating the dry powder at better price levels that will allow for a return to high-single digit or even double-digit returns once the dust settles.

  What is important to know is that the backdrop is one of late cycle. Most of the patterns, both in the realm of financial assets and the real economy, are flashing this signal — one of a very mature market.

  Now, I am not sure if this is the seventh inning, or the ninth, but it is likely somewhere in between. That’s important to know — we are not in the third or fourth, let alone the first or second. And even in the seventh, we still have to get out of our seat and stretch.

  That does not mean a stretch for risk — it actually means dialing in the risk, at the margin.

  It isn’t just the valuations and the heightened political risks in the U.S. and throughout Europe, or the recent slate of soft macro data for the most part. It also is about what the corporate sector is flagging about how much more growth there is in this economic cycle, having celebrated its seventh birthday four months ago.

  What I’m referring to specifically is Kimberly-Clark’s financial results for the latest quarter, which surprised to the downside and the company also cut its sales guidance for the year (for which the stock price was clocked with a 4.7% loss on the news).

  So I have to say that if this classic consumer staple giant, who makes Huggies diapers and Kleenex tissue, can’t grow these basic goods, what does it say for consumer goods and services that are truly discretionary in nature?

  This does not at all bode well for the coming holiday shopping season, and if you have looked at the payroll data in recent months, the retailers are expecting some nice tidings. They may be in for a rude surprise.

  This is the environment where the Fed is choosing to raise rates, which is incredible. The futures market is still priced for a near-70% chance of a December move. The two-year U.S. Treasury note auction yesterday went quite poorly (the bid-cover of 2.53x was the second lowest since December 2008) and the yield backed up to a four-month high of 0.85%.

  We’ll see how brave the Fed will be — we know what happened last year after the Fed went and for two or three months, it wasn’t a pretty picture.

  Now New York Fed president Bill Dudley did say that he would like to raise rates again before year-end but caveated that with “… subject to the economy continuing to evolve in line with my expectations”.

  Well, if his forecast is aligned with the median on the FOMC, then implicitly he is expecting 3% real GDP growth for the fourth quarter. Good luck with that (a number we have not seen materialize in two years).

  One thing is certain: if the Fed does raise rates at the short end, we may well end up seeing yields decline further out the curve — as we did following last year’s rate hike.

  Classic. This is what happens when the Fed starts to tighten into the eighth year of the cycle and into the slowest-growth-year of this elongated expansion.

  We also have this ongoing “conundrum” (as Alan Greenspan once put it) of there being a global savings glut (at a time when the world’s central banks have taken $18 trillion of “safe yield” onto their balance sheets and out of the hands of the general investing public).

  In fact, the authors of a report commissioned by the Council on Foreign Relations said that the global savings “glut” has reached epic proportions. The volume of inflow of savings from abroad into U.S. securities totalled an eye-popping $750 billion in the past two years — $500 billion of which was diverted to Treasuries and Agencies, as America played the role (and still does) as the world’s smartest kid in summer school when it comes to delivering positive yields on AAA-rated paper.

  What this leaves us, therefore, is the prospect of a continued flattening of the yield curve. Again, classic late cycle development.

  Now you will hear cries from many circles to ignore the yield curve, it has lost its edge as a leading indicator due to all sorts of reasons, mostly related to central bank interventions. Don’t believe them.

  Back in 2000, the experts said to ignore the yield curve — it is irrelevant in a Dotcom world. Wrong.

  In 2007, the gurus also said to ignore the yield curve in a world of abundant credit.

  It still matters, and if we were to get the same response this time to the Fed as we did just over a year ago, we would then be two, maybe three more hikes away from a complete inversion of the Treasury curve.

  Maybe it has lost some of its predictive power, but it has called each of the last 10 recessions of the post-World War Two period with precision. So I wouldn’t exactly abandon it just yet.

  David Rosenberg is chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. and author of the daily economic report, Breakfast with Dave. Follow David and his colleagues at twitter.com/gluskinsheffinc

  

  

• Over 80 Groups Want Russia Off The UN Human Rights Council, There’s Just One Problem

  Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

  More than 80 human rights groups and other related non-governmental organizations have called on the United Nations to drop Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council over its military campaign in Syria.

  The groups, which include Human Rights Watch, CARE International, and Refugees International, signed an appeal that was launched ahead of the upcoming elections to fill 14 seats on the 47-nation council.

  Given the media’s ongoing narrative against Russia’s bombardment of eastern Syria, the call to pull Russia from a council dedicated to human rights may be a well-founded request.

  However, one should bear in mind that Saudi Arabia is also a member of this Council. Saudi Arabia is responsible for a recent assault on a Yemeni funeral that killed over 140 civilians and injured over 500 others. The aftermath of the attack was aptly described as a “lake of blood.”

  China is a member of this U.N. Human Rights Council. Indonesia is a member of this Council. Though it isn’t often reported by the mainstream media, Indonesia has brutally repressed the people of West Papua simply because a mining company based in West Papua pays the Indonesian government a heap of tax (their biggest taxpayer). Though the West Papuan people have attempted to rise up against Indonesia’s occupation of their country, the Indonesian military suppresses their attempts simply to preserve their tax revenues and protect the interests of the very powerful mining company.

  Given that the rest of the Council members’ atrocities are overlooked by these so-called human rights organizations, the motives of these groups should be called into question.

  So what is really at play here? Is it the case that these NGOs are deeply concerned with human rights and have therefore drawn the line at Russia’s military campaign in Aleppo? Or are these groups acting as the mouthpieces of their respective governments and donors, including wealthy human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia?

  Unfortunately, the case against the motives of groups such as Human Right Watch’s was made over a decade ago. Anti-War released an article in September of 2001 that seriously called into question the objectives and the funding behind Human Rights Watch:

  “For a century there has been a strong interventionist belief in the United States – although it competes with widespread isolationism. In the last 10 years, attitudes have hardened: human rights interventionism is becoming a consensus among the ‘foreign policy elite.’ Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO’s and academics. It is certainly not an association of ‘concerned private citizens.’ HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarized, Human Rights Watch is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.” (emphasis added)

  Further, NGO Monitor found that in 2009, Human Rights Watch held a fundraising dinner in Saudi Arabia, using their alleged anti-Israel bias to solicit funds from prominent Saudis. Human Rights Watch has actually been critical of Saudi human rights abuses for years, including the treatment of women, the justice system, basic freedoms, and its treatment of Yemen — yet  HRW has no problem soliciting funds from them.

  Not to mention the fact that George Soros gave a grant to Human Rights Watch of $100 million in 2010. (Don’t know who George Soros is? Click here.)

  Putting Saudi Arabia, a country with a long history of human rights abuses, in the same sentences as “fundraising dinner” and “Human Rights Watch” should tell one something about the dedication these groups truly have towards human rights.

  No one is going to miss Russia on a human rights council. But if these groups were impartial and truly cared about human rights, the appeal they signed would call for the removal of more than just Russia given the list of human rights abusers that currently sit on the Council.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Washington's Struggle: Remaining Relevant

  Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via Strategic-Culture.org,

  The most important event of the past 70 years is the change in the international order, from a US unipolar domination to a new multipolar reality. The fundamental question lies in understanding how this transition is taking place, its consequences and root causes

  The transition in the international order, from a pre-WWI multipolar world to a post-WWII bipolar world, cost humanity a world war involving millions of deaths. The next stage, distinct from the conflicts between the USSR and the US, ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but without the tragedy of direct confrontation. This fundamental historical difference has its own intrinsic logic governing the relationship of forces between powers. The USSR was a country in decline, unable to continue its role on the international stage as the premier anti-hegemonic power.

  The transition from a bipolar to a unipolar reality could have had nuclear consequences, but an agreement between the powers avoided this danger. The upshot was an unconditional surrender of the USSR, with catastrophic consequences in economic and cultural terms for the superpower to come to terms with, but at least without the explosion of a large-scale conflict.

  With the end of the bipolar model, however, began what some historians declared to be the «end of history»: the transition from a multipolar world, to a bipolar world, to end in a unipolar world. From the point of view of Washington, the story ended with only one global power remaining, thereby granting the United States the power to decide matters for the whole world.

  The scenario in which we live today, in terms of international law and the balance of forces, is almost unprecedented in history if looked at in the present context. It is true that the current transition from a unipolar to a multipolar reality is something similar to what has been seen in previous decades, with the transition from British hegemony in the late-nineteenth century to a multipolar situation in the period preceding the two world wars. Nevertheless, resorting to this historical analogy is difficult, given the relative absence of international rules compared to a century ago. Therefore it is difficult to use the earlier transition period to make assumptions about future trends.

  The causes of change

  The attitude of the US over the last 25 years has been focused completely on the achievement of global hegemony. The dream of having control over every event, in every corner of the world, has ironically led to accelerating the end of America’s unipolar moment. Of course the deep meaning of the word "control" can be expanded upon, examining the merits of the cultural, economic and military impositions that result from a constant quest for global domination.

  The US has chosen an impassable road that is full of contradictions to justify their rise as a global power. In two decades we have witnessed the dismantling of all the key principles of the balance of power between Russia and the United States, necessitating the change in international relations from unipolar to multipolar. Similarly, the ratio of economic and military power between China and the United States has significantly worsened, culminating in the dangerous dispute over the South China Sea. The abandonment of the Kissinger doctrine governing relations with Beijing, and the failure of the Clinton reset with Moscow, have pushed two global powers, Russia and China, to forge an alliance that allows for a world where there are more powers on the international stage and not just Washington as the central focus of global relations.

  The failure of the foreign doctrine of the United States was a direct consequence of the arrogance and the utopia of being able to dominate the planet, seeking to extend indefinitely the unipolar moment and forging a worldwide system culturally and economically based on the will of Washington, reinforced by a power and military posture without precedent.

  Consequences

  Had Washington thought more carefully about the consequences of their actions, and thereby employed a more considered strategic vision, it would certainly have opted for different choices. As a demonstration of this, we note Washington’s attitude in the Middle East, the deciding ground for prospects of continued US global hegemony.

  Much of Washington’s remaining capacity to influence global decisions is attributable to the dollar and the trading of goods such as oil in that currency. With the appearance of a world with more regional or global powers, it is easy to guess that the rise of the Iranian Republic has consequences for the whole of the Middle East region. The odds are evident that Tehran, culturally, economically and militarily, will be the first regional power. Washington has realized this and has decided to reach an agreement with the Islamic Republic in order to remain relevant in the region and not to be cut off from future agreements. Washington also seeks, in doing so, to counterbalance the situation with her most influential regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

  It is a strategy that in the Middle East has had a negative impact in the immediate present for Riyadh, Doha, and in some ways even Ankara, who have all opted for an autonomous and interventionist approach in the region without much consultation with Washington. Nevertheless, the choice to include Iran as a dialogue partner for the Middle East balance has allowed Washington to conserve the illusion that in the future it will maintain an important role in regional decisions. This is a decision that has created many problems with historic allies, but Washington hopes, with a view to the future, to have made an appropriate choice. This also explains why so many of the neoconservatives and liberals (the promoters of a prolonged unipolar doctrine, the cause of so many failures ) are clearly opposed to this agreement.

  Washington and its establishment have opted for a cultural and economic confrontation with Moscow, possibly militarily with Beijing in the South China Sea, in the process impelling the emergence of a multipolar world in which more powers have the ability, by joining together, to resist the will of the greater global power. In fact, it is easier to frame the international balance in a multipolar model that is slowly becoming bipolar.

  We consider that Russia and China (and to a lesser extent Iran) do not possess the military capability to successfully oppose American power in a conventional conflict on a grand scale. For this reason, it is easy to understand that shaping a multipolar international order perhaps remains quite optimistic at this time. It is similarly optimistic to maintain a unipolar world order that remains anchored in the illusions of the American elite.

  Reality rather shows us a bipolar world, where the alternative pole to the US is represented by the union and alliances (cultural, economic and military) of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. And their partnership has resulted in a change in the pattern of international relations. The cause of this union is to be found in the will of the US elites to prolong their unipolar moment. Instead of opting for an agreement with another global power (probably China) and seal the international stage in a realistic model with two poles, facing no real opposition, Washington has exacerbated the differences by pushing countries like Russia, China, Iran and India closer and closer together, forging what currently might be termed a temporary bipolar model of world order.

  The certainty is that the future will turn fully into a multipolar model, and this obliges Washington to struggle in every way possible to remain relevant. To date, apart from nuclear agreements, every choice has been counterproductive and wrong. Will Washington’s elites ever learn, or will they eventually become irrelevant?

  

  

• Bullion Banks "pass the parcel" on El Salvador’s Gold Reserves

  Submitted by Ronan Manly, BullionStar.com

  Eighteen months ago I wrote a short synopsis of a gold sales transaction by the central bank of El Salvador wherein it had sold 80% (about 5.5 tonnes) of its official gold reserves. The title of the post was “El Salvador’s gold reserves, the BIS, and the bullion banks“. If you thought, why the focus on the Banco Central de Reserva de El Salvador (BCR), it’s not a major player on the world gold market, you’d be correct, it’s not in its own right that important.

  However, the point of the article was not to profile the gold transactions of a relatively obscure central bank in Central America, but to introduce the topic of central bank gold lending to LBMA bullion banks, and the use of short-term ‘gold deposits‘ offered by these bullion banks. The reason being is this is a very under-analysed topic and one which I will be devoting more time to in the future.  Gold loans by central banks to bullion banks are one of the most opaque areas of the global gold market. The fact that I’m using the central bank of El Salvador as the example is immaterial, it’s just convenient since the BCR happens to report the details of its gold lending operations, unlike most central banks.

  A Quick Recap

  At the end of September 2014, the BCR claimed to hold 223,113 ozs of gold (6.94 tonnes), of which 189,646 ozs (5.9 tonnes) was held in the form of “deposits of physical gold” with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and 33,467 ozs (1.04 tonnes) which was held as “time deposits” of gold (up to 31 days) with 2 commercial bullion banks, namelyBarclays Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia.

  The following table and all similar tables below are taken from the BCR’s ‘Statement of Assets backing the Liquidity Reserve’, or ‘Estado de Los Activos Que Respaldan la Reserva de Liquidez’, which it publishes every 3 months.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 September 2014

  In November 2014, the BCR executed a small sale of 5007 ozs of its gold from its quantity held with the BIS, leaving a holding of 218,106 ozs (6.784 tonnes) as of 31 December 2014, comprising 184,639 ozs held in “deposits of physical gold” with the BIS, and 33,467 ozs of “time deposits” (of between 2 and 14 days duration) with 2 bullion banks, namely BNP Paribas and the Bank of Nova Scotia. Notice that as of the end of 2014, BNP Paribas was now holding one of the time deposits of gold, and that Barclays was not listed.

  

  BCR gold position as of 31 December 2014

  Notice also in the above table the tiny residual time deposit gold holding attributed to Standard Chartered Bank Plc. Rewind for a moment to 30 June 2014. At the end of June 2014, the BCR’s gold deposits were placed with 3 LBMA bullion banks, namely, Barclays, Bank of Nova Scotia, and Standard Chartered.

  This is the way short-term gold deposit transactions work. A central bank places the short-term gold deposit with one of a small number of bullion banks, most likely at the Bank of England, and when the deposit expires after e.g. 1 month, the central bank places the deposit again, but not necessarily with the same bullion bank. The deposit rates on offer (by the bullion banks) and the placements by the central banks are communicated over a combination of Bloomberg terminals, or by phone and then the transactions are settled by Swift messages. More about the actual mechanics of this process in a future article.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 June 2014

  

   

  BCR sold its gold at the BIS, put the rest on deposit

  In March 2015, the BCR sold 174,000 ozs (5.412 tonnes ) of gold, which left El Salvador with 44,000 ozs. When I wrote about this transaction 18 months ago I had speculated that:

  “Since the Salvadoreans had 189,646 ozs on deposit with the BIS and needed to sell 179,000 ozs, the gold sold was most definitely sold to the BIS or to another party with the BIS acting as agent.

  It would not make sense to sell some or all of the time deposits that are out with the bullion banks such as Barclays and Scotia, since a large chunk of the BCR gold at the BIS would have to be sold also. It would be far easier to just deal with one set of transactions at the BIS. 

  The above would leave the time deposits of 33,467 ozs (and accrued interest) out with the bullion banks, rolling over each month as usual. The other roughly 11,000 ozs that the BCR held with the BIS could be left with the BIS,or else this too could be put out on deposit with the bullion banks.”

  This speculation turns out to have been correct. By 31 March 2015, the BCR held 10,639 ozs of gold “deposits of physical gold” with the BIS, and the same 33,467 ozs of “time deposits“, but this time split evenly between BNP Paribas and Barclays. The entire 174,000 ozs of gold sold came from the “deposits of physical gold” that El Salvador held with the BIS.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 March 2015

  By 30 June 2015, the central bank of El Salvador had moved its remaining 10,639 ozs of “deposits of physical gold” from the BIS, and placed it into “time deposits” with bullion banks, with the entire 44,106 ozs being evenly split across Bank of Nova Scotia, BNP Parias and Standard Chartered, each holding 14,702 ozs.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 June 2015

  Over the 12 months from end of June 2014 to 30 June 2015, a combination of at least 4 LBMA bullion banks, namely,Barclays, Bank of Nova Scotia, Standard Chartered and BNP Paribas were holding short-term gold deposits on behalf of the central bank of El Salvador. I say at least 4 banks, because there could have been more. The snapshots every 3 months only reveal which banks held gold deposits on those dates, not the full list of deposits that could have been placed and matured over each 3 month period.

  These time deposits are essentially obligations by the bullion bank in question to repay the central bank that amount of gold. The original gold which was first deposited into the LBMA system could have been sold, lent or otherwise encumbered. It has become a credit in the LBMA unallocated gold system. Ultimately it needs to be paid back to the central bank by whichever bullion bank holds the deposit when the central bank decides that it no longer wants to roll its short-term deposits. This is why the anology of pass the parcel is a suitable one.

  Looking at the more recent 3 monthly snapshots from September 2015 to June 2016, the same 4 LBMA bullion bank names were still holding the BCR’s gold deposits, namely Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays, Standard Chartered and BNP Paribas.

  As of 30 September 2015 – Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays and BNP Paribas, evenly split between the 3 of them.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 September 2015

  On 31 December 2015 – Bank of Nova Scotia, BNP Paribas, and Standard Chartered, evenly split between the 3 of them.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 December 2015

  On 30 March 2016 – Bank of Nova Scotia and BNP Paribas, evenly split between the 2 of them.

  

  BCR gold position as of 30 March 2016

  On 30 June 2016, the BCR gold deposits were held by Bank of Nova Scotia and BNP Paribas, evenly spilt between the 2. The 30 June 2016 file on the BCR website doesn’t open correctly so this data was taken from the Google cache of the file.

  IMF Reporting standards

  Finally, let’s take a quick look at what monetary gold and gold deposits actually are, as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

  “Monetary gold is gold owned by the authorities and held as a reserve asset.  Monetary Gold is a reserve asset for which there is no outstanding financial liability”, IMF Balance of Payments Manual (BPM)

  In April 2006, Hidetoshi Takeda, of the IMF Statistics Department published a short opinion paper on the ‘Treatment of Gold Swaps and Gold Deposits (loans)‘ on behalf of the Reserve Assets Technical Expert Group (RESTEG) of the IMF Committee on Balance of Payments (BoP) Statistics. The paper was called “Issues Paper (RESTEG) #11“. In the Issues paper, Takeda states:

  “monetary authority make  gold deposits ‘to have their bullion physically deposited with a bullion bank, which may use the gold for trading purpose in world gold markets‘”

  “‘The ownership of the gold effectively remains with the monetary authorities, which earn interest on the deposits, and the gold is returned to the monetary authorities on maturity of the deposits'”

   ” Balance of Payments Manual, fifth Edition (BPM5) is silent on the treatment of gold deposits/loans. However, the Guidelines states that, “To qualify as reserve assets, gold deposits must be available upon demand to the monetary authorities” 

  You can see from the above that once the gold balance that is represented by the gold deposit is under the control of a bullion bank as a unallocated balance, then it becomes an asset of the bullion bank and can be used in subsequent bullion bank transactions, such as being lent again,  or used to support its trading book, etc.

  The big question is whether the gold as represented by the gold deposit is available on demand by the central bank which lent it. For ‘available on demand’ think using an ATM or walking into your local bank and withdrawing some cash from your account. It’s as simple as that.

  Takeda said:

  “Regarding the statistical treatment of gold deposits/loans, keeping the status quo is suggested. That is, if the deposited/loaned gold is available upon demand to the monetary authorities, it can be included in reserve assets as monetary gold. However, if the gold is not available upon demand, it should be removed from reserve assets“

  Takeda’s paper also covers the topic of “Double counting of gold from outright sales of gold acquired through gold swaps or gold deposits/loans” where he says logically:

  “double counting of gold can occur when a bullion bank sells outright gold acquired through gold deposits/loans from… monetary authorities”

  If the gold sold is not removed from the central bank’s balance sheet, it could:

  “pose a problem when international statistical standards allow swapped/deposited gold to remain in the reserve assets of the gold provider.”

  Given that nothing has changed in the IMF’s reporting standards since 2006, i.e. the IMF did not take on board Takeda’s recommendations on gold loan accounting treatment, and given that all central banks still report gold as one line item of “gold and gold receivables”, then you can see how these gold deposits that are being continually rolled over by central banks using a small number of LBMA bullion banks based in London a) are being double counted if the gold involved has been sold, b) only represent claims by a central bank on a bullion bank, and c) allow bullion banks to increase their unallocated balances which can then be used in myriad leveraged and hypothecated ‘gold’ trading transactions

  If you think 4 LBMA bullion banks passing a parcel of central bank gold claims around between them is excessive, wait until you see 28 bullion banks doing the same thing! Coming soon in a future article.

  This article originally appeared on BullionStar.com – Bullion Banks pass the parcel on El Salvador’s gold reserves

   

   

  

• Michael Moore: "Trump's Election Will Be The Biggest Fuck You Ever Recorded In Human History"

  Some fascinating comments from the overtly liberal, Hillary-supporting Michael Moore, who in a recently leaked speech comes perilously close in a speech explaining why on November 8, what is left of middle America will look to cast its vote for Donald Trump for one reason:

  Americans might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn’t matter, because it’s equalized on that day – a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there’s more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

  He concludes:

  Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it’s your right. Trump’s election is going to be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human history and it will feel good.

  * * *

  His full remarks below:

  I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don’t necessarily agree with him. They’re not racist or redneck, they’re actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.

   

  Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said “if you close these factories as you’re planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I’m going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody’s going to buy them.” It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – the “Brexit” states.

   

  You live here in Ohio, you know what I’m talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he’s saying the things to people who are hurting, and that’s why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they’ve been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they’ve been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car’s been repoed, they haven’t had a real vacation in years, they’re stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can’t even get a fucking percocet, they’ve essentially lost everything they had except one thing – the one thing that doesn’t cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.

   

  They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn’t matter, because it’s equalized on that day – a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there’s more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

   

  They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I’m voting for on November 8.

   

  Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it’s your right. Trump’s election is going to be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human history and it will feel good.

  * * *

  

  

• Deutsche Bank Considering Alternatives To Paying Cash Bonus

  It has been at least a few weeks since Deutsche Bank appeared in the flashing red breaking news sections of newswires, with news that was – mostly – negative. And while the stock has since rebounded materially, wiping out all losses since the DOJ’s $14 billion RMBS settlement leak, it appears that not everything is back to normal for the largest German lender. Because in what may be the worst news yet for DB’s employees, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the German Bank is exploring “alternatives to paying bonuses in cash” as Chief Executive Officer John Cryan seeks to boost capital buffers.

  According to Bloomberg, DB executives have discussed options including giving some bankers shares in the non-core unit instead of cash bonuses. Another idea under review is replacing the cash component with more Deutsche Bank stock.

  The supervisory board may discuss the topic of variable pay at a meeting on Wednesday though no final decisions are expected, the people said, the day before it reports third-quarter earnings. The measures, if pursued in the coming months, would mostly impact the investment bank, the people said. The Frankfurt-based lender is still considering other alternatives, they said.

  As Bloomberg adds, any bonus-related decision will depend on the size and timing of Deutsche Bank’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over a probe into the the sale of faulty real-estate securities. Last year, Deutsche Bank awarded staff 2.4 billion euros ($2.6 billion) of bonuses for 2015, 1.45 billion euros of which was for the combined investment banking and trading unit. Of the 2.4 billion euros, 49 percent was deferred stock and cash while the remainder was paid out immediately.  It appears that DB wants to take the 49% number and make it bigger.

  The idea echoes a similar move by Credit Suisse Group AG at the height of the financial crisis, when the Swiss firm used its most illiquid loans and bonds to pay employees’ year-end bonuses.

  The report is comparable to a similar announcement made exactly one year ago, when DB announced it may slash bonuses by as much as one third. Since then, however, DB’s aggressive cost cutting initative has made life for the bank’s employees progressively more miserable. Since taking over in 2015, Cryan has suspended the dividend, reduced bonuses, cut risky assets, frozen new hiring and announced plans to shed some 9,000 jobs. The CEO has already said Deutsche Bank may fail to be profitable this year after posting the first annual loss since 2008 last year. Now, DB bankers may end up getting “paid” in some of the billions in impaired tanker loans, carried quietly on the bank’s book, if not CDS or interest rate swaps. Those DB certainly has a lot of.

  Should DB be successful with this significant shift in compensation strategy without leading to an exodus of workers, it will likely be attempted at other banks as the core problems facing Deutsche Bank, namely declining profitability, have now become systemic across the entire banking sector. Which is bad news for investment bankers everywhere.

  

  

• How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

  Authored by David Wong, originally posted at Cracked.com,

  I'm going to explain the Donald Trump phenomenon in three movies. And then some text.

  There's this universal shorthand that epic adventure movies use to tell the good guys from the bad. The good guys are simple folk from the countryside …

  Lionsgate Films

  … while the bad guys are decadent assholes who live in the city and wear stupid clothes:

  Lionsgate Films

  In Star Wars, Luke is a farm boy …

  LucasFilm

  … while the bad guys live in a shiny space station:

  LucasFilm

  In Braveheart, the main character (Dennis Braveheart) is a simple farmer …

  Paramount Pictures

  … and the dastardly Prince Shithead lives in a luxurious castle and wears fancy, foppish clothes:

  Paramount Pictures

  The theme expresses itself in several ways — primitive vs. advanced, tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs. decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban. That tense divide between the two doesn't exist because of these movies, obviously. These movies used it as shorthand because the divide already existed.

  We country folk are programmed to hate the prissy elites.

  *  *  *

  That brings us to Trump…Here are six reasons for the rise of Trump that no one is taking about

   

  1. It's Not About Red And Blue States — It's About The Country Vs. The City

  

  s

  I was born and raised in Trump country. My family are Trump people. If I hadn't moved away and gotten this ridiculous job, I'd be voting for him. I know I would.

  See, political types talk about "red states" and "blue states" (where red = Republican/conservative and blue = Democrat/progressive), but forget about states. If you want to understand the Trump phenomenon, dig up the much more detailed county map. Here's how the nation voted county by county in the 2012 election — again, red is Republican:

  

  Holy cockslaps, that makes it look like Obama's blue party is some kind of fringe political faction that struggles to get 20 percent of the vote. The blue parts, however, are more densely populated — they're the cities. In the upper left, you see the blue Seattle/Tacoma area, lower down is San Francisco and then L.A. The blue around the dick-shaped Lake Michigan is made of cities like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Chicago. In the northeast is, of course, New York and Boston, leading down into Philadelphia, which leads into a blue band which connects a bunch of southern cities like Charlotte and Atlanta.

  Blue islands in an ocean of red. The cities are less than 4 percent of the land mass, but 62 percent of the population and easily 99 percent of the popular culture. Our movies, shows, songs, and news all radiate out from those blue islands.

  And if you live in the red, that fucking sucks.

  See, I'm from a "blue" state — Illinois — but the state isn't blue. Freaking Chicago is blue. I'm from a tiny town in one of the blood-red areas:

  

  As a kid, visiting Chicago was like, well, Katniss visiting the capital. Or like Zoey visiting the city of the future in this ridiculous book. "Their ways are strange."

  And the whole goddamned world revolves around them.

  Every TV show is about LA or New York, maybe with some Chicago or Baltimore thrown in. When they did make a show about us, we were jokes — either wide-eyed, naive fluffballs (Parks And Recreation, and before that, Newhart) or filthy murderous mutants (True Detective, and before that, Deliverance). You could feel the arrogance from hundreds of miles away.

  Warner Brothers Pictures

  "Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage.

  Mark Wolfe / FEMA No sports team = no fucks given.

  But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters.

  To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

   

  2. City People Are From A Different Goddamned Planet

  

  "But isn't this really about race? Aren't Trump supporters just a bunch of racists? Don't they hate cities because that's where the brown people live?"

  Look, we're going to get actual Nazis in the comment section of this article. Not "calling them Nazis for argument points" Nazis, but actual "Swastikas in their avatars, rooted against Indiana Jones" Nazis. Those people exist.

  But what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine … as long as they acted exactly like us.

  

  If you'd asked me at the time, I'd have said the fear and hatred wasn't of people with brown skin, but of that specific tribe they have in Chicago — you know, the guys with the weird slang, music and clothes, the dope fiends who murder everyone they see. It was all part of the bizarro nature of the cities, as perceived from afar — a combination of hyper-aggressive savages and frivolous white elites. Their ways are strange. And it wasn't like pop culture was trying to talk me out of it:

  

  It's not just perception, either — the stats back up the fact that these are parallel universes. People living in the countryside are twice as likely to own a gun and will probably get married younger. People in the urban "blue" areas talk faster and walk faster. They are more likely to be drug abusers but less likely to be alcoholics. The blues are less likely to own land and, most importantly, they're less likely to be Evangelical Christians.

  

  In the small towns, this often gets expressed as "They don't share our values!" and my progressive friends love to scoff at that. "What, like illiteracy and homophobia?!?!"

  Nope. Everything.

   

  3.Trends Always Start In The Cities — And Not All Of Them Are Good

  

  The cities are always living in the future. I remember when our little town got our first Chinese restaurant and, 20 years later, its first fancy coffee shop. All of this stuff had turned up in movies (set in L.A., of course) decades earlier. I remember watching '80s movies and mocking the "Valley Girl" stereotypes — young girls from, like, California who would, like, say, "like" in between every third word. Twenty years later, you can hear me doing the same in every Cracked podcast. The cancer started in L.A. and spread to the rest of America.

  Well, the perception back then was that those city folks were all turning atheist, abandoning church for their bisexual sex parties. That, we were told, was literally a sign of the Apocalypse. Not just due to the spiritual consequences (which were dire), but the devastation that would come to the culture. I couldn't imagine any rebuttal. In that place, at that time, the church was everything. Don't take my word for it — listen to the experts:

  

  Church was where you made friends, met girls, networked for jobs, got social support. The poor could get food and clothes there, couples could get advice on their marriages, addicts could try to get clean. But now we're seeing a startling decline in Christianity among the general population, the godless disease having spread alongside Valley Girl talk. So according to Fox News, what's the result of those decadent, atheist, amoral snobs in the cities having turned their noses up at God?

  Chaos.

  Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Scott Olson

  The fabric has broken down, they say, just as predicted. And what rural Americans see on the news today is a sneak peek at their tomorrow.

  The savages are coming.

  Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the street next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry about how men should be allowed to use women's restrooms and how it's cruel to keep chickens in cages.

  S

  Madness. Their heads are so far up their asses that they can't tell up from down. Basic, obvious truths that have gone unquestioned for thousands of years now get laughed at and shouted down — the fact that hard work is better than dependence on government, that children do better with both parents in the picture, that peace is better than rioting, that a strict moral code is better than blithe hedonism, that humans tend to value things they've earned more than what they get for free, that not getting exploded by a bomb is better than getting exploded by a bomb.

  Or as they say out in the country, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

  The foundation upon which America was undeniably built — family, faith, and hard work — had been deemed unfashionable and small-minded. Those snooty elites up in their ivory tower laughed as they kicked away that foundation, and then wrote 10,000-word thinkpieces blaming the builders for the ensuing collapse.

   

  4. The Rural Areas Have Been Beaten To Shit

  

  Don't message me saying all those things I listed are wrong. I know they're wrong. Or rather, I think they're wrong, because I now live in a blue county and work for a blue industry. I know the Good Old Days of the past were built on slavery and segregation, I know that entire categories of humanity experienced religion only as a boot on their neck. I know that those "traditional families" involved millions of women trapped in kitchens and bad marriages. I know gays lived in fear and abortions were back-alley affairs.

  I know the changes were for the best.

  Try telling that to anybody who lives in Trump country.

  

  They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed.

  

  See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business — a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up, it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of manufacturing jobs with service jobs — small towns cannot. That model doesn't work below a certain population density.

  If you don't live in one of these small towns, you can't understand the hopelessness. The vast majority of possible careers involve moving to the city, and around every city is now a hundred-foot wall called "Cost of Living." Let's say you're a smart kid making $8 an hour at Walgreen's and aspire to greater things. Fine, get ready to move yourself and your new baby into a 700-square-foot apartment for $1,200 a month, and to then pay double what you're paying now for utilities, groceries, and babysitters. Unless, of course, you're planning to move to one of "those" neighborhoods (hope you like being set on fire!).

  

  In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town — aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

  I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive.

  And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities.

   

  5. Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice

  

  It really does feel like the worst of both worlds: all the ravages of poverty, but none of the sympathy. "Blacks burn police cars, and those liberal elites say it's not their fault because they're poor. My son gets jailed and fired over a baggie of meth, and those same elites make jokes about his missing teeth!" You're everyone's punching bag, one of society's last remaining safe comedy targets.

  

  They take it hard. These are people who come from a long line of folks who took pride in looking after themselves. Where I'm from, you weren't a real man unless you could repair a car, patch a roof, hunt your own meat, and defend your home from an intruder. It was a source of shame to be dependent on anyone — especially the government. You mowed your own lawn and fixed your own pipes when they leaked, you hauled your own firewood in your own pickup truck. (Mine was a 1994 Ford Ranger! The current owner says it still runs!)

  Not like those hipsters in their tiny apartments, or "those people" in their public housing projects, waiting for the landlord any time something breaks, knowing if things get too bad they can just pick up and move. When you don't own anything, it's all somebody else's problem. "They probably don't pay taxes, either! Just treating America itself as a subsidized apartment they can trash!"

  

  The rural folk with the Trump signs in their yards say their way of life is dying, and you smirk and say what they really mean is that blacks and gays are finally getting equal rights and they hate it. But I'm telling you, they say their way of life is dying because their way of life is dying. It's not their imagination. No movie about the future portrays it as being full of traditional families, hunters, and coal mines. Well, except for Hunger Games, and that was depicted as an apocalypse.

  

  So yes, they vote for the guy promising to put things back the way they were, the guy who'd be a wake-up call to the blue islands. They voted for the brick through the window.

   

  6. Assholes Are Heroes

  

  "But Trump is objectively a piece of shit!" you say. "He insults people, he objectifies women, and cheats whenever possible! And he's not an everyman; he's a smarmy, arrogant billionaire!"

  Wait, are you talking about Donald Trump, or this guy:

  

  You've never rooted for somebody like that? Someone powerful who gives your enemies the insults they deserve? Somebody with big fun appetites who screws up just enough to make them relatable? Like Dr. House or Walter White? Or any of the several million renegade cop characters who can break all the rules because they get shit done? Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules?

  "But those are fictional characters!" Okay, what about all those millionaire left-leaning talk show hosts? You think they keep their insults classy? Tune into any bit about Chris Christie and start counting down the seconds until the fat joke. Google David Letterman's sex scandals. But it's okay, because they're on our side, and everybody wants an asshole on their team — a spiked bat to smash their enemies with. That's all Trump is. The howls of elite outrage are like the sounds of bombs landing on the enemy's fortress. The louder the better.

  

  Already some of you have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they're hardly people, right? Aren't they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?

  Gee, I hope not. I have to hug a bunch of them at Thanksgiving. And when I do, it will be with the knowledge that if I hadn't moved away, I'd be on the other side of the fence, leaving nasty comments on this article the alternate universe version of me wrote.

  

  It feels good to dismiss people, to mock them, to write them off as deplorables. But you might as well take time to try to understand them, because I'm telling you, they'll still be around long after Trump is gone.

  

  

• Russia Unveils First Images Of Nuclear Missile Capable Of Reaching US Soil

  Submitted by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

  Russia reveals photos of a new highly advanced liquid fuelled heavy ICBM capable of evading anti-missile defences and hitting US territory with 10 tonne nuclear payload.

  The Makeyev Design Bureau – the designer of Russia’s heavy liquid fuelled Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (“ICBMs”) – ie. of missiles capable of reaching US territory from Russian territory, has published the first picture of Russia’s new heavy Sarmat ICBM which is due to enter service shortly, probably in 2018.

  The picture is accompanied by a short statement which reads

  “In accordance with the Decree of the Russian Government ‘On the State Defence Order for 2010 and the planning period 2012-2013,’ the Makeyev Rocket Design Bureau was instructed to start design and development work on the Sarmat. In June 2011, the Bureau and the Russian Ministry of Defense signed a state contract for the Sarmat’s development.  The prospective strategic missile system is being developed in order to assuredly and effectively fulfil objectives of nuclear deterrent by Russia’s strategic forces.”

  

  The Sarmat is the planned replacement of the R-36 family of Russian ICBMs, which entered service with the Soviet armed forces in the 1960s.  The R-36 family culminated in a series of missiles known in the USSR and Russia as the R-36M, which entered service in the 1970s.  With a throw weight of 8,800 kg these were the heaviest and most powerful ICBMs built up to now.  Here is a video of one being launched:

  The specifications of the Sarmat have not been disclosed and are classified.  However it is believed to be a significantly smaller and lighter missile than the R-36 family, but to have a larger throw weight of up to 10,000 kg. 

  Advances in the chemical industry and in the design of rocket engines since the 1960s have made it possible to build smaller and lighter rockets having the same or greater capability as the heavier rockets designed in the 1960s.

  

  The Sarmat has been specifically designed to defeat the US’s Anti Ballistic Missile systems, which are being deployed in eastern Europe. 

  Its range of countermeasures is classified and not known.  However it is believed the Sarmat is capable of manoeuvres during its flight trajectory to confuse incoming missiles, that it is able to launch decoys – also to confuse incoming interceptor missiles – and that at least one of the warheads being designed for it is a hypersonic warhead, which rumours say was tested successfully in April, and which is believed to be impervious to interception by incoming missiles.

  A little mentioned fact about the military strategic balance between the US and Russia, is that Russia has been steadily upgrading its strategic deterrent with new advanced missiles, which are entirely different to those of the 1960s, which formed the basis of the Soviet strategic deterrent. 

  These include the Topol and Yars light road mobile solid fuel ICBMs, and the very advanced solid fuelled Bulava ICBM, which is sea launched from Russia’s advanced Borei strategic nuclear missile submarines. (Below)

  

  Topol ICBM

  

  Yars ICBM

  

  Bulava ICBM

  

  Borei-class Strategic Nuclear Submarine

  By contrast the US strategic deterrent still relies on missile systems such as the ground-based Minuteman III and the sea launched Trident II, which have their origins in the 1960s and early 1970s.

  With the Sarmat missile, which is supposed to enter service in 2018, the Russians will add another powerful modern advanced system to their strategic armoury.

  

  

• German Ammunition Sales Skyrocket Tenfold In First Half Of 2016

  While the rest of the world is devolving into proxy, or even outright warfare, one nation is profiting handsomely. Germany’s ammunition exports skyrocketed in the first half of 2016, a leaked report has revealed according to Germany’s Deutsche Welle. And ironically Turkey, a country whose political relationship with Germany has deteriorated sharply over the past year – if only for popular consumption – and is currently suppressing its political opposition, has moved up the list of the country’s best customers.

  As DW reports, the German government has allowed the country’s gun-makers to sell even more ammunition around the world in the first half of 2016, according to an arms export report leaked to the DPA news agency and due to be discussed in a cabinet meeting on Wednesday. The sales of small arms themselves have fallen slightly, from 12.4 million euros ($13.5 million) to 11.6 million euros, but the approved ammunition sales rose from 27 million euros to 283.8 million euros.

  

  This broke down into 275 million euros worth of sales to EU, NATO, and NATO-allied countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Switzerland) as well as some 5.4 million euros to Iraq. The three biggest single customers were France, Poland, and Iraq, where Germany is supporting the Kurdish fighters in their battle against “Islamic State.”

  Think of it as a razor-razorblade model, just far more deadly.

  Sebastian Schulte, defence analyst and Germany correspondent for military magazine “Jane’s Defense Weekly,” said the increase in ammunition was not particularly surprising, given the intensification of the battles in Syria and northern Iraq. “The coalition is at the gates of Mosul, they’re going through a lot of ammunition, and Germany has decided to support the coalition – notably the Kurds,” he told DW. “You can go through several barrels of ammo for a machine gun in a day. That is quite normal.” 

  Not only that, Germany is probably also sending a lot of ammunition to Turkey, he speculates: “And as you know, Turkey is also highly involved both in Syria and in anti-IS operations.” As Schulte explained, Germany’s assault rifle ammunition is designed to be used in several different guns across NATO armies – though not in older guns like the Soviet-designed Kalashnikov or the 1960s era German machine gun, the G3.

  What Schulte did not comment on is that it almost appears that German’s interests are alligned with those of the US, to perpetuate a state of warfare in Syria and Iraq. After all, while weapons purchases ultimately plateau, the need for ammunition if virtually infinite.

  * * *

  The arms export report also revealed that Turkey has become a better weapons customer in the last few years: moving up from 25th place to 8th place since the beginning of the refugee crisis. Two-thirds of these sales came in plane parts, unmanned drones, and other military equipment. South Korea is also buying more from Germany, thanks to escalating tension with its northern neighbor, and has bought 205 million euros worth of military equipment, including military ships, submarine and helicopter parts, missiles and missile defense systems.

  But few are as good or steady clients of Germany as the biggest sponsor state of terrorism around the globe, Saudi Arabia which remains Germany’s third-biggest buyer, increasing its purchases from 179 million euros in the first half of 2015 to 484 million euros, while the United Arab Emirates almost doubled its purchases from Germany from 46 million euros to 85 million euros.

  In top spot, somewhat surprisingly, and the best individual customer in the first half of 2016, was Algeria buying 1.04 billion euros of German military equipment, closely followed by the US, who bought 914 million euros’ worth.

  Meanwhile, Germany’s faux pacifism has once again been exposed. Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who as economy minister is responsible for Germany’s arms sales, has promised to reduce Germany’s exports of small arms, which are by far the biggest cause of deaths in conflicts around the round the world.

  Alas, it was easier said than done. At the start of July, it was revealed that the value of Germany’s total arms sales had doubled from 2014 to 2015 (from 3.97 billion euros to 7.86 billion euros) – something that the Social Democratic Party leader blamed on a few major individual sales that had been agreed before his tenure. But Germany’s anti-arms activists would not accept this excuse, saying that the German government always has the power to cancel deals.

  Tuesday’s report appears to show Gabriel breaking his promise again, angering the Left party’s arms export spokesman Jan van Aken: “We need clear legal bans, and first and foremost an immediate ban on small arms exports,” he told DPA. The Green party’s Agnieszka Brugger was equally outraged by the latest figures, tweeting: “The government is throwing its own strict export guidelines in the garbage bin. No sense of responsibility!”

  Yes, well, while outraged and disguasted German pacificst tweet, the German weapons industry is set to enjoy another blockbuster year thanks to what has been an unprecedented  outbreak of conflict and near-war around the globe. Which should help least answer the first and foremost question any time a conflict breaks out anywhere: qui bono. And since demand for weapons and ammo transcends such trivial limitations and FX exchange rates, once German arms makers have hooked enough foreign “clients”, even a spike in the Euro – should the ECB eventually taper its QE – would not result in a notable loss in future revenue.

  

  

• Mozambique Bonds Crash On Plans To Restructure After Government Admits Nation In "Debt Distress"

  With over-subscribed new issuance the new normal in this 'reach for any yield' world, perhaps the rapid demise of Mozambique will remind some greater fools that 'high' yields are high for a reason.

  As we warned 4 months ago, Mozambique has a broad swath of problems within its governing councils.  Back in December of 2005, Management Systems International based out of Washington issued a report titled CORRUPTION ASSESSMENT: MOZAMBIQUE which said point blank: "The scale and scope of corruption in Mozambique are cause for alarm".

  Mozambique's head of state Joaquim Chissano left office in February 2005 after 15 years.  His replacement, Armando Guebza, that same year opened Mozambique's coastline to international companies seeking to search for resources.  Between 2005 and 2006 three firms were able to capture rights to explore the coast, Anadarko, Italy's Eni, and Petronas.  Some 75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was discovered and this set of a a blitz into Mozambique as international banks, corporations, and organizations flooded the area.  This opened a breeding ground for corruption and unregulated financing, specifically the controversial Tuna Bond that was supposed to be used to support regional fishing and was instead used for military expenditures and to purchase some 40 boats that remain anchored to this day.

  Since then, the New Metical has crashed hyperinflation-like to record lows against the dollar…

  

   

  In June, The IMF blamed "undisclosed loans" for Mozambique's sudden surge to 86% Debt/GDP ratio. 

  "Mozambique's economic growth will likely slow to 4.5 percent in 2016 from 6.6 percent the previous year due to rapidly rising inflation and growing government debt, the International Monetary Fund said on Friday. The leader of a Fund team that visited the southern African country, Michel Lazare, said the discovery of more than $1 billion of previously undisclosed government debt would increase pressure on the economy."

  Which seemed to spark dip-buying in the bonds…until today (as Bloomberg reports)

  Mozambique is in “debt distress,” according to the International Monetary Fund’s criteria, and plans to start talks with creditors in coming days.

   

  The southern African nation has appointed Lazard Freres SAS and White & Case to “engage in a constructive dialogue with creditors,” it said in a presentation to investors dated Oct. 25 and posted on the Finance Ministry’s website. The government aims to achieve ‘debt sustainability’ with the agreement of creditors before starting talks about an International Monetary Fund loan, it said.

  The yield on Mozambique’s $727 million of Eurobonds due 2023 jumped 554 basis points to 20.78 percent by 5:22 p.m. in Maputo, the highest on record.

  

  The country’s debt ratio will reach 112.6 percent of GDP this year after $1.4 billion in previously undisclosed loans were uncovered in April, the IMF said in a report posted to its website today. Government already this year restructured over $800 million in loans it received for a fleet of tuna fishing vessels, repackaging the debt as a $727 million of Eurobonds.

  Any new restructuring will be complicated by the existence of about $1.2 billion in loans Credit Suisse and VTB secretly made to other Mozambican state-owned companies and then resold to other investors. It is unclear how holders of the loans would be treated compared with bondholders. As WSJ reports,

  Several creditors who financed the borrowings to the state-owned businesses said they are considering litigation. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk to the press.

  In their crosshairs isn’t just Mozambique, but also Credit Suisse and VTB, the two banks that arranged the loans and are currently being investigated by authorities in the U.K. and Switzerland over their conduct.

  Both banks deny wrongdoing, as does the Mozambican government, which blames its troubles on the delays in bringing its vast gas reserves online because of low global energy prices.

  Mozambique full investor presentation…

  

  

• Russia Is Quietly Winning The Middle East (And Nobody Is Talking About It)

  Submitted by James Holbrooks via TheAntiMedia.org,

  As fighting resumes in Aleppo following a brief ceasefire – and as Russia’s largest naval fleet to sail since the Cold War steams down the English Channel on its way to the western coast of Syria – it’s important, in times when most of the focus is being drawn to one point, to step back and look at the whole board.

  Yes, what’s happening in Aleppo is a tragedy. Civilians, women, and children are being blasted out of existence as two superpowers back opposing sides in a proxy war for regional dominance. Yes, as the Russian fleet nears the Mediterranean Sea, tensions will undoubtedly escalate for a number of nations with ties to the Syrian conflict.

  But President Vladimir Putin’s moves regarding Aleppo are far from his only ones worth noting of late.

  Take Turkey, for instance. Last week, Underground Reporter posited the idea that Turkey, due to its deteriorating relations with the United States and its strengthening cooperation with Russia, has, in effect, become the military wild card in the Middle East. Cited as evidence of deepening Russian-Turkish ties was the fact that the two countries have just signed a deal to build a pipeline from Turkey to Ukraine, which would then supply natural gas to Europe.

  Turkey, which is north of Syria, shares much of its southern and all of its eastern border with the Mediterranean Sea. A good portion of Syria’s western border also runs into the Mediterranean, and it’s in those waters where Russian vessels, already hovering there, await the arrival of the aircraft carrier-led fleet now pushing through the English Channel.

  All this fits nicely into a narrative that only focuses on what’s happening in Aleppo. But one need only glance at a map to see, using nothing but the eyes and common sense, just how much more is actually taking place right now.

  In mid-October, it was reported that, for the first time ever, Russia and Egypt would conduct joint military drills. This followed news that Russia will sell attack helicopters to the North African nation and invest billions in Egyptian infrastructure. These items, along with the fact that Egypt is eager to be re-granted Russian tourism rights for its citizens after recent bad blood between the countries, lead one to the logical conclusion that Egypt has every incentive to cooperate with Russia going forward.

  Egypt, in case you’re not looking at that map, is directly across the Mediterranean Sea from Turkey.

  This means when the Russian fleet reaches the Mediterranean — whether the intent is to park in those waters and bombard Aleppo, as some believe, or merely to project Russian might to the world, as others suggest — it will be flanked by friendlies on three sides. Turkey to the north, Syrian to the east, and Egypt to the south.

  This is not a bad position to be in if you’re looking to build a natural gas pipeline from Turkey to Ukraine. Turkey, incidentally, shares its northern border with the Black Sea, which in turn shares its southern border with Ukraine. And the Black Sea, as those who’ve followed the Ukrainian situation in recent years well know, is swarming with Russian warships.

  So, in the bigger picture — assuming Turkey will eventually fully embrace the Russian sphere and that Egypt, as it’s highly incentivized to do, embraces its new role as a Russian satellite — Putin has protected himself quite deftly from those in the West who’ll inevitably, no matter what the fleet does once it arrives, accuse Putin of aggression.

  Turkey and Egypt are both formerly staunch U.S. allies, after all, and there’s been no official severing of ties, or even hints of such, with those nations. So Putin, thanks largely to the West’s own hegemonic maneuvering, has a lot of room to operate in terms of deals and cooperation — both militarily and economically.

  In any case, the facts present a narrative — albeit a theoretical one — that isn’t being discussed. Putin, as we speak, may be implementing the first phases of an effort to secure a nice straight shot from Turkey to Ukraine for the long-desired Turkish Stream pipeline.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Oil-Gas War Over Syria (In 4 Maps)

  Submitted by Eric Zuesse via Strategic Culture Foundation

  Turkey’s Anadolu News Agency, though government-run, is providing remarkably clear and reliable diagrammatic descriptions of the current status of the U.S – and – fundamentalist – Sunni, versus Russia – and – Shia – and – NON – fundamentalist – Sunni, sides, in the current oil-and-gas war in the Middle East, for control over territory in Syria, for construction of oil-and-gas pipelines through Syria supplying fuel into the world’s largest energy-market: Europe. Russia is now the dominant supplier of both oil and gas, but its ally Iran is a Shiite gas-powerhouse that wants to share the market there, and Russia has no objection.

  Qatar is a Sunni gas-powerhouse and wants to become the main supplier of gas there, and Saudi Arabia is a Sunni oil-powerhouse, which wants to become the major supplier of oil, but Saudi oil and Qatari gas would be pipelined through secular-controlled (Assad’s) Syria, and this is why the U.S. and its fundamentalist-Sunni allies, the Sauds, and Qataris, are using Al Qaeda and other jihadists to conquer enough of a strip through Syria so that U.S. companies such as Halliburton will be able safely to place pipelines there, to be marketed in Europe by U.S. firms such as Exxon. Iran also wants to pipeline its gas through Syria, and this is one reason why Iran is defending Syria’s government, against the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-jihadist invasion, which is trying to overthrow and replace Assad.

  Here are the most-informative of Anadolu’s war-maps:

  The first presents the effort by many countries to eliminate ISIS control over the large Iraqi city of Mosul. A remarkably frank remark made in this map is “An escape corridor into Syria will be left for Daesh [ISIS] so they can vacate Mosul” – an admission that the U.S. – Saudi – Qatari team want the ISIS jihadists who are in Mosul to relocate into Syria to assist the U.S. – Saudi – Qatari effort there to overthrow and replace the Assad government: 

  

   

  The second is about the Egyptian government’s trying to assist the Syrian government’s defense against the Saudi – U.S. – Qatari invasion of Syria, at Aleppo, where Syria’s Al Qaeda branch is trying to retain its current control over part of that large city. The Saud family are punishing the Egyptian government for that:

  

   

  Here is Russia’s proposed gas-pipeline, which would enable Russia to reduce its dependence upon Ukraine (through which Russia currently pipes its gas into Europe). Obama conquered and took over Ukraine in February 2014 via his coup that overthrew the democratically elected neutralist Ukrainian President there:

  

   

  In addition, there is the following map from oil-price.com:

  

   

  That map shows the competing Shiia (Russia-backed) and Sunni (U.S.-backed) gas-pipelines into Europe — the central issue in the invasion and defense of Syria.

  On 21 September 2016, Gareth Porter headlined “The War Against the Assad Regime Is Not a ‘Pipeline War’”, and he pointed out some errors in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s account that had been published under the headline “Syria: Another Pipeline War”. Porter argued: “It’s easy to understand why that explanation would be accepted by many anti-war activists: it is in line with the widely accepted theory that all the US wars in the Middle East have been ‘oil wars’ — about getting control of the petroleum resources of the region and denying them to America’s enemies.”

  But the ‘pipeline war’ theory is based on false history and it represents a distraction from the real problem of US policy in the Middle East — the US war state’s determination to hold onto its military posture in the region. Porter ignored the key question there, as to why the US war state has a determination to hold onto its military posture in the region. Opening and protecting potential oil-gas-pipeline routes are important reasons why. Clearly, Kennedy’s documentation that the CIA was trying as early as 1949 to overthrow Syria’s secular government so as to allow to the Sauds a means of cheaply transporting their oil through Syria into Europe, remains unaffected by any of the objections that Porter raised to Kennedy’s article. The recent portion of Kennedy’s timeline is affected, but not his basic argument.

  Furthermore, any military strategist knows that the US war state is intimately connected to the U.S. oil-and-gas industries, including pipelines (oilfield services) as well as marketing (Exxon etc.). And Porter got entirely wrong what that connection (which he ignored) actually consists of: it consists of U.S. government taxpayer-funded killers for those U.S. international corporations. Here is how Barack Obama put it, when addressing graduating cadets at West Point, America’s premier military-training institution:

  Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

   

  It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead – not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

  He was saying there that America’s military is in service to U.S.-based international corporations in their competition against those of Russia, Brazil, China, India, and anywhere else in which “rising middle classes compete with us”. Those places are what Gareth Porter referred to as “America’s enemies”.

  Economic competitors are “enemies”. Obama thinks that way, and even a progressive journalist such as Porter doesn’t place into a skeptical single – quotation – mark – surround, the phrase ‘America’s enemies’ when that phrase is used in this equational context. On both the right (Obama) and the left (Porter), the equation of a government and of the international corporations that headquarter in its nation — the treatment of the military as being an enforcement-arm for the nation’s international corporations — is simply taken for granted, not questioned, not challenged.

  RFK Jr. was correct, notwithstanding some recent timeline-errors. Syria is “Another Pipeline War”, and Obama is merely intensifying it. (On 9 November 2015, I offered a different account than RFK Jr. provided of the recent history — the Obama portion — of the longstanding U.S. aggression against Syria; and it links back to Jonathan Marshall’s excellent articles on that, and to other well-sourced articles, in addition to primary sources, none of which contradict RFK Jr.’s basic view, “Syria: Another Pipeline War”).

  Another portion of Porter’s commentary is, however, quite accurate: America’s ‘Defense’ (or mass-killing-abroad) industries (such as Lockheed Martin) are not merely servants of the U.S. government, but are also served by the U.S. government: “the US war state’s determination to hold onto its military posture in the region” is protection of the major market — the Middle Eastern market — for U.S. ‘Defense’ products and services. It’s not only America’s firms in the oil, gas, and pipelines, industries, which benefit from America’s military; it is also America’s firms in the mass-killing industries, that do.

  To the extent that the public (here including Barack Obama and Gareth Porter) do not condemn the presumption that “the business of America is business”, or that a valid function of U.S. – taxpayer – funded military and other foreign-affairs operations is to serve the stockholders of U.S. international corporations, the hell (such as in Syria) will continue. Gareth Porter got lost among the trees because he failed to see (and to point to) that forest.

  

  

• Introducing Yield Purchasing Power

  The monetary debate seems artificially limited. On one side is Federal Reserve policy based on discretion. On the other is policy based on rules. It’s Keynes vs. Friedman. It’s central planning of our economy based on the reactive whims of wise monetary planners vs. central planning of our economy based on the proactive rules written by … wise monetary planners.

  On the rules side, there is a sub-debate. Should we have central planning based on unemployment and the Consumer Price Index (as now) or switch to central planning based on another metric such as GDP?

  Whether one is on team Keynes or team Friedman, whether one is on sub-team Friedman CPI or Friedman GDP, everyone seems to take something for granted. That is, the quantity theory of money. If the quantity rises, then prices follow. However, since prices (especially commodity prices) are not really rising, this would seem to give more leeway to the monetary planners, to inflict more monetary policy on us.

  There is something about this which few acknowledge. To increase the quantity of dollars—which is not money, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion—the Federal Reserve buys bonds. Whatever effect this may have on the price of a new Chevy, it obviously affects the price of the Treasury bond. It pushes the bond price up. Since the interest rate is a strict mathematical inverse of the bond price, we have an obvious conclusion.

  The Fed is pushing down the rate of interest.

  We can say that the interest rate is the collateral damage. The Keynesians and Friedmanites, in their zeal to increase the quantity of dollars, support or at least ignore the falling interest rate. OK, but who cares about the interest rate? You should care. Everyone is impacted by the 35-year global trend of falling interest rates.

  The falling rate ushers in a kind of hyperinflation. You won’t see it by looking at prices, or purchasing power. If you look at the value of your portfolio and divide by the cost of living, you may be lulled into a false sense of security.

  You will see the hyperinflation, if you look at it another way. Instead of the liquidation price of assets, consider the yield on assets. Instead of selling off the family farm to buy groceries, think of operating that farm to grow food. Can you live on the crops you produce? Or must you liquidate piece of it, just to survive?

  The same question applies to any capital asset including a bank balance. Is it possible to live on the interest?

  In the cold harsh light of yield purchasing power, we can see the erosion of our capital base. Since civilization itself depends on capital accumulation, this erosion is a retrogressive force dragging us back to another dark age.

  I gave a 45-minute presentation on Yield Purchasing Power at American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, MA on October 14, 2016. I am grateful to the Institute for recording video of my presentation plus extended Q&A. The video is here.

  

• The Path To Total Dictatorship: America's Shadow Government And Its Silent Coup

  Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”— Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech

  Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.

  Say hello to America’s shadow government.

  A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

  No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government—also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”—may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.

  To be precise, however, the future president will actually inherit not one but two shadow governments.

  The first shadow government, referred to as COG or Continuity of Government, is made up of unelected individuals who have been appointed to run the government in the event of a “catastrophe.” COG is a phantom menace waiting for the right circumstances—a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, an economic meltdown—to bring it out of the shadows, where it operates even now. When and if COG takes over, the police state will transition to martial law.

  Yet it is the second shadow government—also referred to as the Deep State—that poses the greater threat to freedom right now. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our government.

  The Deep State, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

  So who or what is the Deep State?

  It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees.

  It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

  These are the key players that drive the shadow government.

  This is the hidden face of the American police state that will continue long past Election Day.

  Just consider some of the key programs and policies advanced by the shadow government that will continue no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

  Domestic surveillance. No matter who wins the presidential popularity contest, the National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, will continue to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Thus, on any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

   

  Global spying. The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” will continue to span the globe and target every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage.

   

  Roving TSA searches. The American taxpayer will continue to get ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country.

   

  USA Patriot Act, NDAA. America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, will continue to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected.

   

  Militarized police state. Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces will continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, will continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

   

  SWAT team raids. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties will continue to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams will continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.

   

  Domestic drones. The domestic use of drones will continue unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones.

   

  School-to-prison pipeline. The paradigm of abject compliance to the state will continue to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts will continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court.

   

  Overcriminalization. The government bureaucracy will continue to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community will continue to have their farms raided.

   

  Privatized Prisons. States will continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

   

  Endless wars. America’s expanding military empire will continue to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

  Are you getting the message yet?

  The next president, much like the current president and his predecessors, will be little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on.

  As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.”

  The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley.

  This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds.

  It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats.

  As Lofgren concludes:

  [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

  In other words, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, as long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished.

  So the next time you find yourselves despondent over the 2016 presidential candidates, remember that it’s just a puppet show intended to distract you from the silent coup being carried out by America's shadow government.

  

  

• Larry Lindsey Silences CNBC: "The Most Dangerous Candidate Is The One The Media Is Paying The Least Attention To"

  “Polling today isn’t the way it used to be, they are not random,” explains a calm Larry Lindsey to an ‘innocent’ CNBC anchor, before pointing out that just how biased (as we have detailed previously) the Clinton-tilted polls are.

  One clever anchor retorts – seemingly proclaiming innocence (or ignorance) – “what’s the incentive for the polling organizations to try and cook the books here… pretty short-sighted I would think.”

  Lindsey eloquently explains that “they are creating a bandwagon effect… it’s pretty clear what side the news media is on here and that is something that should worry markets after the election… If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, who will keep an eye on her, on the kinds of side-deals that may be happening, on the regulatory abuses…?”

  Finally, Lindsey lays the hammer, after CNBC smugly notes that he is not a Trump supporter, the director of the National Economic Council exclaimed,

  “I live in a state where I have the luxury of not having to pick between two evils… and vote for Gary Johnson…

   

  but the most important thing as people are deciding between the lesser of two evils, the real question you should be asking is, which is the most dangerous of the two evils, and that one’s easy… the most dangerous evil is the one the press is not focused on…”

  Sit back, relax, and watch 5 minutes of uncomfortable truths unleashed on an unsuspecting CNBC anchory…

  

  

• Chinese Politician Given Suspended Death Sentence After 200 Million Yuan In Cash Was Found In His Apartment

  When corrupt Chinese oligarchs and politicians are unable to transfer millions in illegally obtained funds offshore they resort to the next best option: storing the money in the form of cold, hard cash stashed away inside their apartments. However, this is a rather risky proposition as one of them found out when investigators, along with a live-rolling media crew, showed up at his apartment where he had managed to conceal over 200 million yuan in cash.

  

   

  As Shanghaist reports, the fact that the highest denomination of Chinese currency is the 100-yuan note has always created headaches for corrupt officials. In order to fit 200 million yuan ($31 million) into a single apartment, Wei Pengyuan was forced to resort to some creative interior design, removing all the furniture apart from a single bed, and filling the place with bags full of cash.

  

   

  Wei, the former vice director of the National Energy Administration’s coal department, was famously busted for corruption back in May of 2014. Investigators reported that they had discovered an inconceivable amount of money stashed inside his apartment, but footage of the flat had not been released until now.

  

  In a 19-minute-long segment, Chinese state media took viewers on a tour of Wei’s apartment and through his history of malfeasance. Throughout the flat, suitcases, cardboard boxes and bags of all sizes are found strewn around stuffed full of banknotes. Along with 134 million in yuan, Wei’s stash also included US dollars, Hong Kong dollars, British pounds and Euros.

  

  At the time of Wei’s arrest, it was reported that investigators used 16 mechanical bill counters to count up all the cash, and four of the machines burned out from the herculean effort. In this latest expose, state media reports that it took 5 of these counting machines 14 hours to tabulate it all up, with only one casualty.

  According to Sina, locals are stunned at the shear scale of governmental graft. Several papers estimated that the stash must weigh well over a ton.

  

  To build up this kind of fortune, prosecutors say that Wei took in bribes from over 200 companies from 2000 to 2014. He was given a suspended death sentence on Monday.

  

  The most amusing part in the report on Wei’s life is that his colleagues had always believed him to be a modest and austere official. Everyday, Wei would ride a bike to and from work. What they didn’t know was that Wei was in fact driving his Audi, parking nearby and then taking the foldable bicycle out of his trunk.

  

  Wei isn’t the only ex-official being shamed on state media, on Monday, an eight-part TV series “Always on the Road” began airing, featuring some of China’s most notorious public officials taking to the screen to confess to their crimes in front of the nation. That series will wrap up next Monday, just in time for a four-day plenary session of the Central Committee, the last major meeting before a reshuffle of central party leadership next autumn.

  If anything, we predict that reports such as this will spur even more aggressive transfer of local Chinese funds offshore – and certainly cash – and further accelerate “M&A” involving Chinese financial conglomerates and US acquisition targets.

  Images via Sina

  

  

• Pathetic: Wells Fargo Steps Up Scandal Control With TV Ad Over Bogus Accounts

  Wells Fargo Steps Up Scandal Damage Control With TV Ad Push

  Reminds me of the GMAC videos when they changed their name to Ally after they got busted stealing the homes of millions of people…

  If you haven’t seen them, I embedded a few below.

  Wells Fargo & Co., trying to quell a scandal that has engulfed its consumer bank, will start broadcasting nationwide television commercials Monday night, outlining steps it has taken to halt abuses.

  The spot — featuring a stagecoach in slow motion, and a narrator talking over piano music — escalates a public-relations campaign that already includes Internet and newspaper advertisements, as the firm tries to convince customers it’s putting their interests first. Authorities fined the bank $185 million last month, saying branch workers may have opened more than 2 million unauthorized deposit accounts and credit cards over half a decade.

  “The advertising reiterates Wells Fargo’s commitment to customers and the steps we are taking to move forward and make things right,” Mark Folk, a company spokesman, said in an interview. Some ads will air during Sunday morning talk shows, and the push will include networks Univision and Telemundo, he said.

   
  

  www.4closureFraud.org

  

• FelonsVotesMatter – Florida Dems Allege Racism Behind Restrictions On Felon Voters

  The rights of felons to vote have become a hot topic in the 2016 election.  We recently wrote about the efforts of Virginia’s Governor, and long-time Clinton confidant, Terry McAuliffe, to restore voting rights to 200,000 ex-felons (see “FelonsVotesMatter (To Hillary) – Clinton’s Election Fate In Virginia Lies With 200,000 Unregistered Offenders“).  As we pointed out, 200,000 is over 5% of the 3.8mm Virginians who voted in the Presidential race in 2012 and is larger than Obama’s margin of victory over Mitt Romney of 149,298.  But we certainly don’t mean to imply that McAuliffe’s efforts were in any way motivated by a desire to help Clinton win the state of Virginia in November…we’re sure this problem is just an issue that has tugged at McAuliffe’s heart for a long time.  But we digress.

  Another state that denies convicted felons the right to vote is the key swing state of Florida.  As Reuters points out, felons in the state of Florida have been “disenfranchised” in since 1868 and a newly elected republican governor, Rick Scott, took steps in 2011 that made it even harder to restore felons’ voting rights. 

  Felons have been disenfranchised in Florida since 1868, although they can seek clemency to restore their voting rights.

   

  Since 2011, however, when Republican state leaders toughened the restrictions on felon voting rights, just 2,339 ex-felons have had that right restored, the lowest annual numbers in nearly two decades, according to state data reviewed by Reuters.

   

  That compares with more than 155,000 in the prior four years under reforms introduced by Governor Rick Scott’s predecessor, moderate Republican governor Charlie Crist, the data shows. Crist, who was governor from 2007 to 2011, made it much easier to restore ex-felons’ voting rights.

   

  “When I tried to be an effective member of the community, I saw that I was voiceless,” said Newton, whose expectations of getting his rights restored were dashed when the rules changed under a new administration. “I’m 45, and I have never voted.”

   

  Florida is the largest of four remaining states that strip all former felons of voting rights, accounting for nearly half of those barred from voting nationally. Along with Virginia, the others are Kentucky and Iowa.

   

  Of course, according to Reuters, efforts to restrict felons from voting is just another effort of racist “millionaire” republicans to “disenfranchise” minority voters.  Per data from the Sentencing Project, one in five voting-age black voters has a felony record compared to only 8.6% of non-black potential voters…a statistic that democrats argues confirms that republican efforts are racially motivated.

  In March 2011, two months after he became governor, Scott reversed Crist’s reforms, which had allowed many non-violent felons to automatically get their voting rights reinstated after they had completed their sentences. Crist had also simplified the process for felons convicted of more serious crimes to regain their votes.

   

  Scott, a millionaire former health care executive, put in place new restrictions, requiring ex-felons to wait for five to seven years before applying to regain the right to vote, serve on a jury or hold elected office. He said the new rules ensured ex-felons had proven they were unlikely to offend.

   

  Florida has disenfranchised about one in five voting-age black voters, according to research collected by the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based advocacy group.

   

  That compares with about 8.6 percent of the state’s non-black potential voters. Data on the Hispanic voting-age population who can’t vote because of the law was unavailable, although Hispanics make up 12.5 percent of Florida’s inmates.

  Meanwhile, republicans argue that the execution of justice has nothing to do with race with Governor Scott’s office saying that felons have an obligation to demonstrate to society a genuine interest in living a “life free of crime” before their voting rights should be reinstated. 

  “For those who may suggest that these rule changes have anything to do with race, these assertions are completely unfounded. Justice has nothing to do with race,” Bondi wrote in a 2011 newspaper editorial.

   

  Scott’s office, in a statement to Reuters, said former felons need to “demonstrate that they can live a life free of crime, show a willingness to request to have their rights restored and show restitution to the victims of their crimes” in order to have their voting rights restored.

  As the state with the largest population of non-voting felons, something tells us this battle in Florida is just getting started.

  

  

• Twitter Planning To Fire Another 8% Of Workforce, "Losing Talent" Fast

  Just days ahead of its Q3 earnings report, Twitter is reportedly planning widespread job cuts following the demise of the deal-scheme. As Bloomberg reports, the company may cut about another 8% of the workforce, or around 300 people leaving its headcount the smallest since Q3 2014.

   

  

  As Bloomberg reports, according to people familiar with the matter, the company may cut about 8 percent of the workforce, or about 300 people, the same percentage it did last year when co-founder Jack Dorsey took over as chief executive officer, the people said.

  Planning for the cuts is still fluid and the number could change, they added. The people asked not to be identified talking about private company plans.

   

  Twitter’s losses and 40 percent fall in its share price the past 12 months have made it more difficult for the company to pay its engineers with stock. That has made it harder for Twitter to compete for talent with giant rivals like Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. Reducing employee numbers would relieve some of this pressure.

   

  Twitter, which loses money, is trying to control spending as sales growth slows.

   

  The company recently hired bankers to explore a sale, but the companies that had expressed interest in bidding — Salesforce.com Inc., The Walt Disney Co. and Alphabet Inc. — later backed out from the process.

  With the stock back at pre-deal-hype levels, the big question is whether a collapsing headcount is the last straw on this camel’s back…

  

  

  

• Credit Card Delinquencies Creep Up To Highest Levels Since 2012 As Subprime Issuance Soars

  As Obama’s “recovery” rolls along, the Wall Street Journal points out that the delinquency rates of subprime credit cards has surged to the highest levels recorded since 2012.  Moreover, per TransUnion data, delinquency rates on cards issued in 2015 are close to 3%, or roughly double the overall rate, indicating that consumers have grown increasingly dependent on credit cards over the past couple of years to fund daily expenses.

  Credit-card lending to subprime borrowers is starting to backfire.

   

  Missed payments on credit cards that lenders issued recently are higher than on older cards, according to new data from credit bureau TransUnion. Nearly 3% of outstanding balances on credit cards issued in 2015 were at least 90 days behind on payments six months after they were originated. That compares with 2.2% for cards that were given out in 2014 and 1.5% for cards in 2013.

   

  The poorer performance on newer cards pushed up the 90-day or more delinquency rate for all credit cards to 1.53% on average nationwide in the third quarter. That’s the highest level since 2012.

  Meanwhile, FRED data reveals that while overall credit card delinquency rates remain at 10-year lows, the trends has been higher over the past several quarters.
  

  

  Of course, as we’ve noted before, part of the problem is that credit card companies have been forced to compete with the “peer-to-peer” loan providers whose volume has grown exponentially since tapping into the Wall Street securitization machine in 2015.  Unfortunately, this latest wall street ponzi scheme only serves to ruin the long-term credit quality of borrowers as most people use proceeds to repay credit cards then simply max them out all over again.    

  We first noted Wall Street’s misguided plan to feed its securitization machine with peer-to-peer (P2P) loans back in May 2015 (see “What Bubble? Wall Street To Turn P2P Loans Into CDOs“).  Obviously we warned then that the voracious demand for P2P loans was a direct product of central bank policies that had sent investors searching far and wide for yield leaving them so desperate they were willing to gamble on the payment streams generated by loans made on peer-to-peer platforms.

   

  In addition to the pure lunacy of using unsecured, low/no-doc, micro-loans as collateral for a CDO, we pointed out that the very nature of P2P loans meant that borrower creditworthiness likely deteriorated as soon as loans were issued.  The credit deterioration stemmed from the fact that many borrowers were simply using P2P loan proceeds to repay higher-interest credit card debt.  That said, after paying off that credit card, many people simply proceeded to max it out again leaving them with twice the original amount of debt.

   

  And, sure enough, it only took about a year before the first signs started to emerge that the P2P lending bubble was bursting.  The first such sign came in May 2016 when Lending Club’s stock collapsed 25% in a single day after reporting that their write-off rates were trending at 7%-8% or roughly double the forecasted rate (we wrote about it here “P2P Bubble Bursts? LendingClub Stock Plummets 25% After CEO Resigns On Internal Loan Review“). 

  As the WSJ points out, the credit quality of borrowers has declined materially over the past couple of years.  In fact, the volume of subprime card issuance was up 20% year-over-year in 2015 and 56% compared to 2013.  Meanwhile, declining household income related to the oil bust has also led to higher delinquencies.

  The recent increase in subprime lending is one of the big contributors. Lenders ramped up subprime card lending in 2014 and have been doling out more of these cards recently. They issued just over 20 million credit cards to subprime borrowers in 2015, up some 20% from 2014 and up 56% from 2013, according to Equifax.

   

  Separately, missed payments in states with large oil or energy sectors continue to worsen. The share of card balances that were at least 90 days past due increased 12% in Oklahoma, 10% in Texas and 20% in Wyoming in the third quarter from a year prior, according to TransUnion. The Wall Street Journal reported in April that rising unemployment in the energy sector was pushing up delinquencies on credit cards and auto loans, raising the risk of new losses for banks.

  Why do we suddenly have a sinking suspicion that victims of “predatory credit card lending practices” will be the next bailout target of democrats after taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab for outstanding student loan debts?

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• NATO Continues To Prepare For War With Russia

  Submitted by Peter Korzun via Strategic-Culture.org,

  NATO uses any pretext to accuse Russia of harboring aggressive intentions. It has raised ballyhoo over the recent deployment of Iskander short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles to the Kaliningrad region.

  Time and time again, the alliance reaffirms its bogus Russia narrative. “We see more assertive and stronger Russia that is willing to use force,” concluded NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg speaking at the round table in Passau, Bavaria on October 10.

  At the same time, NATO is pushing ahead with its military "Schengen zone" in Europe.

  "We are working to ensure that each individual soldier will not require a decision at the political level to cross the border," said Estonian Defense Minister Hannes Hanso.

  The idea is to do away with travel restrictions on the movement of NATO forces troops and equipment across Europe. There will be no need to ask for permissions to move forces across national borders. It will undermine the sovereignty of member states but facilitate the cross-continent operations instead. The Baltic States and Poland are especially active in promoting the plan. The restrictions in place hinder rapid movement of the 5,000 strong “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force”.

  Besides being the first response tool, it could be used for preventing Article 4 situations, such as subterfuge, civil unrest or border infractions, from escalating into armed conflict. The troops can move freely in time of war, but introducing a NATO Schengen zone is needed for concentrating forces in forward areas in preparation for an attack across the Russian border. The formation of the much larger 40 thousand strong NATO Response Force (NRF) is on the way.

  Meanwhile, the US and Norwegian militaries are discussing the possibility of deploying US troops in Norway – a country which has a 200 km long common border with Russia. The deployment of US servicemen would be part of a rotating arrangement in the country that would fulfil a "long-standing US wish." Norwegian newspaper Adresseavisen reported on October 10 that 300 combat US Marines could soon be in place at the Værnes military base near Trondheim, about 1,000 kilometres from the Russian-Norwegian frontier.

  The air station also serves as part of Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, a program that allows the Corps to store thousands of vehicles and other major pieces of equipment in temperature-controlled caves ready for combat contingency.

  Several defence sources told the newspaper that the plans to put US troops at the military base have been underway for some time. According to Military.com, the information that the plans are underway was also confirmed by American Maj. Gen. Niel E. Nelson, the commander of Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

  300 Marines can be easily reinforced. The only purpose for the deployment is preparation for an attack against Russia. After all, the Marines Corps is the first strike force. And it’s not Russian Marines being deployed near US national borders, but US Marines deployed in the proximity of Russian borders. The provocative move is taking place at the time the Russia-NATO relationship is at the lowest ebb.

  In February, it was revealed that US Marines were using Cold War era Norwegian caves to store new tanks, artillery and other military equipment to ramp up their presence near the Russia-NATO border.

  The military began using the caves to store military equipment in 1981. With the Cold War over, the costs of maintaining the caves were transferred to Norway. The cave complex is back in active use now holding enough equipment to support some 15,000 Marines. 

  According to Heather Conley, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Europe Program, Northern Europe is now being viewed as a “theatre of operations”. 

  These steps are taken against the background of the already highlighted plans to boost NATO’s presence and intensify its military activities in the proximity of Russia’s borders.

  The war preparations are taking place at the time Germany – the European economic giant – has announced it wants a more assertive role in European defense and plans to significantly boost its defense expenditure.

  German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen noted that the German Finance Ministry has accepted to increase defense spending by to a total of 10 billion euros by 2020 for the procurement of equipment and personnel. “Germany is ready to engage … to take more responsibility…This is the right path, but it will require an enormous commitment of time and money", she stressed addressing a biennial gathering of 200 high-ranking military officials in Berlin on October 17.

  The alliance is trying to whip up tensions in Europe to reinforce its relevance in the ever changing world. It needs a fictional enemy to keep it together. Without attracting much public attention, NATO is actively involved in military preparations in the proximity of Russia’s borders. Neither the plans for the military “Schengen zone”, nor the deployment of US Marines in Norway, nor Germany beefing up its combat potential have been on the radar screen of Western media.

  One provocation follows another against the endless drumbeat of Western media reports about “Russian aggression”. The war preparations greatly reduce European security and the chances for revival of constructive dialogue between Russia and NATO – something Russia has been calling for so many years. Instead, the bloc is doing its best to provoke an arms race with unpredictable results.

  

  

• Life After 11/9 – Governing The Ungovernable

  Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

  Over the summer I introduced a two-fold assertion: 1) global economic growth is over (and has been for years and won’t come back for many more years) and 2) the end of growth marks the end of all centralization, including globalization. You can read all about these themes in “Globalization Is Dead, But The Idea Is Not” and “Why There is Trump” There are also extensive quotes of the second essay in wicked former UK MI6 spymaster Alastair Crooke’s “‘End of Growth’ Sparks Wide Discontent”.

  When I say ‘the end of growth’, I don’t mean that in a Limits to Growth kind of way, or peak oil or things like that. Not because I seek to invalidate such things, but because I mean economics, finance only. Our economies simply ceased growing, and quite a few years ago. The only reason that is not, and very widely, recognized is the $21 trillion and change that central banks have conjured up ostensibly to kickstart a recovery that always remains just around the corner.

  That those $21 trillion will have massive negative effects on all of us is not my point either right now. Just that growth is gone. And that’s hard enough to swallow for a system that’s based uniquely on that growth. That is what this ‘essay’ is about: what consequences that will have.

  All that said, I don’t have the idea that too many people are willing to accept the notion of the end of eternal economic growth (let alone right this minute), nor of globalization’s demise. Which may be partially understandable, but not more than that. Instead, quite a few people may honestly feel that the end of growth will make ‘leaders’ try for more, not less, centralization/globalization, but that, if it happens, is temporary. Unless, as I wrote earlier, we see dictators in the west.

  Because, as I said in those articles, the overbearing principle is, and must be, that when centralized power ceases to deliver benefits to people, they will no longer accept that decisions about their – ever poorer- lives are taken by people hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they live. People allow that only when they reap sufficient benefits from it. With growth gone, there are no such benefits left. Look at Greece and Italy and Brexit, and look at why Trump is where he is.

  *  *  *

  Since it will apparently take a while for the above to sink in – which is not because I’m wrong-, I’m a little hesitant to introduce the next assertion, which is very closely related to the other two and takes it a step further. That assertion is that there are multiple countries in the western world -and perhaps beyond- today that run a serious risk of becoming de facto ungovernable. I’ll refrain from using the term anarchy.

  I’ve been playing around in my head for a while with the thought that it is striking that the last two major global powers, which together have dominated world politics and economics for over 200 years, look well on their way towards becoming ungovernable. It is perhaps even more striking that nobody appears to understand or even contemplate this.

  Both Britain and America are caught in an apparent trap in which various groups of their citizens blame each other for everything that’s going wrong with their lives -which admittedly is plenty. But that’s where the end of growth and globalization comes in: societies are in urgent need of new ways of organizing themselves, of formulating new goals, priorities and policies.

  And since nary a soul recognizes that the old ways have expired, this is bound to be a very difficult process. Before formulating anything new, we will first see (well, we already do) forces, movements and individuals rise to the fore whose claim to fame is kicking against the existing grain without providing much in the way of -coherent- ideas of what should come next.

  In fact, most of these ‘transitory forces’ don’t even realize or acknowledge the need for any novel paradigms; they -often hugely- gain in popularity basing themselves on talk of tweaking existing paradigms, on the notion of pretty much leaving things as they are but with a few different focus points here and there. Re-arranging deckchairs.

  And if anyone would try on ‘real change’, they’d likely be voted down in record numbers, because the end of growth will mean loss of wealth and prosperity everywhere. And neither the people nor the times are ready for that message. Let alone the media machine or the establishment it serves. Which would rather go to war than admit they lost and give up their profits.

  *  *  *

  Before moving on to the most prominent and perhaps urgent examples, the US and UK, let’s take a look at a handful or so European countries. By the way, the European Union is a prime example of an entity that is caught blinded on the way towards being ungovernable like a deer in 27/28 pairs of headlights. No growth, no EU.

  In the same way that, as I explained in the earlier articles, all supranational entities face the fate of the dodo. Or at least the existing ones do, with their structures geared towards ever increasing centralization of power and money. Countries, societies, people will always find ways to trade and cooperate, and they will again, but the next time they do it will be only if and when they keep control over decisions that concern what’s important to them.

  But on to those European countries on their way towards challenging existing power structures and governability. Italy has a -constitutional- referendum on December 4, and it looks right now like PM Renzi will lose that, opening the way for our friend Beppe Grillo and his M5S Five Star movement to take over. Beppe wasn’t against the euro when we met in 2010, but he is now. And M5S has since grown hugely, into a solid national force.

  In the rich core of the EU, there are general elections in Holland in March 2017, France in April and Germany in September 2017. Holland’s traditional parties have been losing clout for a long time, and Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam anti-EU pro-Freedom party scores big in the polls. And that in a country that says it’s doing great, talks about raising wages across the board and is stuck in a massive housing bubble.

  France has a president, Hollande, who’s polling lower numbers (a while ago it was 6%) than any US president probably ever did in history, and that’s saying something. France has new crown princes on Hollande’s Socialist side in PM Manuel Valls and Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, but they are badly tainted by Hollande’s ‘achievements’.

  They have old crown princes for the Republican conservative party in ex-PM Sarkozy and the for some reason very popular Alain Juppé, but both can really only try and steal votes from Marine Le Pen’s Front National by leaning ever further right. Which leaves Le Pen, who has sworn to take France out of the EU, as the no. 1 contender.

  Given what might happen in Italy, Holland and France, one must wonder what the September 2017 German elections will even matter anymore when they happen. Unless an M5S type movement stands up there, Merkel will have no choice but to pull sharply to the right to try and hold off the right wing AfD from getting into a kingmaker position. Germany’s once proud and strong left wing movement looks bound for near extinction.

  Belgium and Spain don’t have elections scheduled for 2017, but both have recently endured long periods without functioning governments, and both look no closer to solving the issues than they were before. Just look at Wallonia blocking the CETA trade deal between the EU and Canada. One might say they already are, for all intents and purposes, on the verge of being ungovernable.

  Grillo, Wilders, Le Pen and Spain’s Podemos are very different people and movements, but what they have in common is they can produce such a backlash in their respective countries, win or lose, that they can render the existing political structures obsolete and thereby their countries ungovernable. Maybe, then, those structures are already obsolete, and maybe that’s why they’ve gained such popularity?!

  *  *  *

  Plenty of candidates in Europe for governmental chaos; and I haven’t even touched on many countries, including in Eastern Europe, where the end of growth will shatter many dreams and promises of better lives that have been put on hold indefinitely. Even as many Czechs and Polish workers risk being sent back home from countries like Britain. Europe truly is a continent full of powder kegs. Even before you add refugees.

  However, I still think the US and UK are first in line when it comes to the risk of being rendered ungovernable. Partly simply because of timing, and partly because the differences between various ‘groups’ and movements are as pronounced as they are already today. Both countries are running out of carpet to sweep their dirt under.

  A conspicuous part in all this is played by the nations’ respective media, who seem to have given up all attempts at pretending to be neutral, a.k.a. ‘journalistic’. Traditional media, newspapers and radio and TV channels, used to have reporters and then, separately, they would have opinion columns, and the difference would be clear. But that’s all gone, every single article is now an opinion piece, which goes a long way towards explaining why people turn their backs on them.

  The MSM media are digging their own graves. Or, rather, their graves were being digitally dug anyway, and they’re greatly speeding up the process of their own demise. What America and Britain would need right now is a ‘traditional media outlet’ -just one- that is actually objective; the first one that tries that approach could make a killing, but all are scared of being killed in the process.

  Moreover, most ‘reporters’ have fooled themselves into thinking that they ARE objective; that ‘objective’ means Trump and Brexit MUST be condemned, as well as everyone and everything that has anything to do with the two, and some that don’t, like Putin. Which happens to play a major role into how both countries inexorably slide down into a state of chaos.

  Their traditional political parties are self-immolating as we speak, and yet in neither country is there space for new parties to stand up. That seems to be a major difference (perhaps it’s an Anglo thing?) from countries in continental Europe, and even there things are screaming out of hand. The post-growth model appears to be: new parties or not, the incumbents are toast. Plenty room for big gaping holes.

  *  *  *

  Post Brexit, the UK has the Tories, who lost the Brexit vote but for some reason are still in power, just with a different figurehead. But they are hopelessly divided in pro-Brexit and pro-EU factions, and they appear so far to be messing up anything at all having to do with Brexit. All the egos collide too, of course; egos are all that politics has left to provide us.

  Then there’s the Labor Party, which is equally hopelessly divided into the pro-Corbyn camp and the anti-Corbyn ‘Blairites’, which have conducted a kind of guerrilla warfare that might put the Viet Cong to shame. The Blairites have made such a fuss over Corbyn not being electable that they made their wishes come true like a boomerang. But that’s the MPs, not the voters or even the party members, who are behind Corbyn in massive droves.

  The UK doesn’t have a general election scheduled until 2020, but with all the infighting and even more importantly the ‘real’ start of Brexit that’s supposed to come in early 2017, and/or a potential parliamentary vote seeking to make the referendum null and void, it’s hard to see how the country could NOT descend into total chaos way before 2020.

  The people who were comfortable before June 23 blame it all on ‘Brexiteers’, but they conveniently forget that before that date they completely ignored the people who did vote to Leave the EU, and are therefore now grasping at straws when it comes to explanations. The term ‘deplorables’ has been patented by the Hillary camp, but it seems to express quite well how Remain feels about Brexit voters today. And that’s toxic for any society.

  This is just not good enough. Brexit voters from what I can see are a mix between those who have been hit hardest by former PM Cameron and his goon squad (and ignored by Remainers), and those who really find the EU a failed experiment, an aspect I rarely see discussed in Britain. They should be elated to be rid of Brussels, but it’s all only about how much money they will have short term, not about identity or pride or anything.

  A country full of people pointing fingers at others, while remaining blind to their own failures. The mote and the beam, a recipe for mayhem. So you have this entire godawful political mess, and now imagine throwing in the end of growth, and deteriorating economic circumstances from here on in.

  Britain had better start some kind of National Conversation first on where it wants to go, hire something in the vein of a bunch of National Therapists to tell people it’s not okay to blame everything on somebody else, whether they’re Brits or foreigners, or, with Scotland planning another independence vote, we could be back all the way to Braveheart.

  *  *  *

  That leaves the US. The country that has elections before any of the other ‘basket cases’. And, this being America, the land that’s better than anyone at painting pictures of itself as tempting as they can be false, the antagonism is dripping off the walls and through the streets. The land that discusses which lives matter.

  It’s glaringly obvious that the majority of the US media would like you to believe that when it comes to ungovernability, a Trump victory would be a sure bet to lead the US into political mayhem. That may be true, though it’s by no means guaranteed, they make it up as they go along, but a Hillary win may well end up being even worse.

  As I wrote mid-September in “Hillary Became Unelectable Long Ago”, Mrs. Clinton faces a ton of unanswered questions that will not just go away just because she might win a vote. If anything, scrutiny may well increase, and a lot, if she wins on November 8. And that’s not just because the Donald is a sore loser (which also may or may not be true).

  There are a lot of intelligence (FBI) voices protesting the decision to not charge Hillary for her email shenanigans. There are plenty of serious issues related to the capture of the DNC by Hillary’s campaign, and the subsequent ousting of Bernie Sanders and all his supporters. The campaign went so far as to pay people to -violently- disrupt Trump events. Now spell democracy for me.

  What may play an even bigger role going forward is the unrelenting blame game played by the campaign on Russia and Vladimir Putin, a litany of allegations for which precious little proof, if any, has been presented. Trying to link Putin to Trump to Julian Assange may have seemed a winning election strategy, and it may prove to be one, crazy as it is, but on November 9 the world will still keep turning and-a churning. And where are they all then?

  Trump will not forget this. The Republicans won’t. The FBI won’t. All the people who support Wikileaks won’t. Vladimir Putin won’t. And neither will the leaders of a lot of other countries. They have now seen that sovereign nations and their leaders can be used as cannon fodder in a US election, or any other US political purposes, and that’s going to make them feel queasy, and then some, for a long time.

  It’s very hard to see how Hillary and her people, as well as the American media, can climb down from the stance they’ve taken. It’s not exactly something you can easily apologize for after the fact. So the only thing to do would be to dig in and persevere.

  *  *  *

  For the media, as I said, it’ll be merely another step towards irrelevance. Just a bit steeper. For Hillary and her supporters, it won’t be that smooth of a way down. When they dig in deeper into their trenches, all that’s left them is to try and escalate the Russia tension.

  But while an attack on Russia may go down reasonable well in American minds, Hillary would need to involve NATO, and there are plenty of member countries, and their citizens, who will not accept anything of the kind, no matter what their leaders say. The fact that NATO relies on unity would become a liability instead of an asset, in the same way that the EU will experience.

  NATO would fall apart if the US under a Hillary presidency attacks Russia. So would the EU, which will fall apart anyway. And that’s just on the international front.

  Domestically, the Obama reign has been ‘saved’ by those trillions from the Fed, by the crazy growth in debt, both public and private, and by a list as long as your arm of questionable ‘official’ data, unemployment numbers, personal ‘wealth’, that sort of thing. While we all know that there would not be a Trump if those numbers reflected Americans’ real lives.

  Trump may go away, though it won’t be in silence, but what he represents will not. And what he represents is 180º squarely removed from Hillary. And it’s not going to be subdued, silent or obedient. Blaming that on Trump, or on things he says, misses the point by a mile.

  Given what the Hillary campaign has perpetrated, given the links to the Clinton Foundation, and given a ton of other things, it’s not all that crazy that Trump says he may not accept an election result off the bat. And given what many voices in the Democratic party, including Obama, have said in the past about elections and systems being rigged, it’s nonsense to try and demonize him for suggesting that.

  Of course American elections can be rigged. Hanging chads or not. As long as people have to wait in line for hours in certain districts to cast their vote, and as long as Diebold machines are used, they can be rigged. But you can’t say it out loud?

  *  *  *

  Look, if Trump wins, how docile will the Democrat crowd be, given the propaganda machine targeted at Putin and Assange and anyone else (Bernie!) who dared stand in Hillary’s way? If the result is close, will Hillary accept it without a single protest or question? She won’t. But if Trump says he’ll keep you in suspense about the exact same thing, he’s a threat to democracy itself?

  Points of view and belief are so far apart that indeed, democracy is under threat. But not because of Trump. That threat goes back to times long before him.

  Hillary owes her position, and her wealth, to the Saudis and Qataris and Wall Street banks and US industrial/military neocons. And they will all demand that she return the favor. But they want something completely different than the people who vote for her. And since the economy is shrinking, she will have to take whatever it is they demand in return for putting her on her pedestal, away from the people who voted for her.

  And no matter how much propaganda is unleashed upon Americans, as they see their lives deteriorate, they will be on to this, more and more. And they will lean towards Trump or Bernie Sanders -or someone else in the future-, anyone they feel expresses their frustration.

  Hillary won’t be able to ‘cure’ the economy any more than Obama has, she won’t have the Fed’s virtual trillions to help her veil the real state of the economy, and she’s already close to the lowest ‘likeability’ rate in history to begin with.

  I’m thinking Trump would probably be an awful president, but he perhaps wouldn’t be the worst option. And I’m saying that from the point of view of keeping America governable going forward, something he may well screw up yuugely, but at least he’s not certain to.

  It’ll be hard to keep America quiet in the years to come whoever wins, and I’m going to have to think about this more, I just wanted to say for now that what many people think and claim is a given, is not. And that is a big thing given that the elections are only 16 days away.

  

  

• Watergate's Bob Woodward: "Clinton Foundation Is Corrupt, It's A Scandal"

  It’s one thing for the right-wing press to accuse the Clinton foundation of cronyism, corruption, and scandal (especially if the facts, and internal admissions by affiliated employees, confirm as much) – it tends to be generally ignored by the broader, if left-leaning, media. But when the Watergate scandal’s Bob Woodward, associate editor at the liberal Washington Post, says very much the same, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has no choice but to notice. This is precisely what happened today when journalist Bob Woodward told a Fox News Sunday panel that the Clinton Foundation is “corrupt” and that Hillary Clinton has not answered for it.

  Here, courtesy of RealClearPolitics, is the transcript of today’s exchange:

  CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: Then there are the allegations about the Clinton Foundation and pay to play, which I asked Secretary Clinton about in the debate, and she turned into an attack on the Trump Foundation.

   

  But, Bob, I want to go back to the conversation I was having with Robby Mook before. When — when you see what seems to be clear evidence that Clinton Foundation donors were being treated differently than non-donors in terms of access, when you see this new — new revelations about the $12 million deal between Hillary Clinton, the foundation, and the king of Morocco, are voters right to be troubled by this?

   

  BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: I — yes, it’s a — it’s corrupt. It’s — it’s a scandal. And she didn’t answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it’s corrupt. You know, I mean, you can’t just say it’s unsavory. But there’s no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.

   

  But the election isn’t going to be decided on that. I mean Karl was making the point about this, I’m not going to observe the result of the election. I mean that’s — that’s absurd. I mean it has no consequence. If Trump loses, they’re not going to let him in the White House. He’s not going to have a transition team. And — and to focus on that, I think, is wrong. I think the issue is, what’s going to be the aftermath of this campaign.

  So it’s corrupt, it’s a scandal, and… it will have no consequences at all. It’s time to look up the latest definition of Banana republic again.

  

  

• The Chinese Buyers Are Back: China Oceanwide Acquires Genworth For $2.7 Billion

  For more than half a year after China’s Anbang “insurance” conglomerate mysteriously emerged out of nowhere, announcing its intentions to acquire US hotel chain Starwood, shortly before it even more mysteriously pulled its bid once questions about its source of funds emerged, Chinese M&A activity in the US was put in cryogenic sleep, with not even a peep out of Chinese companies desperate to launder their money in the US using legal methods, most notably mega mergers and acquisitions.

  Today that changed when just as unexpectedly, China Oceanwide Holdings Group agreed to buy troubled US insurer Genworth Financial Inc. for $2.7 billion in cash, pledging to help the U.S. firm manage its debt and strengthen life insurance units after it was hurt by higher-than-expected losses tied to long-term care coverage. A China Oceanwide investment platform will pay $5.43 per share, the companies said Sunday in a statement. That’s 4.2% more than Genworth’s closing price of $5.21 Friday. The buyer also promised to provide $600 million to Genworth to address debt maturing in 2018, as well as $525 million to strengthen the life insurance businesses.

  “Genworth is an established leader in both mortgage insurance and long-term care insurance, which are markets that present significant long-term growth opportunities,” China Oceanwide Chairman Lu Zhiqiang said in the statement. “We are providing crucial financial support to Genworth’s efforts to restructure its U.S. life insurance businesses.”

  In recent months, Genworth CEO Tom McInerney has been selling assets to ensure the insurer has sufficient liquidity after it was hit by losses on its long-term care coverage, which pays for home-health aides and nursing home stays, and as low interest rates crimp returns. At that point, it was almost as if a white knight emerged for the troubled company, one from across the Pacific. China Oceanwide plans to let Richmond, Virginia-based Genworth operate as a standalone company after the takeover with senior management still in place, according to the statement. “Genworth is an established leader in both mortgage insurance and long-term care insurance, which are markets that present significant long-term growth opportunities,” China Oceanwide Chairman Lu Zhiqiang said in the statement. “We are providing crucial financial support to Genworth’s efforts to restructure its U.S. life insurance businesses.”

  But who is this bidder/white knight? Very much like Anbang, it is a major financial conglomerate which spans real estate, energy and finance. It was founded in 1985 by Lu, who is a Communist Party secretary, as well as a member of the standing committee of the 12th Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, according to the company’s website.

  More details from its website:

  China Oceanwide Holdings Group was founded in 1985 by Mr. Lu Zhiqiang, the founder, legal representative, Communist Party secretary, and chairman of the group, as well as a member of the standing committee of the 12th Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, vice president of the China Non-governmental Chamber of Commerce, deputy chairman of the Oceanwide Foundation,deputy chairman of the China Minsheng Banking, and a member of the board of trustees of Fudan University, etc.

   

  

   

  China Oceanwide Holdings Group Co., Ltd., the backbone of the group, has a registered capital of 20 billion yuan. Thanks to over three decades’ development, China Oceanwide Holdings Group has developed into an international group of integrated finance and industry dominated by finance and based on industry, with remarkable market influence and social contribution. It is the controlling shareholder and investor of several China Mainland and Hong Kong listed companies, including Oceanwide Holdings (000046), Minsheng Holdings (000416), China Oceanwide Holdings Limited (00715), Minsheng Bank (600016?01988), and Legend Holdings (03396), thus its comprehensive strength has been enhanced considerably. The Group now owns nearly 100 subsidiaries and more than 10,000 employees, with its businesses and operations present in key cities in China Mainland such as Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Wuhan, Qingdao, Xi’an, Dalian, Ji’nan, Weifang and Hong Kong and other regions and countries such as United States, Indonesia and Australia.

  Translated: another company with vast political links, and even vaster financial resources mostly denominated in Yuan however, that need to be laundered abroad in the cleanest possible way.

  Enter offshore M&A.

  Incidentally, Chairman Lu is also one of the founding shareholders of China Minsheng Banking Corp., and earlier this year boosted his stake in the Chinese lender through China Oceanwide. Lu’s purchases of about $1.1 billion in Minsheng’s stock in July reflected his confidence in the Beijing-based lender, he said at the time. And guess what: Anbang emerges once again. As Bloomberg reports, “Lu dismissed speculation at that time that his moves may signal a looming tussle for ownership with the bank’s biggest shareholder, Anbang Insurance Group.”

  It is almost as if there are 2-3 Chinese mega conglomerates, whose roots are to be found deep inside the corruption of the financial system, and which quietly are seeking to park as much cash offshore as they can in the form of M&A, which for the target firm is a gift from god: such Chinese M&A is most often price indiscriminate, in fact the more they succeed in overpaying, the better for how much cash will be funneled out of the mainland.

  To be sure, as Bloomberg notes, Genworth isn’t likely to see higher bids because of the struggles at its long-term care operation and China Oceanwide’s agreement to add more capital, according to BTIG LLC analyst Mark Palmer. “GNW’s rationale for agreeing to sell itself likely was rooted in the challenges faced by its LTC unit, as the company in conjunction with the sale announcement disclosed that as a result of its annual review of its LTC claim reserves it would increase such reserves,” Palmer wrote in a note to clients.

  One almost wonders if nobody else wanted to buy GNW, which did a mega Chinese financial conglomerate, which has no business acquiring semi-solvent US insurers and is desperate to transfer billions in cash from the mainland fo the US and… oh wait, we just answered the question.

  A quick prime on what Oceanwide’s $2.7 billion in cash will buy it:

  Genworth writes mortgage insurance in the U.S., and has stakes in a Canadian and an Australian home-loan guarantor. Mortgage insurers cover losses for lenders when homeowners default and foreclosure fails to recoup costs. This deal gives China Oceanwide the chance to benefit from gains in the U.S. housing market.

   

  McInerney has been seeking to free up capital to pay bonds coming due, and has also been boosting capital by selling assets. He struck a deal in 2015 to sell a European mortgage unit to AmTrust Financial Services Inc. and also agreed to have Axa SA buy a European unit that offers customers protection against the financial impact of major illness, accident or death. He’s also been working to restructure the business units in a way that’s acceptable to regulators, and won approval from bondholders earlier this year to reorganize some of its units.

   

  The deal will help give Genworth the finances to separate a life and annuity operation from another life insurance arm, according to the statement. Lu said the transaction was structured to make it easier to obtain regulatory approval.

  While it is unclear just what the return on the Chinese purchase will be, one party is sure to be delighted with the transaction, assuming it closes: Genworth itself. GNW shares have slumped from as high as $15.53 at the end of 2013 as the company dealt with its long-term care operations. The insurer has also been seeking in recent years to boost rates on old long-term care coverage as medical costs increased and more people than expected held on to those policies. The Chinese buyer has no intention or obligation to add more capital to support those legacy obligations, according to the statement.

  “We believe that this transaction creates greater and more certain stockholder value than our current business plan or other strategic alternatives,” McInerney said in the statement. “China Oceanwide is an ideal owner for Genworth. They recognize the strength of our mortgage insurance platform and the importance of long-term care insurance in addressing an aging population.”

  Actually, no. They are an ideal owner because they will pay anything to get a fraction of the company’s billions in stranded cash holdings abroad. Even if it means overpaying for questionable assets. Or rather, especially if it means overpaying. And it’s not only China Oceanwide: its nemesis Anbang agreed to a deal for Des Moines, Iowa-based Fidelity & Guaranty Life in 2014, but has hit a roadblock, pulling an application for regulatory approval from New York to buy the firm. Anbang has renewed discussions with regulators about the transactions, people with knowledge of the talks said in September, although in recent months the mood in DC has been rather negative toward Chinese acquirors.

  According to Bloomberg. the deal is expected to close by the middle of 2017. Genworth received advice from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lazard Ltd., Willkie, Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, while the board of directors sought guidance from Richards, Layton & Finger. China Oceanwide was advised by Citigroup Inc., Willis Towers Watson Plc, Sullivan & Cromwell and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

  Should the deal close, it will likely unleash a surge of more Chinese acquisitions of questionable US companies, leading to even more short squeezes on concerns that the “Chinese are coming.” On the other hand, rumor has it that all it took for the Anbang deal for Starwood to fall apart was one look at the source of funds for the Chinese conglomerate. Considering that the vast majority of Chinese fundings has shady origins, we would not be surprised if this particular deal were to likewise fall apart should the Chinese acquiror be asked even the most cursory question on where it got its money…

  

  

• Six Things To Consider About Inflation

  Submitted by Emile Woolf via The Mises Institute,

  As an economic term, “inflation” is shorthand for “inflation of the money supply.”

  The general public, however, usually takes it to mean “rising prices” which is not surprising since one of the common effects of an increase in the money supply is higher prices. However, supporters of government policy often say, “If quantitative easing (QE) and its terrible twin, fractional reserve banking, are so awful, why have we got no inflation?”

  To address this conundrum, there are six related factors that are noteworthy:

  Number One: we need to be clear about the terms we are using. Instead of talking about “inflation” in the loose sense, as above, it is more accurate to speak of currency debasement, which is the real impact of fiat money creation by any means. We experience currency debasement as declining purchasing power. Two sides of the same coin: one reflects the other.

  Number Two: the above question overlooks the fact that the measures used in this process are inherently unreliable. The decline in purchasing power is most evident when objectively measured by reference to an essential commodity such as oil — rather than against the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI purports to reflect the prices of ingredients selected by government statisticians in what they consider to be a typical, but notional, basket of “consumer goods and services.” This basket, whose contents are varied periodically, results in an index that cannot be trusted as an objective barometer. It supports the wizardry of non-independent Treasury statisticians, and relates to goods that scarcely feature in your shopping basket or mine.

  Number Three: newly created fiat money must go somewhere — and so it goes into the grasp of its first receivers, the banks, the financial institutions, government institutions, and urban moneyed classes who least need it — widening the gap between rich and poor — and thereby building asset bubbles in property, luxury cars, yachts and the myriad baubles that only the very rich can afford to acquire. So never say that “there is no price inflation” — it’s just that those asset prices don’t figure in the official CPI stats.

  Number Four: The European Central Bank (ECB) is no slouch when it comes to money creation out of thin air, and banks within the euro zone have therefore come to rely on it for survival. The solvency of Southern EU countries is dependent on the promise of limitless — thanks to Mario “Whatever it takes” Draghi — fiat money bailouts from the ECB. But, until the next bailout arrives, governments of Europe will do their coercive best to prop up their insolvent banks by any means, fair or foul. In Italy, for example, the government has now “invited” the country’s pension funds to invest 500 million euros in a bank fund called “Atlante,” which has been formally set up as a buyer of last resort to help Italian lenders (whose bad debts equate to a fifth of GDP) reduce their toxic burden. Having run out of other people’s money the Italian government is now trying to raid the nation’s pension funds.

  Number Five: In the same vein, you have no doubt heard reference to “helicopter money.” This is a variant of QE favored by certain politicians who talk blithely about the need for “QE for the people.” The idea is to by-pass the treasury mandarins by dropping newly printed money directly to the people via government spending, so that they (rather than the already-rich classes) can benefit from the bonanza and aid the economy by spending their new-found wealth. Again, this notion commits the fundamental error of equating “money” and “wealth.” If everyone suddenly finds that free handouts have swelled their bank accounts, how long will it be before prices follow? (And since even helicopter money originates at the central bank, you can be sure that the financial sector will somehow get its hands on it first anyway!)

  Number Six: the final point concerns the corrosive effect of the deliberate and utterly misguided suppression of interest rates which, if they were allowed to find their own market level, would represent the time-value of money, or what the private sector is prepared to pay for liquidity — either for spending now or saving for future spending.

  The suppression of interest rates is yet another desperate attempt to stimulate demand, hoping that it will lead to productive economic activity. But it flies in the face of Say’s Law, which holds, correctly, that we produce in order to consume. Reversing these leads to the idiocy of “demand management” — as if stimulating demand will magically generate the production needed to satisfy that demand. If that were true, Venezuela and Zimbabwe would be vying right now for the title of the world’s most prosperous economy.

  Suppressing interest rates destroys the natural measure of time preference. It leaves many long-term infrastructure investment plans on hold, simply because no private sector producer of capital projects will commence a venture that cannot be reliably costed. After all, who knows when interest rates will rise? And at what economic cost to the project? Uncertainty stifles action.

  The risk of misallocation of capital resources is simply too great for the private construction sector. Just look at the many public sector cock-ups: there are Spanish airports at which no plane has landed, and Portuguese motorways on which there are no cars. And here in the UK? Just wait for HS2, new airport runways, Hinckley — and all the other mammoth “interest-free” projects that get the go-ahead, having never been subjected to any reliable economic calculation.

  So what do we finish up with in the productive sector? The near-zero interest rates favor short-term production schedules with minimal capital requirements, resulting in low-risk production lines of cheap goods. That’s why we have “pound- shops” and 99p shops and all the other shabby outlets that now litter every suburban high street — creating the illusion of zero inflation. Which is where we came in.

  

  

• "Drain The Swamp"

  Donald Trump’s latest message is, it’s time to drain the “swamp” that he calls Washington.

  As Martin Armstrong exclaims, this is why the Republican elite stand for Hillary. Term limits and ending lobbying by former government staff would cut too deep into their pockets.

  Drain It!

  

  Source: GrrrGraphics.com

  

  

• Wikileaks Provides Status Update On Julian Assange And The US Election

  Over the past week concerns mounted that in the aftermath of the surprising decision by Ecuador to cut Julian Assange’s internet connection during the US election period (under pressure from John Kerry), that not all might be well with the Wikileaks founder, about whom Hillary Clinton allegedly jokingly asked whether he can be droned. Concerned speculation about the Ecuadorian embassy exile had risen to such an degree, that overnight Wikileaks announced it would provide a state update on Assange’s current status. It did so moments ago on twitter when the WikiLeaks Editorial Board issued the following statement on the status of Julian Assange, Ecuador and the US election.

  WikiLeaks Editorial Board statement on the status of Julian Assange, Ecuador and the US election pic.twitter.com/bYyWwMG5Ox

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 24, 2016

  The contents of the statement:

  On Tuesday, the government of Ecuador issued a statement saying that it had decided to not permit Mr. Assange to use the government of Ecuador’s internet connection during the US election citing its policy of “non interference.”

   

  Ecuador’s statement also clarified that it does not seek to interfere with WikiLeaks journalistic work and that it would continue to protect Mr. Assange’s asylum rights.

   

  Mr. Assange has asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the United Nations has ruled he has been unlawfully deprived of liberty by the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Sweden for the last six years. He has not been charged.

   

  It is the government of Ecuador’s prerogative to decide how to best guard against the misinterpretation of its policies by media groups or states whilst ensuring that it protects Mr. Assange’s human rights.

   

  WikiLeaks is a global, high volume publisher that publishes on average one million documents and associated analyses a year.

   

  WikiLeaks publishes its journalistic work from large data centers based in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, among others. Most WikiLeaks staff and lawyers reside in the EU or the US and have not been disrupted.

   

  WikiLeaks has never published from jurisdiction of Ecuador and has no plans to do so. Similarly Mr. Assange does not transmit US election related documents from the embassy.

   

  WikiLeaks is entirely funded by its readers, book and film sales. Its publications are the result of its significant investigative and technological capacities.

   

  WikiLeaks has a perfect, decade long record for publishing only true documents. It has many thousands of sources but does not engage in collaborations with states.

   

  Mr. Assange has not endorsed any candidate although he was happy to speak at the Green’s convention due to Dr. Jill Stein’s position whistleblowers, peace and war.

  Reading between the lines, it appears that Assange is fine, if only for the time being.

  

  

• "I Went To A Wells Fargo Branch… And This Is What Happened Next"

  Submitted by Wolf Richter via WolfStreet.com,

  They have learned nothing.

  I walked into my Wells Fargo branch to put my data backup into my safe deposit box, as I’ve been doing for a decade. This routine business turned into a wake-up call about safe deposit boxes and churned up insights into how Wells Fargo conducts to this day its cross-selling efforts: the algo makes them do it!

  To clarify, I’m a happy customer. Wells Fargo handles day-to-day banking for me and my vast WOLF STREET media-mogul-empire corporation. The people are nice, and I have not yet noticed any fraudulent accounts in my name.

  It doesn’t bother me that every time I call one of the national numbers with a problem or question, I have to swat away their offers of “pre-approved” credit cards, lines of credit, or other high-margin products. Having run a car dealership earlier in my life, I appreciate the art of aggressive cross-selling. However, we never-ever did it over the phone! We waited till we saw the whites of their eyes.

  Yet at the counter for safe deposit boxes, I was in for a surprise. The young man – a 30-year-old employee would have looked suspiciously over-age at that branch – checked the computer for my box number. There was a problem. He asked for my driver’s license. He rummaged through a file cabinet, found the signature cards. He conferred with another kid. He came back, embarrassed. Turns out, the fact that I’ve been renting the box for a decade wasn’t in their computer system. So no-go.

  I thought: That’s how easy it is to block you from getting into your safe deposit box.

  He called over a “personal banker” – a young woman – to “fix” the problem. We trotted off to her desk. She said the bank had “updated” its computer system. My box rental hadn’t made it into the new version. So she got busy on her computer. Took a while. She had to set it up. There were fees and discounts to discuss. There were things I had to read, agree to, and sign. She was just about finished, when she suddenly did a mini double-take of her screen. Everything came to a halt.

  “I don’t mean to sell you anything,” she said after a long pause, with an embarrassed smile, “but….”

  She could see the whites of my eyes! She turned her computer screen. It was filled with a Wells Fargo credit card promo. You’ve been pre-approved for this great offer, she said. “Your credit must be really good. Not many people get this offer.”

  An algorithm had decided it was time to cross-sell; and she had to cross-sell to finish her job. That credit card promo was the next step in the procedure.

  The algo that forces employees at the branch and at call centers to cross-sell was designed by humans, after strategic decisions had been made and funded, under the direction of top management at headquarters, such as current CEO Timothy Sloan and former CEO John Stumpf.

  This cross-selling push is embedded in the software, is algorithm-driven, and kicks in at the most effective moment.

  Even the recent disclosures, settlements, the keel-hauling in California and other states, and further investigations have not motivated Wells Fargo to strip these algos out of its computer system. They’re still there, working hard for your own good.

  After she got rid of that promo page, and elegantly handled another topic she wanted to cover, I was finally allowed to get into my safe deposit box.

  The next day, I received an email from Wells Fargo and Gallup. It asked for “feedback” on my “recent Wells Fargo visit” and offered me a chance to win $1,000.

  Now I was curious. Though I never fill out surveys, I decided to check this out.

  Up front, it asked if I spoke “to a banker about opening a NEW account or product,” or about one of my “CURRENT Wells Fargo accounts or products.” Was Wells Fargo trying to figure out if the “banker” did her job and pitched a new account?

  After it asked me to rate my “overall satisfaction” with the visit, it listed a series of questions about the employee, whether they did things right the first time, etc. etc. It never once asked about the bank, how it screwed up with the safe deposit box.

  And this: “The employee asked questions to identify options for meeting your financial needs.” Should I check “strongly agree” to help the employee out? She deserved it. She was nice. Clearly, the survey is checking on her to see if she did her job and tried to sell me something I didn’t need or want.

  Remember, I’d gone to the branch to get into my safe deposit box, and not for retirement planning.

  “Did you visit the branch to resolve a problem or error?” Nope. A “problem or error” occurred after I got there.

  “Did you work with an employee to establish or confirm your financial priorities?” And “The employee provided products or services that aligned with your current financial needs.”

  Again and again, each time couched in slightly different terms, the survey checked on the employee to see if she had been sufficiently aggressive in cross-selling.

  The fact that surveys check to see if employees did their job in cross-selling tells me how big the pressure on them still is, even after all the revelations.

  These survey results are used to manage employees. They probably get them rubbed in their faces during sales meetings and in performance evaluations. They know they’re being evaluated, not only by the algo-driven computer system at the bank, but also via customer responses, to make sure they push new accounts, credit cards, credit lines, brokerage accounts, and other products.

  This is inbred into the bank. It’s part of its management doctrine and computer system. It’s partnering with Gallup to accomplish this. A contract with Gallup isn’t set up at the lower levels. And a few slaps on the wrist aren’t going to change a whole lot. It’s not just Wells Fargo. It’s the industry. It puts banks into the same category as car dealers. So steel yourself when you deal with them (just like you would walking into a dealership).

  No bank is “so powerful as to be untouchable,” explained California State Treasurer John Chiang. Read…  Wells Fargo Getting Clocked by California: What, No Perp-Walk?

  

  

• Why All The Yawning Over The Yuan?

  Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

  When it comes to China all the main stream media will ever cover is something in regards to a “hot topic of the day” brought about by either a political discourse, or some celebratory exhibition being observed within its boundaries. When it comes to trade, or business topics, they’ve pretty much abandoned them in total, leaving that realm for the “business/financial” outlets.

  So it’s no wonder that when it comes to trade, or monetary issues most haven’t a clue. However, one would think when it came to the #1 financial headline generator that had the ability to send markets plunging reminiscent of a “Black Monday” causing global financial panic worldwide, and triggering (the first time in history) a tripping of all three circuit breakers on the U.S.’s major futures markets, while simultaneously causing the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history to openly state “international developments” as a root cause and catalyst to postpone a monetary decision that is supposedly U.S. centric only. The business/financial media would be all over it. Yet? (insert crickets here)

  What is that #1 generator you might ask? Hint: The Yuan.

  

   

  Except for places like Zero Hedge™ and a few others. When it comes to anything about China’s latest currency devaluation (whether by design or not) one would think there was a media blackout on the subject. I find that strange only for this reason: If you remember the day you woke up in August of last year thinking “Here we go again!” Where some markets had plunged over 1000 points bringing back all the fears of 2007/08. The root cause of that was: the Yuan, and its sudden devaluation.

  Only after what seemed (and jawboned) like stabilization (and a note to Jim Cramer from Tim Cook on China implying “nothing to see here, move along” added in for extra measure) did the markets bounce back off the lows to then resume their monetary policy captured antics.

  So with that all said for context, the question must be asked: Were you aware that the Yuan tumbled to lows not seen in 6 years? Remember – in August of 2015 the Yuan went to a level that sent markets roiling globally. We’re now well under (or above depending how you measure) that level, and falling further.

  

   

  Do you think with what you now know that that should be a front-page headline across at least one major financial/business main stream media publication? I know I do.

  Or, is that now sooooo 2015? I’m sorry, but this is not something trivial. And if you’re in business, or of the entrepreneurial mindset – not paying attention to this matter is not an option. This is where out-of-the-blue type scenarios with tremendous repercussions such as what happened in August of last year originate, then germinate. If you want proof – just think back to that August so many would like to forget.

  Now some will think “Maybe there’s no concern because the politburo has it under control?” It’s a fair response, but there’s a problem inherent with the answer, or answers.

  First: If the Chinese are doing it in a “controlled” type manner, it reeks of “currency manipulation” tactics for others (think U.S. presidential politics as of today) to latch onto and build support, as well as strengthen a case for retaliation. i.e., placing tariffs, etc, etc.

  If you think about it from the Chinese perspective: that would mean you were openly, and intentionally goading as to fuel some version of a trade, or currency war. When you come at it using that thought process; it just doesn’t make sense. Both from a tactical standpoint, as well as political. Hence lies what maybe even a more troubling scenario. e.g., They’ve lost control.

  The only other reason more troubling than the first – is the second. For it is here where things become quite precarious, as I’ve stated many times: “The currency markets are where you must keep your eyes and ears affixed. It’s where the real games are played and won.” And losing control of one’s currency has implications for all others, both warranted, as well as unintended. And it seems this latter scenario might be more on point than the former.

  In just a little more than a month ago HIBOR (Honk Kong’s overnight CNH funding rates) exploded to their highest levels since the beginning of the year. The reasoning behind this speculated by many was in direct relation to the oncoming of holidays where liquidity can become scarce. It’s a valid point. However, there was another reason just as compelling with far more onerous tones which many failed to connect the dots to. Here’s how Zero Hedge explained it. To wit:

  “However, the most likely explanation is that in order to force Yuan shorts to capitulate as 6.70 remains just barely within reach, the PBOC is simply continuing to squeeze the yuan shorts and raising the cost of shorting yuan, as explained last week.

   

  Ultimately, the PBoC weakened its yuan fix by 169 pips to 6.6895 versus yesterday’s 6.6726, even as many were expecting the USDCNY to finally breach the 6.70 resistance level, the defense of which may have explained today’s aggressive spike in HIBOR tightening.”

  Less than a week later the above was proved out correct when the afore-mentioned HIBOR surge took place. And once again, this is where that “second” answer I alluded to possibly being more of the issue that the “first” brings with it the real concern.

  It would appear that China has been actively pursuing a currency strategy to keep sellers (i.e., shorts) at bay by any means available – no matter how dramatic. They have introduced measures which have exploded HIBOR nearly 200% in overnight trading scare tactics as to either punish, or decimate any bearish bets against anyone currently holding, and better yet, even thinking about placing on the Yuan.

  The “magical” level implied by the politburo, which they seemed to be telegraphing in no uncertain terms, was at or about 6.70 (USD/CNH.) They’ve held this level, or manipulated aggressive tactical repercussions to ensure a stability at this level since that fateful exhibition in last August when it was evident control was slipping at best, lost at worst.

  Since then they’ve shown blatant disregard as to hide their involvement if it meant holding that level through their inclusion into the SDR (Special Drawing Rights basket of currencies,) as well as ahead, during, and following a G-20 meeting. Holding that 6.70 line-in-the-sand has been assumed to be paramount. Until now….

  As of this writing the current level is 6.775 and rising. At first glance that number might not look like much. But in currency markets, (especially where leverage is used in multiples that can bankrupt nations let alone “traders” in one fell swoop) it’s very concerning. For it’s far above what China has demonstrated as “acceptable” and could cause retaliatory measures (again out-of-the-blue) by the politburo that have rippling effects throughout the entire currency spectrum.

  Which brings us back to those two troubling questions and answers: Are we on, or about, to see a massive currency move by China as to defend its currency against the shorts? Or, has China lost control and we are on the verge of a massive devaluation with impending monetary and trade ramifications to be felt throughout the global markets?

  There is a “third” option, but I’m sorry to say – it’s worse that either the above. And that is, much like I’ve stated previous about “weaponizing the Fed” could cause intended distresses via the monetary channel.

  China may have decided to strike first, not by intervening, rather, by something more innocuous, but just as devastating: By standing on the sidelines.

  I’m afraid we shall find out – much sooner than later.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Walls, Going Viral

  By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

  Market dislocations occur when financial markets, operating under stressful conditions, experience large widespread asset mispricing.

  Welcome to this week’s edition of “World Out Of Whack” where every Wednesday we take time out of our day to laugh, poke fun at and present to you absurdity in global financial markets in all it’s glorious insanity.

  

  While we enjoy a good laugh, the truth is that the first step to protecting ourselves from losses is to protect ourselves from ignorance. Think of the “World Out Of Whack” as your double thick armour plated side impact protection system in a financial world littered with drunk drivers.

  Selfishly we also know that the biggest (and often the fastest) returns come from asymmetric market moves. But, in order to identify these moves we must first identify where they live.

  Occasionally we find opportunities where we can buy (or sell) assets for mere cents on the dollar – because, after all, we are capitalists.

  In this week’s edition of the WOW we’re covering walls

  Right now fully one third of the world’s countries have built (or are building) walls.

  Two months ago in an article entitled “7 Steps To The Easiest Short In Recent History” we looked at a combination of factors supporting the inevitable disintegration of the Euro currency experiment:

  1. Importing Hatred – mass immigration from countries the west is bombing.
  2. The Rise of The Right – Political correctness out the window.
  3. Borders Close – Threats become evident.
  4. The Victims Retaliate – Vigilante violence escalates. An increase in racism.
  5. Isolation – internal borders drawn within countries. Laws passed isolating classes of society.
  6. European Integration Disintegrates – Inward looking, rising popularism. Divisions along ethnic/tribal lines.
  7. Banking pressures add pressure to the Euro – The financial pressures accelerating all of the above.

  If you look carefully at each of these steps you’ll notice they all entail in some way either physical or psychological barriers being built. Often both.

  Today we’re taking a look at the incredible global shift taking place towards more physical barriers and then we ask some questions about what this means for us all and how we may protect ourselves and profit from what appears to be an unstoppable trend.

  According to a recent article in the Washington post:

  “In 2015, work started on more new barriers around the world than at any other point in modern history. There are now 63 borders where walls or fences separate neighboring countries.”

  

  Most of these walls are being erected within the European Union which is not surprising. As mentioned before, Brexit is as much about the refugee crisis, stopping mass immigration, and what is seen by many as the islamization of Britain as it is about the myriad insane regulations the Eurocrats in Brussels foisted on our scone eating and tea drinking friends.

  But Europe is not alone. Walls are being constructed across the Middle east, Asia and Africa, making this a global trend.

  The quite brilliant Dr. Pippa Malmgren the former US presidential advisor and author of Signals: The Breakdown of the Social Contract and the Rise of Geopolitics wrote an excellent articleon the topic of walls being built around the globe arguing that countries can put up walls but that capital will pull them down again.

  “Walls don’t usually work or last. Hadrian’s Wall didn’t stop the Scots. The Great Wall of China didn’t stop the Mongols or the British. The Berlin Wall too was overwhelmed by the tide of history. In the end, capital finds a way to flow to wherever the profits are, on either side of walls. But, for now, it looks like money will flow, as it usually does, to the side of walls that permits the greatest freedom of movement, whether that be a movement of people or capital or goods.”

  While I don’t disagree with Pippa, timeframes matter. Walls can remain, and hamper capital flows for long timeframes. The Berlin wall hampered trade and capital flows for 28 years. As an investor this matters to me – a lot.

  Why These Walls?

  These walls are quite simply a manifestation of the economic consequences of policy decisions taken over the course of multiple decades.

  As mentioned the vast majority of the walls being built are in Europe. European politicians are erecting these walls while failing to understand that it is socialism and the welfare state in particular that attracts migrants. Walls do a poor job of keeping out uneducated angry people of a different language, different race, different religion, and different culture. Far better, change the system.

  Imagine for a minute that there was zero welfare in Europe, which is going to happen for simple reasons of mathematics anyway. Imagine further that in order to gain entry to live in any European country immigrants needed to prove their worth, by way of education, capital, skills or even cultural beliefs, and be able to pay their own way, by way of savings, working, and contributing to the society which they wish to enter. With no handouts and serious repercussions for not pulling their weight (starving) the entire migrant crisis that engulfs Europe today would be a complete non-event.

  Instead the misguided globalist elites continue with unsustainable welfare policies whereby free food, free housing, free medical care, and free schooling are provided to both citizens and immigrants alike.

  When cultural differences rise up, instead of holding steady to their existing chosen culture, they resort to a political correctness justifying, explaining away and by default condoning behaviours which are anathema to the citizens. They then scratch their heads at the problem of millions of Africans and Arabs swarming in to get a slice of the good life. A 10 year old can piece this together.

  Every one of us would do the same thing. The problem isn’t that Europe is being flooded by immigrant’s. The problem is that Europe isn’t attracting the “best and brightest”, but instead importing millions of people who’ve spent their lives picking up bad habits from political, economic, and social conditions which hark back to the dark ages.

  

  The Power of Numbers

  When a single person or family with bad habits migrates to a new society, the social and economic forces prevalent in that society tend to force them to assimilate or be rejected. Bad behaviour gets them into trouble pretty quickly and they are generally ostracised. Many leave and return to their homelands as a result. The culture shock is too much for them.

  On the other hand, when hundreds arrive they quite simply bring with them their own culture and begin enforcing it in their new homeland. There are now areas across Europe where it is no longer safe to go… even for the police.

  This massive culture clash is what is fuelling the frantic wall building we now see.

  The good news is that this will accelerate the end of the Euro and the end of the socialist welfare state which is now well and truly in motion.

  Of course walls don’t build themselves and so it’s the rise of “strong men” that provides the narrative and populism for these barriers.

  

  One reason Putin is one of, if not THE most popular head of state in the world, is due to his stance of looking after Russia and Russians and not bending to the nauseating political correctness that has pervaded the developed world.

  A political correctness I may add that is on a very short fuse as discussed in “Why A Politically Correct West Ensures A Trump Victory”:

  

  It’s not just physical walls but trade barriers, such as tariffs, quotas and subsidies which are all rising at the same time too.

  The movement of capital has become so onerous that opening a simple bank account in a foreign country has become more painful than a root canal treatment. Yet one more reason I think Bitcoin has asymmetric potential. The free market always finds a way.

  A Compound Fracture

  The socialist experiment of the nanny state is in it’s death throes and unfortunately it is capitalism which is being blamed, rather than crony capitalism and the great Ponzi scheme that is the welfare state.

  The building of walls will not solve these issues. What they will do is simply bring the very last tool out of the central bankers toolkit. That of fiscal stimulus.

  This too will not work. Why?

  Collateral has been falling in the global system, accelerating the collapse in the velocity of money, and the collapse in liquidity, even while central bankers have flooded the world with credit.

  Couple this with the demographic headwinds to growth and debt and it’s pretty clear to me that the socialist experiment that the developed world has enjoyed since WWII has peaked and instead of receding back into the shadows like a shy fox, is more likely to spontaneously combust in the public square.

  This sad trend of wall building is likely to be part of our existence for some time yet and will do nothing to solve many of the political or financial problems but rather accelerate them.

  Some Facts to Consider

  When barriers to trade are reduced GDP rises and when barriers are increased GDP falls. I’ll let you figure out which way GDP growth is going over the next few years.

  Borders themselves are a relic of the nation state, which itself is a constipated ideological structure which grew out of the industrial revolution. It is absolutely coming to an end and is accelerating in its decline. These last ditch efforts to save it will simply accelerate that decline.

  Think about it like this. If the math doesn’t work with rising GDP then pray tell how it’s going to work with falling GDP. No. What we’ll get is simply another injection to the patient, this time from fiscal rather than monetary stimulus, which itself will simply increase the already unmanageable debt burden. What we don’t know is when the market repudiates this insanity.

  Looking at the bond market right now it’s entirely possible (though we won’t know for sure until after the fact) that the highs for the bond market were back in March of this year. Either way the end result will be chaotic and painful for those caught on the wrong side of it.

  Areas to Watch

  • Defence spending: Every country will likely be spending more money on defence.
  • Contracting GDP will prove to increase security concerns as the bedfellows of poverty and violence manifest themselves in society. Europe in particular will likely enjoy rising security concerns. I discussed the topic in more detail here.
  • Consumer trends which favour staying at home will proliferate. Netflix over the cinema, home deliveries over mall shopping, and private dinner parties over restaurants.
  • The above wall building will hasten the bankruptcy of the welfare state. Watch the bond and currency markets. Huge opportunity there.

  Looking around the world there are still places which are NOT erecting walls.

  While we can all go long cement and barbed wire, really what I’m curious to know about your geographical preferences. And please comment below if you have somewhere specific as I’d love to know your reasoning. 

  Cast your vote here and also see what others think

  Know anyone that might enjoy this? Please share this with them.

  Investing and protecting our capital in a world which is enjoying the most severe distortions of any period in mans recorded history means that a different approach is required. And traditional portfolio management fails miserably to accomplish this.

  And so our goal here is simple: protecting the majority of our wealth from the inevitable consequences of absurdity, while finding the most asymmetric investment opportunities for our capital. Ironically, such opportunities are a result of the actions which have landed the world in such trouble to begin with.

  – Chris

  “National borders aren’t even speed bumps on the information superhighway.” — Tim May

  ————————————–

  Liked this post? Don’t miss our future articles and podcasts, and

  get access to free subscriber-only content here.

  ————————————–

  

• Paul Craig Roberts Roars "Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition"

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

  It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

  The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for “discrediting American democracy” and for “breaking American tradition of accepting the people’s will.”

  What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level—state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley’s theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court’s theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

  So what’s the big deal about Trump’s suspicion of election rigging?

  The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can’t get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary’s Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

  I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary’s emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

  The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

  Don’t believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don’t have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins.

  The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

  Don’t vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

  

  

• Statistician Warns Americans To "Ignore The Capricious Polls"

  Submitted by Salil Mehta via Statistical Ideas blog,

  Sea of faulty polls

  In this article we cover the theoretical bases for two interconnected ideas that we've discussed recently:

  (a) that the empirical polling results are not as dire as current landslide mainstream media projections make it out to be, and

   

  (b) many polls are oscillating about impossibly low probabilities right now for Donald Trump. 

  This year is genuinely unique in merging several fundamental aspects, with a largely disenfranchised voting base across the country (i.e., record undecideds), and pollsters unable or unwilling to properly assess the true probability for Mr. Trump (and their incoherent polls evidence this).  This is not a matter of apologizing for the ground-level odds currently shown by mainstream media, or that the average Hillary Clinton lead is merely unsustainably high.  This loses the forest through the trees, as we theoretically prove here.

  Start by studying a sample of the general election polls below, taken in just the past couple days.  

  

  Do you see anything wrong there?  If you don't, then you have no business being around polling data.

  The average margin of error on these 7 spreads shown is only 3%.  Most polls should therefore be within a few percent of the 6% average spread that is advertised by media.  But instead most are not!

  For example, the difference between the highest Ms. Clinton spread and the lowest Ms. Clinton spread is >14 percentage points!  And the standard deviation among these mainstream polls is 5%.  So both have to be added together, and each is already higher than 3%!  That's an unusual, impossible outcome through luck alone.  Therefore something is misrepresented in the polls. 

  Also right now 2 of the 7 polls favor Donald (you just' don't hear about them), so double the 10-15% odds he is being given.  In the final analysis of this trinomial data, on November 9 we'll look back and see only one poll being correct and most were flat out wrong.  This evidence below is a breach of the probability theory behind proper polling, where most polls should see the correct spread within the margin of error interval (that's what the interval's definition must be!)  If the margins are therefore completely busted, then so too are the egregious spreads that are seen to be all over the place (and mostly untrustworthy).  Likely the correct expected spread right now is 4-5%, and the larger spreads are coming from pollsters that ironically also have the highest margin of errors (casting further suspicion on how close the election really is for Americans).  We stand by our long-running estimate that the current probability for a Donald Trump victory is about in the 20% range, or twice what mainstream media is projecting.  Of course that is low, but to some it's still a compelling 1 in 4 chance (and much different than some might expect given all the twists and turns this campaign season has brought us).  It's also a better reflection of the true odds, versus those dished out by the same inane talking heads who recently gave you the Brexit "remain" prediction, or the NeverTrump prediction!

  So there you have it as clearly shown as possible.  If these margins of error are correct, then most polls would have the spreads located within a few percent of 6% (so 3%, to 9%).  Yet the majority of the polls are outside of this 3%, to 9%, interval.  Probabilistically impossible.  The idea that whatever the correct spread is determined to be on November 9, we will ultimately prove -shockingly we might add- that one poll was correct but also that most of these other polls were wrong.  Those polls (unsure right now which) are because there the correct spread will have been outside of their margin of error intervals.

  The only correction anyone can make now to the failed margin of error is to enlarge it, in order to encapsulate most of the other intervals about the correct spread.  Without these overlaps, we can't discuss spreads in the media, since the data is from an entirely corrupt polling system!  The direction of unbiasing the data is also obvious.

  To start with, the only correct expected value for the spread has to be reduced since that is the direction of asymmetric bias.  The largest polling spreads have become too extreme and must be brought in already.  Combined with larger margins of error.  The result of this combination is a correct spread that is lower at about 4-5%, and a margin of error that is roughly double what's been advertised (5-6%).  Implying Donald Trump's chances of winning is nearly twice what the mainstream media's been floating around.

  How do we get a double of the margin of error, and the implications of it for where the expected spread should be?  The likelihood that we would get a result of one where 2/3 of the polling spreads are inside the margin of error interval and yet most don't fall outside of the interval, is only about 1/4 or so of the time (other possible outcomes are that all, or most spreads within all margin of error intervals, or that no spreads overlap at all).  In order to get that likelihood rebalanced back at majority, we need to have wider margins so the maximum likelihood outcome we expect to see at that time works out.

  Note that these topics were discussed in a recently viral article that last weekend was on the top of ZeroHedge and reddit, and amassing 1/2 million reads and thousands of shares.  And we should note that a day after this article of ours noting the probability pricing arbitrage on gabling bets that Mr. Trump's spread would tighten, the largest bet ever was wagered for him.

  

  Also the effect of wider margins is that the probability of Donald leading in the actual election doubles from the 10-15% or so that the current pollsters show (and he has not recently deteriorated from).  Hence arriving at an actual probability for him that must be greater than 20% or so.  Larger uncertainty therefore, given the undecideds for this candidate, and a more narrow spread.  This is what we have been saying all along.

  The last topic here is that we can see that the higher Hillary spreads are coming from pollsters that have the higher margins of error, though we also showed above they those error intervals are still not wide enough.  It should be plain that between the highest spreads and the lowest spreads, the highest ones (those over 9% or so) should be the ones treated with the greatest reservation.  Completed by the same shamelessly ignorant and flawed pollsters who gave you #NeverTrump and the Brexit stay prediction, both not so long ago.

  

  At this point it makes sense for Americans to ignore the capricious polls, and simply vote their conscious on Election Day.  The numbers in the polls don't add up to the significance the polling conclusions convey.  Both candidates have their strengths, and Americans are torn.  The video leak for Donald Trump was regrettable for all Americans, especially in these final weeks.  But it will not drive his support to zero.  Hillary Clinton for her part has not shown herself to be that much more of a transparent and flawless candidate (a true Scorpion).

  

  

• GOP Sues Pennsylvania Over "Poll Watcher" Restrictions

  Pennsylvania has become ground zero for “election rigging” concerns over the past two election cycles.  In 2012, Romney’s performance in Philadelphia drew a huge amount of suspicion when he received exactly 0 votes in 59 voting divisions within the city.  In fact, the vote count within those 59 divisions was an astonishing 19,605 to 0.  While no one would argue that many Philadelphia neighborhoods tend to skew democratic, it certainly seems incredibly unlikely that, out of nearly 20,000 voters, not a single person preferred Mitt Romney. 

  Of course, the city also drew heavy criticism after the Black Panthers sent “security” to stand outside numerous polling stations with clubs.  Sure, no voter intimidation there.

   

  So it should come as little surprise that the GOP recently filed a lawsuit seeking additional oversight of polling stations in Pennsylvania.  According to the Washington Examiner, the GOP is specifically looking to lift restrictions that prevent poll watchers from serving in any county outside of their specific county of residence.     

  Pennsylvania’s Republican Party wants to overturn a court order that restricts who can volunteer as poll watchers.

   

  The GOP wants to overturn a declaratory judgment that would restrict poll watchers from serving only in their county of residence, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit comes as GOP nominee Donald Trump has pushed for poll watchers in Pennsylvania, saying that his supporters need to go to “certain areas and watch.”

   

  The suit also takes aim at the Democratic stronghold of Philadelphia County, where Republicans are “not a majority of registered voters.”

   

  The lawsuit charges the order made by a lower court judge violates the U.S. Constitution, specifically the rights to due process and equal protection as voting is a fundamental right.

   

  “The Pennsylvania poll watcher statute arbitrarily and unreasonably distinguishes between voters within the same electoral district by allowing some, but not others, to serve as poll watchers,” the lawsuit said.

   

  The lawsuit also questions the integrity of the vote, and says Philadelphia County routinely handicaps the party from “fully and fairly staff polling places with poll watchers.”

  Of course, many districts in Philadelphia enjoyed unprecedented voter turnout in 2008 and 2012 in support of President Obama.  That said, the real question is whether the Hillary political machine will be able to drive the same level of enthusiasm in the 2016 election. 

  

  

• The Crook Versus The Monster

  Thanks to timely assists from Wikileaks, Trump has successfully framed Hillary Clinton as a crooked politician. Meanwhile, Clinton has successfully framed Trump as a dangerous monster. If the mainstream polls are accurate, voters prefer the crook to the monster. That makes sense because a crook might steal your wallet but the monster could kill you.

  As of today, Dilbert Creator Scott Adams writes, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.

  Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass. They might care that we know Clinton cheated in at least one debate by getting a question in advance. They might care that Clinton’s dirty-tricks people incited the violence at Trump rallies. They might care that Clinton’s “speaking fees” were curiously high. They might care about all of that. But they don’t, because a crook is still a safer choice than a monster.

  The biggest illusion this election is that we think the people on the other side can’t see the warts on their own candidate. But I think they do.

  Clinton supporters know she is crooked, but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician. Americans assume that even the “good” politicians are trading favors and breaking every rule that is inconvenient to them. I’ve never heard a Clinton supporter defend Clinton as being pure and honest. Her supporters like her despite her crookedness.

   

  Likewise, Trump supporters know what they are getting. They know he’s offensive. They know he’s under-informed on policies. They know he pays as little in taxes as possible. They know he uses bankruptcy laws when needed. They know he ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message. They just don’t care. They want to push the monster into Washington D.C., close the door, and let him break everything that needs to be broken. Demolition is usually the first step of building something new. And Trump also knows how to build things when he isn’t in monster mode.

  Clinton’s team of persuaders have successfully crafted Trump’s offensive language and hyperbole into an illusion that he’s a sexist/racist in some special way that is different from the average citizen. The reality is that everyone is a little bit sexist and a little bit racist. We’re all wired that way. There’s no escape if you are human. Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, but not good ones. That’s what gets us in trouble. We see patterns where none exist. None of us are exempt from that. But we can use our limited sense of reason to see past it. 

  Clinton’s persuaders have taken advantage of the public’s faulty pattern recognition to build an illusion about Trump that he is a horrible monster who hates people because of their genitalia, their skin pigmentation, and their sexual preferences. I don’t believe Trump holds any of those views in 2016. But there is plenty of confirmation bias to make us think he does, thanks to Team Clinton’s persuasion efforts. For example…

  There was the time Trump said we need good border control with Mexico, and Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way he worded it.

   

  There was the time Trump said we need to try harder to keep out terrorists who want to kill us, and Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way he worded it.

   

  There was the time that Trump said a judge with Mexican heritage might be biased against him because 90% of American citizens with Mexican heritage are biased against him. Clinton turned that into something racist because of the way Trump worded it.

   

  There was the time that Trump didn’t need much sleep one night and decided to fire off a few thoughts on Twitter about one of his accusers. But because it was late at night, Clinton framed that as some sort of “meltdown” to prove Trump is unstable. 

  I realize I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster who hates people with different genitalia and with skin pigmentation that is far superior to his own pasty-orange covering. To me, those illusions about Trump are ridiculous on face value. I can’t change anyone’s mind if they see Trump as a monster. So instead I will make you a promise.

  My promise: If Trump gets elected, and he does anything that looks even slightly Hitler-ish in office, I will join the resistance movement and help kill him. That’s an easy promise to make, and I hope my fellow citizens would use their Second Amendment rights to rise up and help me kill any Hitler-type person who rose to the top job in this country, no matter who it is.

   

  As I often say, Democrats generally use guns to commit crimes. Republican use guns for sport and for self-defense. If you are a Republican gun-owner, and you value the principles of the Constitution, I’m confident you would join me in the resistance movement and help kill any leader that exhibited genuine animosity toward people because of their genitalia, sexual preference, or skin pigmentation.

  In other words, I’m willing to bet my life that the “monster” view of Trump is an illusion.

  That said, I also don’t know which candidate has the best policies. I wouldn’t risk my life for any of their tax plans or ISIS-fighting strategies. I’m only interested in helping the public see past their hallucinations about the monster under the bed. You’re on your own to decide who has the best policies.

  Read more here…

  *  *  *

  If you like books, Adams points out you might like his book because it is a book. Bigly.

  

  

• Venezuela Braces For Revolution After Maduro Blocks Recall Referendum

  Once a “flagship socialist nation,” Venezuela has suffered over the past couple of years from a dramatic economic crisis that has resulted in severe shortages of food, clean water, electricity, medicines and hospital supplies all of which have resulted in a desperate population which has resorted to the black market and violence for survival.  That said, Venezuela likely inched one step closer to revolution on Friday when Maduro’s leftist government took steps to block a recall referendum that could have resulted in his ouster.  According to the US News and World Report, Venezuelan opposition leaders are calling the efforts of Maduro “a coup” in light of the broad based public support of the recall effort.

  Venezuela is bracing for turbulence after the socialist government blocked a presidential recall referendum in a move opposition leaders are calling a coup.

   

  The opposition is urging supporters to take to the streets, beginning with a march on a major highway Saturday led by the wives of jailed activists, while a leading government figure is calling for the arrest of high-profile government critics.

   

  Polls suggest socialist President Nicolas Maduro would lose a recall vote. But that became a moot issue on Thursday when elections officials issued an order suspending a recall signature drive a week before it was to start.

   

  “What we saw yesterday was a coup,” said former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, who had been the leading champion of the recall effort. “We’ll remain peaceful, but we will not be taken for fools. We must defend our country.”

   

  International condemnation was swift. Twelve western hemisphere nations, including the U.S. and even leftist-run governments such as Chile and Uruguay, said in a statement Friday that the suspension of the referendum and travel restrictions on the opposition leadership affects the prospect for dialogue and finding a peaceful solution to the nation’s crisis.

   

  The Maduro government has claimed that the recall was halted due to “irregularities in a first-round of signature gathering” though the public, 80% of whom polls suggest supported the recall efforts, aren’t buying it.  Meanwhile, Maduro loyalists are calling for opposition leaders to be imprisoned for attempts to commit election fraud.
  

  Critical television stations have been closed and several leading opposition activists have been imprisoned. The country’s supreme court, packed with government supporters, has endorsed decree powers for Maduro and said he can ignore Congress following a landslide victory for the opposition in legislative elections.

   

  The election commission, which has issued a string of pro-government rulings, halted the recall process on grounds of alleged irregularities in a first-round of signature gathering.

   

  Polls suggest 80 percent of voters wanted Maduro gone this year, and the electoral council on Tuesday also ordered a delay of about six months in gubernatorial elections that were slated for year-end which the opposition was heavily favored to win. It gave no reason for the delay.

   

  Meanwhile, one of his most powerful allies, Diosdado Cabello, said top opposition leaders should be jailed for attempting election fraud. And opposition leaders said a local court blocked eight of their leaders from leaving the country.

  Of course, the integrity of “elections” in Venezuela have long been questioned particularly after WikiLeaks posted the following cable linking Hugo Chavez to a mysterious company that came out of nowhere in 2000 and suddenly snatched up major contracts to supply voting machines around the world.  The company, Smartmatic, included a Hugo Chavez campaign adviser on it’s board.  Curiously, according to Gateway Pundit, the company’s board also included Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, a man who served on the board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and who was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros’s Investment Funds. 

  “Ironically,” shortly after winning a “multi-million” dollar contract to supply these voting machines in Venezuela, Chavez won a landslide victory in the 2004 elections that all but destroyed his political opposition.

  

   

  But, what is perhaps even more disturbing is that Smartmatic has also secured major contracts to supply voting machines for 16 states in the U.S., including key battleground states like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. 

  Which leaves us with only one thing left to say:

  “Those who cast the votes decide nothing.

  Those who count the votes decide everything.”

   

  -Joseph Stalin

  

  

• Universities Ban Politically-Incorrect Halloween Costumes

  In a latest measure to create a “safe space” for students, a number of universities have issued “costume protocol,” banning such un-PC Halloween costumes as Arab turbans, feathered Indian headdresses, Japanese Geisha outfits, and Caitlyn Jenner costumes.

  

  As Breitbart's Thomas Williams reports, Brock University in Ontario, Canada, for instance, has set up a website laying out its “Halloween Costume Vetting Protocol,” complete with a list of offending costumes and pictures of inappropriate wear.

  

  In a twisted bit of illogic, the university stated, “In order to create an inclusive and diverse environment, some costumes may be denied.” Apparently, inclusive and diverse here means “if your costume is too diverse, you will not be included.”

   

  “If a member of your party is denied entry because of their costume, they will be escorted to a space where they can change or remove the offending item,” according to the protocol. “They will not lose their place in line during this process, and can enter Isaac’s once the costume has been deemed appropriate by team of Isaac’s Bar and Grill Management and Student Justice Centre Staff.”

  As one disturbed commenter wrote, “Obey the Thought Police. Welcome to 1984.”

  Further south, at the University of Florida, officials have similarly warned students about sporting offensive costumes, once again appealing to “diversity.”

  “Some Halloween costumes reinforce stereotypes of particular races, genders, cultures, or religions,” the university noted. “Regardless of intent, these costumes can perpetuate negative stereotypes, causing harm and offense to groups of people.”

  In a scathing article in Forbes last spring, the noted historian Paul Johnson called political correctness “one of the most dangerous intellectual afflictions ever to attack mankind.”

  PC has “enormous appeal to the semieducated,” Johnson observed, and it “appeals to pseudo-intellectuals everywhere, since it evokes the strong streak of cowardice notable among those wielding academic authority nowadays.”

  “Any empty-headed student with a powerful voice can claim someone (never specified) will be ‘hurt’ by a hitherto harmless term, object or activity and be reasonably assured that the dons and professors in charge will show a white feather and do as the student demands,” he said.

  “Thus, there isn’t a university campus on either side of the Atlantic that’s not in danger of censorship,” he concluded.

  If in spite of all warnings any precious flower happens to be traumatized by a particular costume at the University of Florida, officials have set up an emergency hotline to help soothe anxious spirits.

  If you are “troubled by an incident,” the website counseled, “please take advantage of the 7 day a week presence of the U Matter, We Care program,” which includes an email address as well as “a 24/7 counselor in the Counseling and Wellness Center available to speak by phone.”

  Not content with coddling the victims of costume abuse, the university is also prepared to punish and reeducate offenders.

  The eerily named “Bias Education and Response Team” at the University of Florida is ready to “respond to any reported incidents of bias, to educate those that were involved, and to provide support by connecting those that were impacted to the appropriate services and resources.”

  The good news is that there are still plenty of unprotected groups.

  At Brock University, the list of “Prohibited Halloween Costumes & Accessories” covers Caitlyn Jenner, Muslims, Geishas, and Native Americans.

  Priests, nuns, rabbis, and police officers are still fair game and can be ridiculed at will. Some deep-seated prejudices are just too fun to give up.

  

  

• Goldman CEO Blankfein "Supportive" Of Hillary But "Doesn't Want To Hurt Her" By Endorsing

  As has been widely reported, in 2013 Hillary Clinton was paid $675,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs.  One was delivered on June 4, 2013 at the 2013 IBD CEO Annual Conference at The Inn at Palmetto Bluff in South Carolina, a second one took place on October 24, 2013 at the Goldman Sachs Asset Management AIMS Alternative Investment Symposium, and the last one was delivered on October 29, 2013 at the Goldman Sachs builders and innovators summit.

  

  As we detailed here, the speech transcripts, in their entirety, were revealed for the first time in an email from Tony Carrk, research director at Hillary for America, in an email dated January 23, 2016, and disclosed to the public for the first time ever via some of the latest Wikileak of Podesta emails… including this classic…

  Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. 

   

  “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

   

  Hillary Clinton Joked That If Lloyd Blankfein Wanted To Run For Office, He Should “Would Leave Goldman Sachs And Start Running A Soup Kitchen Somewhere. “

   

  “MR. BLANKFEIN:  I’m saying for myself.             MS. CLINTON:  If you were going to run here is what I would tell you to do —             MR. BLANKFEIN:  Very hypothetical. MS. CLINTON:  I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a soup kitchen somewhere.             MR. BLANKFEIN:  For one thing the stock would go up. MS. CLINTON:  Then you could be a legend in your own time both when you were there and when you left.” [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]

   

  Clinton Joked It’s “Risky” For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To Futures Markets  Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal.

   

  "Now, it's always a little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures markets because — there's a few knowing laughs — many years ago, I actually traded in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be the end of it.” [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]

  However, in an interview that will air Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS", Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, confidently declared that Hillary Clinton didn't say “anything untoward” in her appearances.

  Until now, Blankfein had shied away from publicly backing a presidential candidate this year, saying his support could harm that person's chances, but, as Bloomberg reports, when asked if he personally supports and admires Democrat Hillary Clinton, said that he did…

  “I’m supportive of Hillary Clinton,” Blankfein said, according to a transcript provided by the network. “Yes, so flat out, yes, I do. That doesn’t say that I agree with all of her policies. I don’t. And that doesn’t say that I adopt everything that she’s done in her political career or has suggested that she might do going forward.”

   

  During her 2008 campaign, before investigations into Goldman’s sales of toxic mortgage securities turned Blankfein into one of the faces of the U.S. financial crisis, the executive held a fundraiser for Clinton. In the latest interview he admired her willingness to work with Republicans when she represented New York as a senator.

   

  “She could cross the aisle and engage other people to get things done,” Blankfein, 62, said on CNN. “That willingness to engage is a scarcer commodity these days.”

   

  Bank executives have been hesitant to wade into politics this election season. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon on Oct. 17 offered a read-between-the-lines prediction that Clinton would win, drawing applause by referring to the next president as “she” at a conference. Blankfein was asked about the election in an interview in February and declined to take sides at that time. “I don’t want to help or hurt anybody by giving them an endorsement,” he told CNBC.

  In the wide-ranging CNN interview, Blankfein also said the U.S. economy, despite a “tepid” rate of growth and DNC Chair Brazile's private comments that the real economy is a disaster, has a “lot of advantages,” including the extent to which consumers have de-leveraged since the 2008-09 financial crisis, and a sound banking system.

  “The sentiment is a lot worse than the economy,” he said, speaking about “a more generalized anxiety” evident in the 2016 political season.

   

  "I’m not minimizing the consequence to people who should have — who feel their jobs should be higher paid, and legitimately so, and the legitimate issues about minimum wages,” Blankfein said. “But at the end of the day, these problems always existed to some extent.”

   

  Speaking about financial regulation, Blankfein said that the rules in place now are strict, and that his biggest fear is that the potential misconduct of a rogue employee will be attributed to him and the bank as a whole.

  Finally Blankfein seemed to defend his apparent 'stay out of jail free card' by explaining that some financial misconduct isn’t intentional enough to be a crime.

  “To be punished the way people are saying they should be punished, you still have to find some kind of a criminal intent,” Blankfein said. “If you’re merely wrong and you didn’t get it right, it’s hard to ascribe criminality.”

  Faux ignorance, once again, it seems is a good enough defense for Secretaries of State, Presidents, and bank CEOs.

  But to be frank, we are mainly wondering why all of a sudden  – 3 weeks before the election – Blankfein would go public with – implicitly – Wall Street's endorsement? Is the real deep state concerned about her?

  

  

• Want To Boost Market Liquidity? Just Let It Rain… No Really

  Last December, when we alerted readers to the shift in the “laser” tower at the “New York” Stock Exchange located in Mahwah, NJ…

   

  

  … we wondered, rhetorically, “what would happen if one flies, say, a drone in front of one or all of those lasers during, say, peak market hours or, heaven forbid, just a few milliseconds before the Fed announces its next “most important ever” policy decision.”

  We now have an answer, and it confirms what we have said all along since 2009 when we warned that the confluence of HFT and central bankers nationalizing markets, would destroy not only capital markets, but price discovery (and lead to such amusing Bloomberg articles as “Hedge Fund Managers Struggle to Master Their Miserable New World“).

  In a fascinating study carried out by Andriy Shkilko and Konstantin Sokolov of Wilfrid Laurier University, the duo tried to answer one question:

  “In modern markets, trading firms spend generously to gain a speed advantage over their rivals. The marketplace that results from this rivalry is characterized by speed differentials, whereby some traders are faster than others. Is such a marketplace optimal?”

  Said otherwise, is an HFT-dominated market the best possible outcome, or – as the WSJ put it – “can a rainstorm in Cleveland make markets more liquid?” and if not, what are the alternatives?

  The thesis is simple: since high frequency traders use ultrafast links to relay prices and other information between Chicago and New York, using either microwave or laser signals, one theory that can be empirically tested is what happens when the ultrafast signal is impaired due to weather.

  To be sure, we live in an age when market tiering has never been as vast as it is now, with some HFT traders enjoying access to the fastest, laser-based, trading technologies; others – less fortunate ones – still use microwaves; and virtually everyone else (including the poorest HFTs) resorting to fiber optics, which while slowest, is also the most dependable and is not impacted by such “outlier” events as heavy rain, thunderstorms or snow.

  

  So, since microwave transmissions are disrupted by water droplets and snowflakes, during heavy storms traders using the networks switch to fiber. This is what Shkilko and Sokolov used to test their hypothesis: using weather-station data from along the microwaves’ paths, they determined when storms occurred and then looked at what happened to bid-ask spreads in a variety of securities during those periods.

  

  In other words, the two academics set out to find: whether, or rather weather HFTs loss of trading superiority has an impact on the overall market, and if so, what is it. As they write “to answer this question, we study a series of exogenous weather-related episodes that temporarily remove speed advantages of the fastest traders by disrupting their microwave networks.”

  

  Their finding is stunning:

  “During episodes [of heavy rain and snow], adverse selection declines accompanied by improved liquidity and reduced volatility. Liquidity improvement is larger than the decline in adverse selection consistent with the emergence of latent liquidity and enhanced competition among liquidity suppliers. The results are confirmed in an event-study setting, whereby a new business model adopted by one of the technology providers reduces speed differentials among traders, resulting in liquidity improvements.”

  As for the conclusion, it is a blow to HFT advocates everywhere: the slowing down of the fastest high-frequency traders improved market liquidity.
  

  This is how they put it:

  This study examines the effects of speed differentials on liquidity. During our sample period, microwave networks stretched from Chicago to New York allow for the fastest information transmission and are only available to select trading firms. When it rains or snows in the area between the two cities, the networks are disrupted because rain droplets and snowflakes block the microwave paths. With the networks temporarily down, information transmission falls back onto the fiber-optic cable – a more reliable, yet slower transmission medium – effectively eliminating the speed advantages of the fastest traders. We show that when this happens, adverse selection and trading costs decline. This result is consistent with predictions of theory models that show that speed differentials among traders may be associated with lower liquidity.

  That, in itself, is an amazing observation: that the more tiered and fragmented the market, the less liquidity, as not only do HFTs not provide liquidity, but soak it up, but also that those who traditionally provide liquidity, such as a conventional market makers, refuse to do so in a time when microwave (and laser)-based HFT scalpers and parasites are present, resulting in a market with no depth. 

  The conclusion continues:

  The results shed light on latent liquidity. We show that when speed differentials among traders decline due to precipitation, the emergence of latent liquidity narrows spreads more than one would expect based only on the decline in adverse selection. We also find that in assets where spread reductions are not possible due to the binding tick size, latent liquidity improves quoted depths.

   

  Our results are confirmed in an event-study setting. In winter of 2012-2013, one of the technology providers democratized microwave transmissions by introducing a new business model. Instead of selling bandwidth on its network, the firm began selling information on both sides of the Chicago-New York corridor. This one-time event had positive consequences for market quality similar to precipitation-related network disruptions. This result further supports the claim that the technological race that leads to a market with speed differentials may be suboptimal for market quality.

   

  The technological race continues to drive spending in the trading industry. A recent example is a new data transmission tower proposed by the telecommunications company Vigilant Global to connect the U.K. and European markets. The tower will be among the tallest structures in the U.K. and will rival the height of the Eiffel Tower. It will provide trading firms with a completely unobstructed optical and radio line of sight, never previously offered in Europe, increasing signal transmission speed. In the meantime, traders in the U.S. have been switching from microwave transmissions to more reliable, yet costly, laser links. Our findings shed light on the possible consequences of these developments.

  Another way of putting it: heavy rainfall literally adds to market liquidity, for one simple reason: it reduces the overall adverse influence of HFTs, predating market orders, and soaking up what little liquidity is left.

  The implications are fascinating: if one were so inclined, the market could once again return to its more stable, “liquid” state if HFTs – which it has now been showned definitively do not provide or in any way add to market liquidity – were eliminated. Alternatively, if one were so inclined, tearing down the microwave towers linking Chicago to NJ and NYC, would achieve the same effect. Which, of course, should not be interpreted as call to arms against microwave – or laser – towers in order to restore normalcy to the market. After all, even if one eliminates HFTs, there are still central bankers whose impact on markets is just as dire and profound.

  * * *

  The source “Every cloud has a silver lining: Fast trading, microwave connectivity and trading costs” can be found here.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• BullionStar attends LBMA Conference in Singapore, October 2016

  Introduction

  This year, the well-known annual conference of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) was held in Singapore between Sunday 16 October and Tuesday 18 October at the impressive Shangri-La Hotel. The conference attracts delegates and speakers from across the world of bullion, with representatives from precious metals refiners, mints, bullion banks, brokers, trading and technology providers, bullion dealers and bullion wholesalers. This year over 700 delegates attended.

  The main speaker sessions, presentation and panel sessions of industry representatives ran over two days, between Monday 17 October and Tuesday 18 October. Topics covered in the speaker sessions were numerous and varied and included the bullion market in China, developments in the Indian gold market, responsible gold guidance, LBMA updates and developments, a dedicated session on platinum group metals, and a session on the financing of refineries.

  As interesting as the speaker sessions and presentations are, many of the conference attendees use at least some of their time at the LBMA conference to engage in meetings with each other on the sidelines. This explains the constant stream of small breakout meetings that took place in the hotel lobby's seating areas, as well as in dedicated meeting rooms around the hotel. BullionStar also used the occasion to meet with existing suppliers from the refining, minting and wholesaling world, as well as to discuss potential business opportunities with new suppliers.

  There were also approximately 20 exhibitor stands at the conference, including stands hosted by CME Group, Brinks, the World Gold Council, IE Singapore (Singapore's trade development authority), Istanbul Gold Refinery (IGR), Metals Focus consultancy, Cinnober, and Nadir Refinery.

  

  Singapore – Central Business District, Skyline

  Hong Kong – Shenzhen Gold Connect

  On the Sunday prior to the conference, the Chinese Gold and Silver Exchange (CGSE) and the Singapore Bullion Market Association (SBMA) co-hosted a pre-conference presentation titled “Building a physical gold corridor in Asia: Shanghai – Hong Kong / Qianhai – Singapore”, at the hotel, which featured a series of discussions about the CGSE’s new gold trading and vaulting project located in the Shenzhen free trade zone at Qianhai, just across the border from Hong Kong.

  Haywood Cheung, Permanent President of CGSE, gave an introductory overview of the Qianhai project, showcasing it as part of China’s “One Belt, One Road” plan, after which Dong Feng, Ping An Commodities Trading in Shenzhen presented a detailed explanation of how the linkages between the CGSE’s trading platform in Hong Kong and Qianhai’s clearing and settlement will for the first time enable the trading of both onshore and offshore Renminbi and the trading of onshore and offshore gold. The Qianhai project integrates trading, clearing, settlement and vaulting, with a 1500 tonne capacity vault, and a trading hall. ICBC will provide settlement of both onshore (Shenzhen) and offshore (Macau) Renminbi as well as providing use of its Shenzhen gold vault (onshore gold settlement) until the CGSE Qianhai vault is completed.

  This onshore and offshore trading and settlement of Yuan and physical gold will facilitate arbitrage trading, and is another step in China’s liberalisation of its currency and its gold market as it links the Chinese currency to physical settlement of gold inside and outside of China. This initiative is one to watch and will demonstrate the Chinese government’s gradual easing of cross-border restrictions on currency and gold flow. Next phase gold trading in Qianhai by CGSE member companies will commence on 7 December.

  With the CGSE having already established a gold trading link with the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) though its Shanghai-Hong Kong Connect, and with the Shenzhen (Qianhai) – Hong Kong Connect now coming on stream, the CGSE is also planning a Singapore – Hong Kong Connect, and a Dubai – Hong Kong Connect, which, if they materialise, will extend physical gold corridor (trading and vaulting connections) across the Asian region and beyond.

  Albert Cheng, CEO of the SBMA, wrapped up the afternoon with an overview presentation of SBMA’s aspirations to evolve Singapore into a bullion market hub for the entire ASEAN region, including countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Myanmar. However, details of how this plan will be implemented were not addressed. Cheng also showcased the SGX gold contract which is backed by the SBMA, but which has yet to take off despite being launched over 2 years ago.

  LMEprecious gold Futures

  The first event we attended on Monday was an early morning presentation by the London Metal Exchange (LME) about LMEprecious, its new suite of spot, daily, and monthly gold and silver futures contracts to be launched in the first half of 2017, that will trade on LME’s trading platform, with market-making offered by 5 investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and ICBC Standard Bank. These futures are for delivery of unallocated metal in the London market and the contracts will still clear through the London bullion market's LPMCL unallocated bullion clearing system. In time, the LME plans to launch platinum and palladium futures contracts on LMEprecious, as well as options contracts on all 4 metals. The LMEprecious platform will also link into LBMA’s planned trade reporting system.

  ICE gold Futures

  On Monday morning, ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA), a direct competitor to LME in the precious metals trading and clearing space, used the LBMA conference to make a very well-timed announcement that it too will be launching a new gold futures contract for delivery of unallocated gold in London (loco London). The ICE contract will trade on the ICE US futures platform and will begin trading in February 2017, in advance of the LME contracts. This contract is being designed to be compatible for settlement within the LBMA Gold Price auction which IBA administers in London, and it will, according to IBA, allow the introduction of central clearing into the auctions, and thus facilitate wider auction participation. Currently,the direct auction is exclusively open  to a handful of large banks that have large bi-lateral credit lines with each other. At this stage it’s unclear how the connections between the futures contract and the LBMA Gold Price auction will work, but BullionStar plans to examine this development in future coverage.

  

  Shangri-La Hotel, Singapore

  Unallocated Gold, Gold Lending and Central Banks

  Given that the LBMA Conference is attended by dozens and dozens of precious metals refineries and mints, it was notable that the subject of "unallocated gold" cropped up in the discussion of LMEprecious and ICE futures contracts, but that there was no discussion in the actual LBMA conference programme schedule of 'unallocated gold' as the term is used by the LBMA. An unallocated gold position in an account in the London gold market is merely a contractual claim for gold against the bank that the account is held with. As such, it is a synthetic gold position.

  It was also odd in our view that there was no seminar or discussion about the London gold lending market within the conference programme. As gold lending is an important and influential area of the London gold market, it affects marginal gold supply, and it has an impact on gold price formation.  Notably, the topic of central bank activities in the gold market was completely ommitted from the conference schedule this year, which was odd given that in previous years there was usually such a session. Have the central bankers involved in the gold market become shy all of a sudden?

  Gold price benchmark for Singapore revisited

  In another announcement on Monday morning at the conference, the Singapore minister for trade and industry announced that the SBMA in conjunction with the LBMA and ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA), there begin a feasibility study on launching a “pre-AM gold price” auction, which would serve as a benchmark for the Asian region and which would be held at 2pm Singapore time, in advance of the European trading day. This Singapore benchmark was already discussed and announced over 3 years ago, but has put on hold in 2014 due to European regulatory investigations at that time into manipulation of the London Gold Fix.

  LBMA Trade Reporting

  The conference speaker programme opened on Monday morning with introductory remarks from Lim Hng Kiang, Singapore Minister for Trade and Industry, outgoing LBMA chairman Grant Angwin, incoming newly appointed ChairmanPaul Fisher who recently arrived from the Bank of England, Tim Pearce, the chairman of the London Platinum and Palladium Market (LPPM), and LBMA CEO Ruth Crowell.

  The LBMA CEO’s introductory speech touch on the planned launch of trade reporting services for the London Gold Market. This trade reporting contract has been awarded to financial technology providers Cinnober – BOAT Services – Autilla, after those partners won the LBMA’s recent RfP tender which had been launched in October 2015. Ruth Crowell referred to trade reporting as ‘Phase 1’ of a new suite of technology services. Trade reporting  will be launched in Q1 2017, and will, according to the LBMA “demonstrate of the size and liquidity of the market for clients, investors and regulators”. Phase 2 of this project refers to services such as central clearing in the London bullion market.

  Further background to the chosen trade reporting solution was provided by Jamie Khurshid, the CEO of BOAT Services. Surprisingly, even though this RfP took the LBMA over 1 year to complete, it will still now require a 'design phase' where BOAT/Cinnober needs to meet with LBMA member firms to discuss the scope of reporting, followed by a period of customisation and configuration of the implementation. Details on what exactly will be reported (the scope) remain sketchy, and since full London gold and silver trade reporting by all participants (including central banks) is not mandatory in a regulatory sense, it remains to be seen to what extent transparency will be improved.  Because if you don't have full mandatory reporting, you don't have transparency. In another related presentation, Sakhila Mirza, LBMA General Counsel stated that trade reporting will apply to loco London spot trades, forwards and options, but that "LBMA and its members retain control over the scope of reporting", which highlights the self-regulatory nature of the reporting, and again may suggest that the trade reporting may not be as granular or have as much informational value as some may think, especially given that central banks will be exempt from trade reporting.

  The Shanghai Gold Exchange and Chinese Gold Market

  Monday's schedule also included an  informative series of presentations titled "The Bullion Market in China" from an impressive list of experts. Jiao Jinpu, chairman of the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE), provided an overview of the latest developments from the SGE, which has a network of 61 vaults across 35 cities in China, and where physical trading volume reached 34,100 tonnes of gold in 2015. Jinpu revealed that the International Board of the SGE (known as SGEI) has, since launch in September 2014, traded 7,838 tonnes of gold, while the daily Shanghai Gold Price auction, only launched in April 2016, has already traded 384 tonnes, worth RMB 105.5 billion, giving it an average daily trading volume of 3.4 tonnes. Jinpu also vindicated BullionStar's estimates of 2015 SGE gold withdrawals, because, in the words of Jinpu, he sits on the SGE tap, and knows exactly how much gold has been withdrawn from the Exchange vaults.

  In his speech, Jinpu announced that in the near future, the SGE and other exchanges will begin using the SGE Gold Price benchmark to develop gold price derivative products.

  

  Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) Chairman JiaoJinpu

  In another notable confirmation, Yang Qing, from the Bank of China, one of China's largest commercial banks involved in the global gold market, responding to a question posed by BullionStar, said that he thinks that in future, the Chinese currency, the Renminbi, should have an element of gold backing.

  In what was probably one of the most interesting and revealing presentations from BullionStar's perspective, and which vindicates the extensive research and analysis that BullionStar's precious metals analyst Koos Jansen has done on the Chinese gold market, Matthew Turner from Macquarie Commodities Research in London gave a presentation about how to accurately capture and estimate the total trade flows of gold into China given that China does not publish this data itself.

  One of Turner's approaches is to use the trade data of all other countries which do report gold exports to China. This approach reveals that China imported 1626 tonnes of gold in 2015 from a number of countries, primarily Hong Kong, Switzerland, the UK and Australia. Another more elegant Turner approach is to take China's total import figure which it does publish, as well as the summated figures of  all of China's other import categories of data, which China also does publish, and then derive the gold import quantities as the delta.

  This approach yields a net gold import figure of 1693 tonnes in 2015. Both of these figures are very close to BullionStar's previously published Chinese gold import data estimates, as calculated by Koos Jansen. Adding 2015 Chinese gold mining production to imports gives total new supply coming into the Chinese market in 2015 in excess of 2000 tonnes, which is over 1000 tonnes higher than consumer gold demand as estimated by consultancies such as GFMS and the World Gold Council.

  LBMA and SGE familiar with BullionStar's research

  On the Monday evening we attended a dinner hosted by Australia and New Zealand Bank (ANZ) at Singapore’s famous Raffles Hotel. Just after arriving we had the privilege of chatting for a few minutes to Jiao Jinpu, chairman of the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) via his colleague and interpreter Jess Yang, and we highlighted to him BullionStar’s extensive research from Koos Jansen on the China gold market and the SGE, which we were impressed that he was already familiar with. Dinner conservation was interesting and varied as we were seated at a table with representatives of the London Metal Exchange, ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA), the CME Group, GFMS, Metalor Singapore, and the Royal Canadian Mint.

  During the conference, we also learned that the LBMA is familiar with BullionStar's research into the London gold market, another confirmation that the analysis that we publish is read widely within the bullion industry.

  As the conference wrapped up on the Tuesday afternoon, delegates were asked to forecast what the US Dollar gold price will be this time next year. Audience members submitted their forecasts via a special handheld device in the auditorium, which resulted in an average forecast of US$ 1347.

  BullionStar Seminar during LBMA Week

  To coincide with the fact that the LBMA conference was located in Singapore this year, BullionStar hosted a number of events at its shop and showroom premises on New Bridge Road, Singapore. On the Saturday prior to the conference, 15 October, BullionStar held a 'meet and greet' morning, where customers and anyone in town for the conference could pop in and chat with BullionStar staff. On Wednesday 19 October, BullionStar held a precious metals seminar in its showroom premises at which BullionStar CEO Torgny Persson and Precious Metals Analyst Ronan Manly presented to an audience on the topics of Bullion Banking, and Transparency vs Secrecy in the gold market. The presentations and transcripts of these speeches will be published on the BullionStar website in the near future.

  

• October Comex Gold "Deliveries"

   

  Hold your real assets outside of the banking system in one of many private international facilities  –>    https://www.sprottmoney.com/intlstorage 

   

   

   

  October Comex Gold “Deliveries”

  Posted with permission and written by Craig Hemke, TF Metals Report (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

  
  

  

   

   

  As we’ve been monitoring all year, the total amount of gold allegedly “delivered” through the Comex has soared in 2016. This is simply another anecdotal datapoint of gold demand but the trend is certainly noteworthy, particularly when you see the numbers thus far in October.

   

  We’ve already written about this trend several times this year. Our most recent article is linked below and I strongly encourage you to read this post as a refresher before you continue.

   

  • http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/7770/curious-pattern-comex-deliveries

   

  As noted in the post above, 2016 has seen a very unusual “delivery” pattern for gold on the Comex. Consistent with surging open interest and surging demand for gold in all its forms around the world, “deliveries” of gold through the Comex have increased as well. However, when you compare “deliveries” for 2016 versus 2015, you’ll notice that the divergence and increase didn’t really begin in earnest until June if this year. See below:

   

  

  

  As you can see, for the first six months of 2015, the amount of Comex gold “deliveries” totaled 4,149 for 414,900 ounces or about 13 metric tonnes. Through May of 2016, total Comex gold “deliveries” were 9,683 for 968,300 or about 30 metric tonnes. As you can quickly do the math, this is over a 2X increase and certainly noteworthy on its own merit.

   

  However, beginning with the “delivery month” of June, Comex gold “deliveries” began to explode at a startling pace. Check the charts above again and note the totals over the past four months. For the period June-September 2015, total Comex gold “deliveries” were 8,832 for 883,200 ounces or about 27.5 metric tonnes. For the same period this year, total Comex gold “deliveries” totaled 39,646 for 3,964,600 ounces or about 123.5 mts. This is about 4.5X times the 2015 amount.

  
  

  And now look at what has happened during October…a month which is historically the lightest “delivery month” on the Comex calendar. Again, referring to the charts above, you can see that the total number of Oct 15 “deliveries” was 950 for 95,000 ounces or slightly less than 3 metric tonnes. Through yesterday, October 21, the Oct 16 “delivery” total is a whopping 9,163 for 916,300 ounces or about 28.5 metric tonnes. This is over a 9X increase versus the same month last year!

  
  

  And this gets even more interesting when you drill down into the day-by-day “deliveries” and open interest…

   

  The Oct16 Comex gold contract went “off the board” back on September 29. That evening, there will still 7,393 Oct 16 contracts still open and, with First Notice Day pending the next day, all of these remaining contracts had to be fully funded with 100% margin, indicating a willingness and financial ability to take or make delivery. The October deliveries began on September 30 and total Oct 16 open interest fell to 4,458 as 2,470 contracts were “delivered” and 465 contracts were liquidated by speculators unwilling or unable to make the 100% margin requirement.

   

  A normal “delivery” pattern would then show a declining amount of open interest in the active “delivery” month as gold is “delivered” and contracts are closed. However, as you can see below, it has been a very busy month. You should also be sure to note the current total:

   

  

   

  So, contributing to the total “delivery” number that exceeds last October by a factor of 9.5, there has been a surge of new open interest that has entered the Oct16 contract with the intention of either making or taking immediate “delivery” of gold…electing not to wait for November or the huge “delivery month” of December. The additions of open interest so far total 1,523 contracts for 152,300 ounces or nearly 5 metric tonnes.

   

  Of course, the Comex and CME Group deliberately make it nearly impossible to discern if this is a rush to buy or sell “gold” in October. This new open interest could be a party looking to immediately unload $200,000,000 worth of gold. However, it could also be someone or something looking to buy and take immediate “delivery” of $200,000,000 worth of gold. It could also be some combination of the two…no one can say with certainty. And much of this is the usual Comex Bullion Bank Circle Jerk where one Bank issues out the warehouse receipts while another Bank stops and takes “delivery”.

   

  Total Stops: Goldman 2,936, JPM 2,095 and Scotia 819

   

  Total Issuance: Scotia 3,100, Goldman 1,409 and HSBC 532

   

  You can see the entire report here: http://www.cmegroup.com/delivery_reports/MetalsIssuesAndStopsYTDReport.pdf

   

  And this is also interesting. Note the sudden involvement of two firms which had, heretofore, had very little if any activity:

   

  

   

  More information on those two firms here:

   

  • Macquarie Futures: http://www.macquarie.com/mgl/com/futures/about-us/about-futures
  • SG Americas, a division of Societe Generale: http://ww2.sgcib.com/usa/SG_Americas_Securities_Disclosures.rha

   

  For example, just yesterday, 608 “deliveries” were issued out of the House Account of Macquarie with 533 being stopped into the House Account at Scotia:

   

  

   

  But I don’t want to get bogged down in the minutiae as this post is not about attempting to unravel the riddle wrapped in mystery inside of an enigma that is The Comex. Instead, we simply wanted to draw your attention to the astonishing increase in the pace of Comex “deliveries”.Again, this DOES NOT signal that some sort of Comex delivery failure is imminent or eventual. However, in an anecdotal indicator similar to surging ETF inventories, this massive expansion in the amount of gold allegedly “delivered” through Comex is clearly a sign of a significant increase in demand for gold and synthetic, gold-related investments in 2016. If this trend continues, you can be certain that the new bull market for price, which began early this year, will continue into 2017 and beyond.

   

   

   

  Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

   

   

   

   

   

  October Comex Gold “Deliveries”

  Posted with permission and written by Craig Hemke, TF Metals Report (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

  
  

  

• A Realist's View Of The US Presidential Contest

  Submitted by Eric Zuesse via Strategic-Culture.org,

  Because the viewpoint expressed here will be a controversial one not frequently expressed or encountered, links are provided in order to enable the reader quickly to access the documentation wherever a particular allegation might seem to be dubious on the basis of false assertions that any particular reader might have read elsewhere; but, otherwise, the links that are provided here are intended to be simply ignored, especially because so many of the allegations here are highly contentious and therefore require providing ready access to the documentation (and because no reader should waste his time to read documentation at a linked item that the reader already believes to be true):

  The rape-allegations that have been raised recently against Donald Trump, turned the US Presidential contest so drastically, that a Hillary Clinton victory now appears to be all but certain. Morning Consult headlined on October 18^th, “Donald Trump Has a Growing Problem With Men”, and reported: “Before the first debate, Trump led his Democratic counterpart, Hillary Clinton, by 8 points among men in a Morning Consult survey of likely voters. After the second debate and nine women making sexual assault allegations against Trump, those numbers have nearly flipped: Clinton now leads Trump among men by 6 points.”

  That’s a 14% swing away from Trump, among half of the electorate, during a time-interval extending from 24 September to 15 October — 21 days — with only 22 days left until voting ends (hardly enough time to reverse that plunge and then to rise into the lead). Rape allegations couldn’t get Bill Clinton forced out of office, but they likely will force Hillary Clinton into office. Future historians might say that the biggest issue in the 2016 US Presidential contest was rape — more important to voters than the economy, the wars, the income-stagnation of the bottom 99%, trade-policy, criminal-justice reform, or any other public-policy issue. But, if this turns out to be so, then is America at all a functioning democracy? Might it instead be a sick society, whose values are so out-of-kilter, so plainly stupid, that it fits more the stereotype of a backward culture, than of a successful and forward-looking one?

  Some of the issues that are actually at stake in this election — especially nuclear war — could quickly end all civilization as we know it; but the voters’ main issue seems instead to be rape. Does this reflect democracy, or rather a lack of democracy, or a manipulation of democracy? Should a personal crime, which isn’t a crime of government, actually be an issue in elective politics? Should it be an issue even if there has been no court-ruling and conviction in the case? And, if it should, then should it dominate an election, such as it is in 2016 America? If it should be an issue at all, then, given the enormous stakes in the current US election, it should be an extremely minor one, notwithstanding how repulsive any rapist is, but especially because there hasn’t even been legal process about any of the allegations, and because even a Presidential candidate who is publicly accused of a personal crime is supposed to be innocent until a court rules “guilty.”

  Joachim Hagopian is correct to report, at Global Research, on October 18^th, that, “The current threat level to every human life on this planet even surpasses the October Cuban Missile Crisis of 54 years ago as the earth today is in more peril by manmade [nuclear] destruction than any previous time in human history.” However, even if that outcome will fortunately be avoided, the sheer war-stakes in this Presidential election are enormous, and they appear to have little impact upon the voters, other than for them perhaps to fear placing a possible rapist (such as Bill Clinton also was) in charge of US (if not also of other nations’) national security.

  Micah Zenko, of the overwhelmingly pro-Hillary-Clinton, neoconservative (pro-invasion), Council on Foreign Relations, headlined, on 29 July 2016, in the neoconservative Foreign Policy magazine (which denies that it’s neoconservative but cannot cite even a single article that it has published attacking neoconservatism), “Hillary the Hawk: A History”, and he documented that, “She has consistently endorsed starting new wars and expanding others.” He closed by saying: “Those who vote for her should know that she will approach such crises with a long track record of being generally supportive of initiating US military interventions and expanding them.”

  I have independently reviewed her performance as the US Secretary of State, and have found nothing in her record that would contradict Zenko’s statement (other than his single false word there, ‘generally’), though I wrote clearly as a warning, and not merely (like Zenko did), to describe what her policies have been; I have (on many and diverse occasions) explicitly condemned those invasions as violations not only against the victim-nations but against the American public, whom the US Secretary of State is supposed to represent. International aggression does not represent the interests of the American public. If she becomes America’s President, then clearly there will be war, lots of it.

  Hillary Clinton not only ardently championed George W. Bush’s kicking the U.N.’s weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 2003 so that we could invade, but as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration led in every aggressive policy, and her protégés in the State Department after she left, such as Victoria Nuland, oversaw the carrying-out of those acts of aggression, and her former boss President Obama even sometimes overrode his new Secretary of State John Kerry (as Obama never did to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) and approved the aggressive policies of Hillary’s (now Kerry’s) underlings (which humiliated Kerry). Whereas Obama is a quiet neoconservative, Hillary is a loud and proud one. Her support of invading Iraq in 2003 was no ‘mistake’ or ‘aberration’ on her part; it reflected her fundamental orientation toward foreign policy. That’s what her voters will be voting for, if they are intelligent and accurately informed (as opposed to “voting for the first woman President” or other irrelevancies); because that’s what America and the world will importantly get if she becomes the next US President. (After all: Margaret Thatcher was also a woman; gender is irrelevant.) This is clear.

  Donald Trump has no record in public office; and, up against Hillary Clinton’s demonstrated catastrophic record in public office, that lack of governmental experience alone constitutes a major reason to prefer him over her in this Presidential election. Whether he would start wars is unknown, but he has spoken forcefully of the need for the US to improve its relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton (like all other neoconservatives) criticizes him for that. (And the US ‘Defense’ industry has poured money into Hillary’s campaign but given almost nothing to Trump’s.) 

  Perhaps the main reason why the main criticisms of Trump have concerned his private life, not his policy-record in public office, is because he has no policy-making record at all. The issues that have been raised in support of Hillary (since her positive achievements in public office have been virtually nil) have mainly focused on Trump’s personal affairs, and on his alleged acts of bigotry and even rape, because these are matters that distract voters from the real and urgent issues, which weigh so heavily and so substantially against her candidacy.

  Rape has become the chief focus during the campaign’s closing days, because polls have indicated clearly that voters are more concerned about whether their President is a rapist than about whether he or she is a warmonger. Though they weren’t so concerned about such allegations when Bill Clinton was President, Trump’s often-crude speech makes such accusations against him far more credible than in Bill Clinton’s case — even though that ought not to be so.

  No one except the women who have accused Bill Clinton and Donald Trump of rape can know, or can even think they know, whether a court would have convicted the alleged rapist if a court had been enabled to issue such a decision; but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Hillary Clinton has been actively supporting the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US invasion of Libya in 2011, and is now supporting a far more aggressive US invasion of Syria (which would mean war against Russia) — supporting it consistently. She also has actively supported the 2009 coup in Honduras (which replaced the progressive democratically elected President there by a string of fascist tyrants and the world’s highest murder-rate), and the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014 (which was immediately followed by a break-up of the country and a plunge into depression and soaring debt).

  Each one of these invasions and coups produced even worse conditions in the invaded or overthrown country afterward; but, only in the single case, of the invasion of Iraq by George W. Bush, which subsequently became overwhelmingly condemned by the Democratic Party itself, did Hillary Clinton (with whatever sincerity an intelligent person can attribute to her, which is whatever the person thinks it to be) admit that she had made a ‘mistake’ on that one occasion. She doesn’t apologize for any of the other cases, because there is no such political requirement for her to do so. 

  How many times does a high public official need to repeat essentially the same ‘mistake’ (actively as a public official pushing for horrific invasions), before the voters in that person’s political party (in this case, Democrats) come to recognize that they’ve been consistently lied-to by that person, and that they’ve been that politician’s suckers by voting for that catastrophically war-mongering person? After all, no sane voter wants America to go to war against Russia. But that’s the direction in which we’re currently heading. And Hillary Clinton wants to go farther there.

  America’s Presidential choice will be either Hillary Clinton, a proven and repeated warmonger who has left a lengthy trail of death and destruction behind her as her blood-soaked clear and consistent record in public office (and Zenko made special note that “She also has developed close relations with retired military officers like Gen. Jack Keane, who has rarely seen a country that cannot be improved with US ground troops and airstrikes. As Bob Woodward wrote of a 2009 meeting between the two to discuss the Afghan surge: ‘Clinton greeted Keane with a bear hug, astonishing [US envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard] Holbrooke because — and he should know — Hillary rarely bear-hugged anyone.” (Here is Jack Keane being praised by the prominent super-neocon Republican Paul Wolfowitz, who will vote for Hillary Clinton, against Donald Trump.)

  Or else it will be a possible rapist, like her husband also was, who served two terms in the White House, but this time it would be a man of the opposite political party: Donald Trump. No matter how gross Mr. Trump is: he, unlike Hillary Clinton, cannot be intelligently evaluated by an abysmal record in public office, because he simply has no record at all in public office, nothing whatsoever; but he has only strings of public statements, most of which contradict each other. (As Zenko said: “Unlike Donald Trump, who has wildly shifting positions and alleged ‘secret’ plans to defeat the Islamic State, Clinton has an extensive track record upon which one can evaluate her likely positions.”) What Hillary Clinton’s public statements contradict is her actual record in public office, which is as far right-wing (pro-international-corporate), especially in foreign affairs and US trade policy (including NAFTA, TTIP, etc.) (and the common term for this in the military sphere is “neoconservative”), as any of her many financial backers on Wall Street could realistically hope for from any potential future US President — which is why she’s backed by almost all of America’s billionaires.

  One of those two persons will be the next US President. Anyone else who alleges that he or she wants to be, and whose name will also appear on the Presidential ballot, is just a fake there, because, for example, Ralph Nader never ever won even so much as a single one of the 50 states in the Electoral College in any of his contests for the Presidency (not to mention a majority of all the EC votes, such as each of these spoilers lies, or lied, to claim to be his or her goal, but really just being a bad joke on that person’s voters). Nor will any of the current aspiring Presidential spoilers win even a single state. 

  It’s going to be either the possible rapist, or else the definite and serial warmonger. The next US President will be one of those two people. On the one side is, maybe, a rapist. On the other side is certainly a warmonger.

  Each voter must make his/her own choice: either drink possibly cyanide, or drink definitely arsenic. Those are the only two choices left in America’s ‘democracy’, and neither of them was the top choice of the most Americans during the primaries-season: the top choice was Bernie Sanders, and the second choice was John Kasich. In a truly democratic system, those two would be the final contestants. 

  Each and every American voter in this existing contest will either select and drink his/her cup, or else simply allow all the other US voters in this contest collectively to select the cup that he/she and all other Americans will then be drinking during the next four years.

  That’s a realistic view of this contest. But this is only one person’s analysis. Anyone who finds fault in it, is welcomed to provide and document a counter-argument below, as a reader-comment, or anywhere else this commentary is published.

  Meanwhile, here is my answer to a person who, in a prior reader-comment, said that I am trying to ‘herd’ America’s voters into one or the other of America’s rotten political parties: I voted for Bernie Sanders, but I’m no such fool as to think that anyone like that still has a chance to win the US Presidency in 2016. I didn’t do the ‘herd’ing here; the US political system does it, when the political primary season ends and the general-election contest starts. If Jill Stein had wanted to reform the Democratic Party, she missed her chance to do that when she failed even to enter the Democratic primaries.

  And, unlike the Whig Party, which had already become so widely rejected by the electorate by the time of 1860, so that a former Whig, Abraham Lincoln, was able virtually to start its successor, the Republican Party in 1860 (which got shot dead and taken over by the aristocracy when he was shot dead, in 1865), America’s voters haven’t yet reached the point where they’re willing to replace the Democratic Party with the Green Party or any other (much less to protect it if yet another assassination kills the progressive replacement-party like Lincoln’s Republican Party was). No matter what any third-party proponent might say, there’s no chance that 2016 is going to be some repeat of 1860. America is, and (like any nation that has a Presidential system) can only be, a two-party political system. The Founders didn’t know that, but we’ve now got hundreds of years all proving it to be so.

  I mention that particular objection because it’s the one I most commonly have gotten in the past.

  One final observation here: The reality of politics and governmental policymaking is incredibly ugly, and anyone who makes voting decisions on the basis of a politician’s mere private and personal life is a fool, because public policy really is, in the deepest sense, a very different and vastly more consequential and important moral sphere, having shockingly little to do with the person’s private behavior. The only intelligent way to judge any candidate is by that person’s past record of actual policy-decisions in public office, not at all by either the person’s mere words, or his private life (such as described in this example).

  Even for Abraham Lincoln, who (along with FDR) is considered by historians to have been the greatest President, only his actions on policy made him that, and even his greatness as a rhetorician possesses relevance for historians only insofar as it was a part of that policy-record. Furthermore: both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned and ordered slaves, but neither man was a lesser President for having done that (even if historians do debate whether such Presidents were lesser persons for having done it).

  To evaluate a politician by either his personal life or his mere rhetoric is not only foolish but petty. History proves this on thousands, if not millions, of occasions. Policy-actions are the only factor that’s important when evaluating a politician. It has been true throughout human history. A politician who has no record of policy-actions is thus a zero (like a mere coin-flip: presuming one side to be positive, the other negative); a politician who has a bad policy-record is thus a negative, and a politician who (like Bernie Sanders) has a positive policy-record is thus a positive. No intelligent estimation of America’s immediate political future can be positive; it’s either zero (like Trump) or else negative (like Hillary). That’s where we are (somewhere between zero and negative), and that’s the real choice we’ve been presented: either it’s Trump (zero), or else it’s Hillary (negative). I, a Sanders-voter, am choosing Trump, in preference to Clinton.

  *  *  *

  Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  

  

• Over 60% Of Americans Fear "Corruption Of Government Officials" Above Anything Else

  “Global warming”? “Obamacare”? “Terrorism”? all rank in the Top 10 fears for Americans. While ‘creepy clowns’ are all the rage, according to the Chapman University Survey of American Fears, corruption of government officials is the top fear among U.S. adults this year.

  This chart shows the % of Americans who reported being “afraid” or “very afraid” of the following…

  
  You will find more statistics at Statista

  Just don’t tell the mainstream media.. because that would be threatening the very core of America’s democracy… or some such bullshit.

  

  

• The United States Of Refugees

  Submitted by Ben Christopher via Priceonomics.com,

  Consider the state of Nebraska. What comes to mind?

  Common associations with the Cornhusker state include: row crops, silos, college football, Warren Buffet, and wholesome, earnest Americana.

  Now try this one: Refugee Capital of the United States.

  

  So far this year, the City of Omaha has settled over 900 people fleeing war, persecution, and disaster around the world. That may be a small figure relative to the estimated 21.3 million refugees worldwide (or relative to the population of Omaha, for that matter, which is roughly 434,000). But it’s still higher than the number of refugees resettled in Los Angeles and New York City combined.

  That disproportionate hospitality extends across the entire state, where over 1,300 refugees have found new homes this year. That may not be much compared to the resettlement statistics in larger states, like California, Texas, and New York. But given Nebraska’s population of fewer than 2 million, on a per person basis, this makes the state the most welcoming of refugees in the nation. For every 100,000 residents, Nebraska resettled roughly 71 refugees in 2016. By the same measure, California welcomed fewer than 18.

  If these figures don’t jibe with your understanding of where refugees live in the United States, that might be because you’ve been following this year’s presidential election. When Donald Trump claims that we “have no documentation” about the “Trojan horse” refugees who live in this country, and when Republican governors across the country insist that they will not abide Syrian refugees resettling within their borders, they not only raise suspicions about some of the world’s most vulnerable people, they fundamentally mischaracterize what may be the most complex human relocation system on the planet.

  This is a system in which international, federal, and charitable organizations all work together to bring more refugees to the United States than any other country—and which places more of them in Boise, Idaho; Des Moines, Iowa; and Bowling Green, Kentucky; than in New York City.  

  How does this system work and how did we get to this point?

  Somalis in the Buckeye State

  If you’re looking to answer these questions, a good starting point might be Columbus, Ohio.

  Over the last two decades, the city has become one of the most popular resettlement locations for those fleeing war, persecution, and deprivation in Somalia.

  To be clear, this population represents a small trickle of all Somalis hoping to leave the country or the refugee camps in adjacent Kenya. The refugee application process is notoriously complex and time-intensive. An aspiring refugee must first get a referral from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees or from a local embassy before they even have permission to apply for refugee status. This application process requires extensive pre-screenings, background checks, health examinations, and on-site interviews. From start to finish, the process can, and generally does, take years—and of those who make it to the screening phase, only half are ultimately resettled.

  Still, many are. Over the last ten years, the United States has resettled over 70,000 Somali refugees. Many have come to Ohio. Today, Columbus has the second largest Somali population in the United States after Minneapolis.

  Why Columbus, of all places?

  

  Data: Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System, U.S. State Department.

  “The short answer to your question is: it’s complicated.”

  That’s the response from Tamar Forrest, the Director of Development at the Economic and Community Development Institute in Columbus, Ohio. The ECDI was founded by a refugee from the Soviet Union in 2004 and provides various social and economic development services to Columbus’ sizable Somali refugee community.

  “For one, we’re a bit of a victim of our own success,” she says. “Our resettlement agencies are really, really good.”

  When a refugee is finally approved for resettlement in the United States, the State Department matches the applicant with one of nine resettlement organizations. These are non-profits, many of them religiously-affiliated, and they—not federal or state governments—are the organizations that decide where a refugee will be resettled.

  That decision often comes down to logistics, says Forrest. Does a city have enough affordable housing? Does the resettlement organization have a local network of ESL teachers and caseworkers to refer to? Are there organizations like ECDI on the ground ready to help with job training and financial literacy courses?

  But once a refugee community is established in a specific town or city, it begins to exert its own gravitational force. Resettlement agencies will often try to place refugees from a particular country into a community in which they have family or community ties to draw upon. And so Somalis are resettled in Columbus because Somali refugees have been placed in Columbus in the past.

  This process takes place with or without the resettlement agencies, says Forrest.

  “There were people in Columbus, like Bantu Somalis and Somalis, calling their family and friends in the refugee camp in Kakuma [in Kenya],” she says. “And they were saying, no matter where you go—if it's Atlanta, if it's Chicago, if it's New York—you have to make it to Columbus.”

  Of course, it’s common for refugees to move from the town or city in which they are initially placed. These “secondary migrations,” as scholars call them, mean that official refugee resettlement statistics (like the data used to make the map at the top of this article) offer an incomplete picture at best. In a paper that Forrest co-authored with Ohio State University professor Lawrence Brown in 2014, she estimated that between 2000 and 2005, over 2,500 refugees left California for other states, while over 1,000 resettled in the Golden State.

  This national reshuffling also serves to reinforce the placement decisions of resettlement agencies. As the local Somali community grows in Columbus, more Somali refugees from around the country move there, which encourages resettlement agencies to resettle more Somalis in Columbus, which causes the local Somali community to grow, and so on.

  

  Data: Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System, U.S. State Department.

  Thus, what is effectively a choice of convenience by one of nine non-profits across the country can establish an American city as the go-to locale for a specific refugee community.

  It’s a common story. This is the reason that so many refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo have recently been resettled in Atlanta (1,198 in the last three years), why so many Syrians now live in San Diego (871), and why you can now find so many Iraqi refugees in Houston (1,783).

  Iraqis in Houston

  Ali Al Sudani is one of those Iraqi refugees.

  When Sudani arrived in Houston in 2009, he knew close to nothing about the city. Having spent the previous three years working for an NGO in Jordan and applying for refugee status, his understanding of life in Texas was derived solely from television.

  In three words: “Cowboys, guns, and the oil industry,” he says.

  Still, his boss had family in Houston and had spoken highly of the economic opportunities there. And so after a year of referrals, applications, background checks, health inspections, and cultural orientation courses, he boarded a plane for George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

  Sudani was not alone. As the United States military began to slowly withdraw from Iraq at the end of 2007, Iraqis like Sudani, who had spent the years of the U.S. occupation working with coalition troops or foreign NGOs, were being targeted for retaliation in ever growing numbers. For both humanitarian and political reasons, the U.S. State Department began ramping up the number of refugee applications that it processed from Iraq and the camps in Jordan.

  But when Sudani’s plane landed in in Houston in 2009, there were still relatively few Iraqis in the city. A local charity, Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston, helped him secure an apartment in the southwest corner of Houston, but they had few Arabic-speaking caseworkers and most of Sudani’s refugee neighbors were Cuban.

  Though Sudani had learned to speak English while working with American and British troops in Iraq, he still enrolled in the ESL and cultural orientation courses offered out of his apartment building. This gave him a chance to meet his neighbors and to learn how to navigate some of America’s more mysterious institutions: how to open a bank account, how to find a doctor, how to traverse Houston’s infamous five-level stack highway interchanges without crashing his car.

  Two months after he arrived, Interfaith Ministries, the same charity that had helped Sudani get situated, offered him a job. Every day, more Iraqis were arriving in Houston and the organization desperately needed someone who could connect with the burgeoning Iraqi community.

  

  Data: Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System, U.S. State Department.

  That community was growing every day. Sudani could see that firsthand from where he lived.

  “In the apartment complex that I used to live in, I was the only Iraqi,” he recalls. “And then there was another guy. And then another family…But later on, over the last two or three years, I think it was a large community of Iraqis living in that apartment complex and across that neighborhood.”

  Six years later, Sudani is now Program Director or Refugee Services for Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston. These days, that’s a very busy job. In the last ten years, Houston has resettled more refugees than any other city in the country. (Though that rank is arguably shared with San Diego, if you include nearby El Cajon). 

  Why is it that Houston, of all places, has been the most welcoming city for the tired, poor, huddled masses of the word? Is it the local network of resettlement services? The large international community? The proximity to a large airport?

  That may be be part of it, says Sudani. But he also offers a more straightforward explanation: “Houston has a strong economy and the cost of living is affordable.”

  “Refugee are normal people,” he says. “They’re just in abnormal circumstances.”

  

  

• Former Haitian Senate President Calls Clintons "Common Thieves Who Should Be In Jail"

  Despite repeatedly bragging about all the good work the Clinton Foundation did to help Haiti recover from the devastating 2010 earthquake, at least one Haitian, former Senate President Bernard Sansaricq, thinks it was the Clintons, not the Hiatian people, who benefitted most from the Foundation’s “charitable work” in Haiti.  Appearing on a radio show last week, Sansaricq offered a scathing assessment of the Clinton’s track record in Haiti saying they are “nothing but common thieves…and they should be in jail.”  Per PJ Media:

  Sandy Rios of American Family Radio interviewed former Haitian Senate President Bernard Sansaricq on Thursday, and the enraged Haitian had nothing good to say about the Clintons. He angrily claimed that they brought their “pay to play” politics to Haiti at the expense of the Haitian people.

   

  Sansaricq said that the Clinton Foundation received 14.3 billion dollars in donation money to help with the relief effort. President Obama and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon put the Clinton Foundation in charge of the reconstruction, but Haiti has seen no help. The money all went to friends of Bill Clinton.

   

  “They are nothing but common thieves,” the enraged Sansaricq told Rios. “And they should be in jail.”

  As also highlighted in the movie “Clinton Cash,” Sansaricq argued that the Clinton’s did nothing more than bring their pay-to-play tactics to Haiti resulting in the enrichment of Clinton cronies, including Hillary’s brother Anthony Rodham, whose company was awarded a lucrative gold mining contract.

  Sansaricq said although Bill Clinton was put in charge of the reconstruction, he did absolutely nothing but give contracts to his cronies and built a sweatshop next to a goldmine that was given to Hillary Clinton’s brother, Anthony Rodham, in violation of the Haitian constitution.

   

  He said he could go on for hours about the Clinton Foundation’s destruction of the rice production in Haiti because they were importing rice from Clinton’s cronies in Arkansas. And rice is something Haiti could really use right now.

   

  The Clintons also awarded the country’s only cell phone company to another crony, Denis O’Brien, using taxpayer dollars. O’Brien has made 265 million dollars, and a substantial portion of that  has gone back to the Clinton Foundation.

  Of course, these claims are hard to deny given that recently released emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by the Republican National Committee, and subsequently shared with ABC News, reveal very open special treatment of “Friends of Bill” (“FOB” for short) by the State Department in granting access to recovery efforts in Haiti, in which $10 billion in emergency aid was spent after the 2010 earthquake. 

  The emails showed very close coordination between Caitlin Klevorick, a senior State Department official, and Amitabh Desai, the director of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation, as they exchanged emails from Foundation donors looking to participate in the Haiti recovery efforts.  While many donors likely were just looking to make charitable contributions, others, as evidenced below, were simply looking to capture their “fair share” of $10 billion in emergency aid contracts doled out by the U.S. government.  

  The following exchange between Klevorick and Dasai, with the subject line “Haiti Assistance,” shows the State Department very clearly asking for “Friends of Bill” to be flagged for special consideration.

  “Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC,” wrote Caitlin Klevorick, then a senior State Department official who was juggling incoming offers of assistance being funneled to the State Department by the Clinton Foundation. “Most I can probably ID but not all.”

  

   

  Of course, this directly contradicts comments that Bill Clinton previously made to CBS’ Charlie Rose just last month when he assured voters that “nothing was ever done for anybody because they were contributors to the foundation, nothing.”

  In another Klevorick and Dasai exchange, the State Department official asks “Is this a FOB!” saying that “If not, she should go to cidi.org” (a general government website).

  

   

  As also mentioned by Sansaricq, another series of messages uncovered the efforts of billionaire Denis O’Brien, a longtime donor to the Clinton Foundation and the CEO of the Jamaica-based telecom firm Digicel, to fly relief supplies into Port-au-Prince and get employees of his company out.  But when O’Brien couldn’t get access to land in Port-au-Prince “through conventional channels” he turns to long-time Clinton aide Doug Band for help.  Shortly thereafter, the request was elevated to the State Department in an email with the subject line “Close friend of the Clintons.” 

  “This WJC VIP just called again from Jamaica to say Digicel is being pushed by US Army to get comms back up but is not being cleared by [the U.S. government] to deploy into Haiti to do so,” Desai wrote in an email with the subject line “Close friend of Clintons.”

   

  Later, O’Brien writes to longtime Clinton aide Doug Band to express frustration. “We’re finding it impossible to get landing slots,” he says. “I’m sorry to bother you but I am not making any progress through conventional channels.”

   

  Band tasks Desai to “pls get on this,” telling O’Brien, “Never a bother.”

   

  Desai then turns to Klevorick to help “a friend of President Clinton,” and the request is pushed up the chain of command to USAID officials organizing the relief effort.

  Of course, we have no doubt that these scandalous revelations, like many others circling the Clinton campaign at the moment, will quickly be brushed under the carpet so the mainstream media can go back to focusing on Trump’s “accusers”.

  

  

• 'Philanthropist' George Soros Set To Make A Killing From Europe's 'Forced Migration'

  Authored by Sam Gerrans, originally posted op-ed via RT.com,

  The philanthropist George Soros recently published a letter in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'Why I’m Investing 500 million USD in Migrants'. In this article, I will be looking at that letter and separating what it means from what it appears to say.

  Soros' letter begins: “The world has been unsettled by a surge in forced migration. Tens of millions of people are on the move, fleeing their home countries in search of a better life abroad. Some are escaping civil war or an oppressive regime; others are forced out by extreme poverty, lured by the possibility of economic advancement for themselves and their families.”

  This is quite true. And Soros should know since his think tank is fully on board with that “forced migration”. He has either initiated it or facilitated it and, according to Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary (which is presently holding a referendum on whether to accept migrant quotas as demanded by the EU), as quoted by Bloomberg: “His name is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle […] These activists who support immigrants inadvertently become part of this international human-smuggling network.”

  Soros-backed activists are at the center of that network.

  Soros continues: “Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies to handle the increased flow has contributed greatly to human misery and political instability—both in countries people are fleeing and in the countries that host them, willingly or not. Migrants are often forced into lives of idle despair, while host countries fail to reap the proven benefit that greater integration could bring.”

  I have touched on Soros’ psychological peculiarities elsewhere; his narcissistic traits notwithstanding, I shall assume he is not using the royal “we”. That granted, about whom is he speaking when he talks of “Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies”? If about governments, we should remember that he is elected to no nation’s government, nor has he ever been.

  That does not prevent him, however, from meddling in their internal affairs and supporting insurrections such as so-called Color Revolutions, including in Georgia and Ukraine, and whipping up chaos via BLM in the US.

  He also famously attacked the British pound, making himself a billion dollars.

  He wishes the reader to assume inclusion by his use of “our”. But we are not included; we are simply being told what is to happen.

  He then writes of “the proven benefit that greater integration could bring”. This is almost a rhetorical conundrum; he and his lawyers expect – not without reason – that most people will provide their own color to what the words on the page say. He claims proof but provides none – and that is a major omission given that we are expected to entrust our entire cultural and economic future to his assertions.

  Many countries, including Japan, China, UAE, Israel and Singapore, are extremely careful to whom they grant citizenship. If the benefits Soros claims were proven, surely they would be on board, too.

   

  EU has 900 ‘no-go’ areas because of migrants – Hungary https://t.co/qyCJ5lzUeT pic.twitter.com/CXjYw3cbRp

  — RT (@RT_com) April 2, 2016

   

  To continue: “Governments must play the leading role in addressing this crisis by creating and sustaining adequate physical and social infrastructure for migrants and refugees. But harnessing the power of the private sector is also critical.

  Recognizing this, the Obama administration recently launched a “Call to Action” asking U.S. companies to play a bigger role in meeting the challenges posed by forced migration. Today, private-sector leaders are assembling at the United Nations to make concrete commitments to help solve the problem.”

  Soros, naturally, does not blush at telling us what our governments “must” do.

  The term "forced migration" is clever mind hook. You may be sure that it was worked on for hours and many alternatives discarded. Its power lies in the fact that it implies both helplessness in the face of an unstoppable external force and inevitability of result – while at the same time disregarding causes.

  If anyone still cares, the causes include: attacks by the US and Nato on countries which have done them no harm; Angela Merkel’s open invitation to the third world to move to Europe; material and informational support from Soros-funded organizations.

  Soros continues: “In response, I have decided to earmark $500 million for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities. I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves. Although my main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, I will be looking for good investment ideas that will benefit migrants all over the world.”

  I will translate: “Now that the inflow of immigrants has been set up, I am going to invest $500 million to make the process unstoppable, endless and self-funding, and make a lot of money for myself at the same time. And since this is dressed in the language of compassion, there is nothing you can say against it.”

  Back to Soros’ letter: “This commitment of investment equity will complement the philanthropic contributions my foundations have made to address forced migration, a problem we have been working on globally for decades and to which we have dedicated significant financial resources.”

  Just remove the words 'philanthropic' (which does not mean at the elite level what you think it means) and realize that 'address' means 'facilitate' to Soros, and you will understand this sentence correctly; this is a carefully crafted statement of policy.

  He continues: “We will seek investments in a variety of sectors, among them emerging digital technology, which seems especially promising as a way to provide solutions to the particular problems that dislocated people often face. Advances in this sector can help people gain access more efficiently to government, legal, financial and health services. Private businesses are already investing billions of dollars to develop such services for non-migrant communities.

  This is why money now moves instantaneously from one mobile wallet to another, drivers find customers by using only a cellphone, and how a doctor in North America can see a patient in Africa in real time. Customizing and extending these innovations to serve migrants will help improve the quality of life for millions around the world.

  All of the investments we make will be owned by my nonprofit organization. They are intended to be successful—because I want to show how private capital can play a constructive role helping migrants—and any profits will go to fund programs at the Open Society Foundations, including programs that benefit migrants and refugees.”

  Thus, anyone who wishes to will be able to plug into the system you and your families have been paying into all your lives and access its main arteries with nothing more than a mobile phone. Soros, meanwhile, makes a load more money which he can then plough into the very organizations which will make sure the inflow of migrants never stops.

  Soros goes on to claim: “As longtime champions of civil society, we will be focused on ensuring that our investments lead to products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities.”

  Leaving what Soros may mean by 'civil society', I turn to his use of 'benefit'; benefit according to whom? According to George Soros – a man who destabilizes sovereign states as part of his modus operandi.

  Soros concludes: “We will also work closely with organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Rescue Committee to establish principles to guide our investments. Our goal is to harness, for public good, the innovations that only the private sector can provide.

  I hope my commitment will inspire other investors to pursue the same mission.”

  What this means in English is: “The fix is in, and now all you smaller fish further down the food chain can make a nice buck off the gravy train of selling your countries out because if this weren’t a sure thing, I wouldn’t be in it.”

  This is cultural- and ethnic-cleansing in a business suit; it is the de facto usurpation of the nation state as a social construct for the peoples of Europe as part of a multi-purpose war – one designed to destroy oil-rich states and any state with no central bank, while simultaneously collapsing sovereign states.

  However, my point here is not the mass immigration – although with the inevitable, eventual annihilation of the middle class in Soros’ “host countries” there will be nowhere for genuine refugees to go; it is that we have taxation without even the fig leaf of representation so long as men like Soros can openly create and dictate policy.

  

  

• New Reuters Poll Shows That 70% Of Republicans Think The Election Is Rigged

  This morning, Julian Assange offered a chilling and succinct assessment of the 2016 U.S. election, namely, that there is, in fact, no election but rather just an illusion of democracy that has been usurped by a corrupt political ruling class.

  There is no US election. There is power consolidation. Rigged primary, rigged media and rigged ‘pied piper’ candidate drive consolidation.

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 21, 2016

   

  Certainly, new polling data from Reuters/Ipsos would seem to support that thesis.  A new poll of 1,192 Americans, conducted by Reuters, found that if Hillary wins only 50% of republicans would accept her presidency as legitimate while 70% would attribute her victory to voter fraud and/or vote rigging of some type.  Moreover, only 20% of republicans surveyed felt that the final vote tallies would be accurate. 

  Only half of Republicans would accept Clinton, the Democratic nominee, as their president. And if she wins, nearly 70 percent said it would be because of illegal voting or vote rigging, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

   

  Conversely, seven out of 10 Democrats said they would accept a Trump victory and less than 50 percent would attribute it to illegal voting or vote rigging, the poll showed.

   

  For example, nearly eight out of 10 Republicans are concerned about the accuracy of the final vote count. And though generally they believe they will be able to cast their ballot, only six out of 10 are confident their vote will be counted accurately.

  Obviously, this data is fairly alarming, to say the least, but not terribly surprising in light of the staggering, systemic corruption recently exposed through WikiLeaks and the ongoing Congressional review of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary’s private email server…not mention DNC operatives openly talking about committing massive election fraud on undercover Project Veritas videos and working behind the scenes to incite violence at Republican rallies.  For those of you who still haven’t seen the videos, they’re worth a look.

  The following video takes a look behind the scenes of the DNC’s efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

   

  And this one provides an excellent tutorial on how to commit voter fraud on a massive scale:

   

  Given the exposure of mass corruption it should hardly be surprising that the “level of concern and mistrust in the system, especially among Republicans, is unprecedented,” as a professor at the University of New Mexico told Reuters, but apparently it is.

  “Republicans are just more worried about everything than Democrats,” said Lonna Atkeson, a professor at the University of New Mexico and head of the Center for the Study of Voting, Elections, and Democracy.

   

  Atkeson said the level of concern and mistrust in the system, especially among Republicans, is unprecedented.

   

  “I’ve never seen an election like this. Not in my lifetime. Certainly not in modern history.” The difference, she said, is Trump. “It has to be the candidate effect.”

   

  She worries that the lack of trust is dangerous. It is one thing to not trust government, but quite another to doubt the election process. “Then the entire premise of democracy comes into question,” she said.

  What we find far more shocking is that somehow the American electorate’s acceptance of mass corruption is split along party lines rather than being universally unacceptable. 

  

  

• "Make A Wish List" Russia Tells Duterte, As New Asian Axis Forms

  Yesterday, when Philippine president Duterte finally took the plunge to announce his “separation”  from the US (even if his government has backtracked somewhat today), he said that not only would he “realign” himself in China’s ideological flow but, in a nuance that was missed by many, said that “I will also go to Russia to talk to (President Vladimir) Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world – China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.”

  To be sure, an offical axis between China, Russia and a nation that until recently was a core US ally in the Pacific Rim – whose loss would be a huge slap in the face of Obama and whoever replaced him as president – would be music to Putin’s ears, which is why just minutes after Philippine president announced his stunning separation from the US, Russia’s ambassador to the country promptly said Moscow is ready to provide assistance to and fully cooperate with Manila.

  “Formulate your wish list. What kind of assistance do you expect from Russia and we will be ready to sit down with you and discuss what can and should be done,” Russian Ambassador Igor Khovaev told GMA News on Friday. He then went on to state that Russia is open to working with the Philippines in “any area, any field of possible cooperation.”

  The ambassador assured the news outlet that Moscow would not “interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign state,” and that the “true Russia” is much different than the one portrayed in Hollywood films. Khovaev added that the Philippines and Russia “deserve to know each other much, much better.”

  The aggresive, if diplomatic brownnosing continued, when the ambassador also said that Duterte impressed Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev during a meeting in Laos last month, and that Moscow supports the leader’s fight against illegal drugs and criminality. In short, he said everything that Durterte wanted to hear just to make sure the Chinese-Russian-Philippino axis takes hold.

  For its part, the Philippines’ budget minister announced that his country is open to all forms of assistance, but will choose what is in the “best interest of the country,” Reuters reported. This could also include yet another U-turn, and prompt return to the safety of being a US puppet. Which is why on Friday, the Philippines’ trade minister, Ramon Lopez, told CNN that the leader “wasn’t talking about separation” from the United States. Although Duterte explicitly stated that the Philippines would be separating from the US economically, Lopez said that “in terms of economic [ties], we are not stopping trade, investment with America. The president specifically mentioned his desire to strengthen further the ties with China and the ASEAN region, which we have been trading with for centuries.”

  He explained that the Philippines was just “breaking being too much dependent on one side…but we definitely won’t stop the trade and investment activities with the West, specifically the US.”

  The US embassy in the Philippines called Duterte’s remarks “troubling rhetoric” prior to Lopez’s conciliating remarks. “We’ve seen a lot of this sort of troubling rhetoric recently, which is inexplicably at odds with the warm relationship that exists between the Filipino and American people and the record of important cooperation between our two governments,” the US embassy press attaché in Manila, Molly Koscina, told Reuters on Friday.

  “We have yet to hear from the Philippine government what Duterte’s remarks on ‘separation’ might mean, but it is creating unnecessary uncertainty,” she added.

  If Russia is successful in closing the loop on the latest, and most novel regional power axis yet, Koscina will be waiting for a long time.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Unraveling The Aleppo / Mosul Riddle

  Submitted by Pepe Escobar via Stratgic-Culture.org,

  There’s no question Baghdad needs to take back Mosul from ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. It could not do it before. In theory, the time is now.

  The real question is the conflicting motivations of the large “who’s who” doing it; the Iraqi Army’s 9^th Division; the Kurdish Peshmerga, under the baton of wily, corrupt opportunist Barzani; Sunni tribal lords; tens of thousands of Shi’ite militias from southern Iraq; operational “support” from US Special Forces; “targeted” bombing by the US Air Force; and lurking in the background, Turkish Special Forces and air power.

  Now that’s a certified recipe for trouble.

  Much like Aleppo, Mosul is – literally – the stuff of legend. The successor of ancient Nineveh, settled 8000 years ago; former capital of the Assyrian Empire under Sennacherib in the 7^th century B.C.; conquered by Babylon in the 6^th century B.C.; a thousand years later, annexed to the Muslim empire and ruled by the Umayyads and the Abbasids; the key hub, from the 11^th to the 12^th century, of the Atabegs medieval state; a key Ottoman hub in a 16^th century post-Silk Road spanning the Indian Ocean all the way to the Persian Gulf, the Tigris valley, Aleppo and Tripoli in the Mediterranean.

  After WWI, everyone craved Mosul – from Turkey to France. But it was the Brits who managed to dupe France into letting Mosul be annexed to the British Empire’s brand new colony: Iraq. Then came the long Arab nationalist Ba’ath party domination. And afterwards, Shock and Awe and hell; the US invasion and occupation; the tumultuous Shi’ite-majority government of Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad; and the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh takeover in the summer of 2014.

  Mosul’s historic parallels could not but have a special flavor. That 11^th/12^th century medieval state happened to have roughly the same borders of Daesh’s phony “Caliphate” – incorporating both Aleppo and Mosul. In 2004, Mosul was de facto ruled by disgraced, failed “presidential material” Gen. David Petraeus. Ten years later, after Petraeus’s phony “surge”, Mosul was ruled by a phony Caliphate born in a US prison near the Kuwaiti border.

  Since then, hundreds of thousands of residents fled Mosul. The population may be as much as halved compared to the original 2 million. That’s a mighty lot to be properly “liberated”.

  Aleppo “falls”

  The hegemonic narrative about the ongoing Battle of (East) Aleppo is that an “axis of evil” (as coined by Hillary Clinton) of Russia, Iran and “the Syrian regime” is relentlessly bombing innocent civilians and “moderate rebels” while causing a horrendous humanitarian crisis.

  In fact, the absolute majority of these several thousand-strong “moderate rebels” is in fact incorporated and/or affiliated with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (Conquest of Syria Front), which happens to be none other than Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, alongside a smatter of other jihadi groups such as Ahrar al-Sham (Al-Nusra’s goals – and who supports them – are fully documented here).

  Meanwhile, few civilians remain trapped in eastern Aleppo – arguably no more than 30,000 or 40,000 out of an initial population of 300,000.

  And that brings us to the crux of the matter explaining the Pentagon sabotage of the Russia-US ceasefire; those fits of rage by Samantha Batshit Crazy Power; the non-stop spin that Russia is committing “war crimes”.

  If Damascus controls, apart from the capital, Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Latakia, it controls the Syria that matters; 70% of the population and all the important industrial/business centers. It’s practically game over. The rest is a rural, nearly empty back of beyond.

  For the headless chicken school of foreign policy currently practiced by the lame duck Obama administration, the ceasefire was a means to buy time and rearm what the Beltway describes as “moderate rebels”. Yet even that was too much for the Pentagon, which faces a determined Syria/Iran/Russia alliance fighting all declinations of demented Salafi-jihadis, whatever their terminology, and committed to keep a unitary Syria.

  So reconquering the whole of Aleppo has to be the top priority for Damascus, Tehran and Moscow. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will never have enough military to reconquer the rural, ultra hardcore Sunni back of beyond. Damascus may also never reconquer the Kurdish northeast, the embryonic Rojava; after all the YPG is directly backed by the Pentagon. Whether an independent Rojava will ever see the light of day is an interminable future issue to be solved.

  The SAA, once again, is tremendously overextended. Thus, the method to reconquer East Aleppo is indeed hardcore. There is a humanitarian crisis. There is collateral damage. And this is only the beginning. Because sooner or later the SAA, supported by Hezbollah and Iraqi Shi’ite militias, will have to reconquer East Aleppo with boots on the ground as well – supported by Russian fighter jets.

  The heart of the matter is that the former “Free Syrian Army”, absorbed by al-Qaeda in Syria and other Salafi-jihadis, is about to lose East Aleppo. Regime change and/or “Assad must go” – the military way – in Damascus is now impossible. Thus the utter desperation exhibited by the Pentagon’s Ash “Empire of Whining” Carter, neocon cells implanted all across lame duck Team Obama, and their hordes of media shills.

  Enter Plan B; the Battle of Mosul.

  Fallujah remixed?

  The Pentagon plan is deceptively simple; erase any signs of Damascus and the SAA east of Palmyra. And this is where the Battle of Mosul converges with the recent Pentagon attack on Deir Ezzor. Even if we have an offensive in the next few months against Raqqa – by the YPG Kurds or even by Turkish forces – we still have a “Salafist principality” from eastern Syria to western Iraq all mapped up, exactly as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was planning (dreaming?) in 2012.

  London-based Syrian historian Nizar Nayouf, as well as unnamed diplomatic sources, have confirmed that Washington and Riyadh closed a deal to let thousands of phony Caliphate jihadis escape Mosul from the west, as long as they head straight to Syria. A look at the battle map tells us that Mosul is encircled from all directions, except west.

  But what about Sultan Erdogan in all this? He’s been spinning that Turkish Special Forces will enter Mosul just as they entered Jarablus in the Turkish-Syrian border; without firing a shot, when the city will be cleaned of jihadis.

  Meanwhile, Ankara is preparing its spectacular entrance in the battlefield, with Erdogan in full regalia shooting at random. For him, “Baghdad” is no more than “an administrator of an army composed of Shi’ites”; and the YPG Kurds “will be removed from the Syrian town of Manbij” after the Mosul operation. Not to mention that Ankara and Washington are actively discussing the offensive against Raqqa, as Erdogan has not abandoned his dream of a “safe zone” of 5,000 km in northern Syria.

  In a nutshell; for Erdogan, Mosul is a sideshow. His priorities remain a fractured, fragmented Syria, “safe zone” included; and to smash the YPG Kurds (while working side by side with the Peshmerga in Iraq).

  As far as the US Plan B is concerned, Hezbollah’s Sheikh Nasrallah has clearly seen through the whole scheme; “The Americans intend to repeat the Fallujah plot when they opened a way for ISIL to escape towards eastern Syria before the Iraqi warplanes targeted the terrorists’ convoy.” He added that “the Iraqi army and popular forces” must defeat ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Mosul; otherwise, they will have to chase them out across eastern Syria.

  It's also no wonder that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also clearly seen The Big Picture: “As far as I know, the city is not fully encircled. I hope it’s because they simply couldn’t do it, not because they wouldn’t do it. But this corridor poses a risk that Islamic State fighters could flee from Mosul and go to Syria.”

  It’s clear Moscow won’t sit idly by if that’s the case;“I hope the US-led coalition, which is actively engaged in the operation to take Mosul, will take it into account.”

  Of course Mosul – even more than Aleppo – poses a serious humanitarian question.

  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) estimates as many as 1 million people may be affected. Lavrov goes straight to the point when he insists “neither Iraq nor its neighbors currently have the capacity to accommodate such a large number of refugees, and this should have been a factor in the planning of the Mosul operation.”

  It may not have been. After all, for the “US-led” (from behind?) coalition, the number one priority is to ensure the phony Caliphate survives, somewhere in eastern Syria. Over 15 years after 9/11, the song remains the same, with the war on terra the perennial gift that keeps on giving.

  

  

• "Dear Janet"? – China Devalues Most Since August, Yuan Tumbles To Lowest Since Sept 2010

  For the 10th day of the last 11, onshore yuan has weakened against the dollar. A 0.35% devaluation of the Yuan fix – the most since August – catching down to offshore Yuan's weakness, suggests (for now) PBOC policy is 'allowing' the drop and perhaps sending yet another 'turmoil-induing' message to The Fed as their hawkishness grows.

  Since the start of Golden Week, yuan has plunged…

  

   

  Plunging Yuan back near pre-peg-break levels from Sept 2010…

  

   

  Sending a message?

  

  

  

• David Rosenberg Calls For A Multi-Trillion, "Helicopter Money" Stimulus Package

  With the inherent weakness in US GDP and the rising probability of a recession (two weeks ago Bank of America modeled that the next recession would likely start roughly one year from now), Gluskin Sheff’s David Rosenberg thinks that with monetary options exhausted it will take a fiscal boost in the trillions of dollars to kickstart the economy. These issues were discussed in an extended interview with Real Vision TV, where the chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff proposed some radical policies to engineer the growth needed in nominal income. 

  His ideas, some of which can be seen here in a clip of the interview, include helicopter money attached to a $2 trillion perpetual bond, massive infrastructure spending and measures to tackle the $1 trillion student debt load that has seriously hamstrung the economy.

  Here are some of the interview highlights:

  Doing the Same Thing Over Again and Expecting a Different Outcome

  Whether the US will in fact experience the technical definition of a recession is a matter of fervent debate, with the odds something like 20%-30%, according to Rosenberg (60% according to Deutsche Bank), but with growth averaging around 1%, there is no doubt the economy is weak.

  “There are some people saying a recession is here right now,” Rosenberg says, “I don’t think that we meet those conditions yet. But people say, well, look. Twelve months in a row of negative year on year industrial production, that’s never happened outside recession, check. We’ve had now going into six quarters of profit contraction, year over year. That’s only happened in the context of a recession, check. I mean, all that is true, but so much of this has been related to the oil shock that we had.”

  Rosenberg’s problem with monetary policy, now in its 7th year of unorthodox experimentation, is that it has become a weak antidote to structural problems in the economy (even if it is still quite potent at boosting financial asets). Fiscal policy on the other hand, if constructed right, could be the answer due to its very powerful multiplier impact. “I can’t say that I know for sure, but it’s the old Einstein adage about the definition of insanity,” Rosenberg said. “And we’re finding that we’re really– if we’re not hitting the wall on monetary policy, we’re certainly seeing classic economics 101 of the law of diminishing returns.”

  In terms of infrastructure spending, he said that one lesson from recent history and the Great Recession is that you’ve got to have the credibility to convince people that this is going to be permanent and not temporary, in terms of the impact on the economy. “So it can’t be transitory. It’s got to be very big. With interest rates as low as they are, there’s certainly the capacity. I mean, you’ve got a lot of governments around the world issuing 50 or 100-year bonds. So this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to borrow money.”

  A Couple of Trillion Dollars of Helicopter Money

  While companies have been taking advantage of these conditions to borrow money, the funds have not been invested in the real economy. Share buybacks have become more popular, while personal savings rates have increased amid the economic uncertainty. This all boils down to a big case for government spending, with monetary policy joining forces with fiscal policy in the form of helicopter money.

  “What you do with helicopter money is you finance it off the central bank’s balance sheet because we’re talking doing something very dramatic to reflate the economy,” Rosenberg said. “It’s not a few hundred billion dollars. It’s a couple of trillion…I know I’ll get accused of bailing out the sinners, but, my lord, we’ve already done that. I mean, nobody went to jail.”

  One of the things holding the economy back is the $1 trillion student debt load, which he said has left 35% of males aged 18 to 34 living with mom and dad, not getting jobs and not becoming first time home buyers. Employment growth for the 65s and over is 7%, meanwhile, as the aging boomers have to work longer because they didn’t save enough for retirement. 

  “Helicopter money is QE plus where, say, the treasury issues a perpetual– call it, like, a century bond, a $2 trillion bond on the Fed’s balance sheet. And so when that bond matures, it’s, like, we’re all dead in the long run at that point. And then the Treasury can use that money to stimulate growth. “

  The beauty of this idea, according to Rosenberg is that you don’t have to go through Congress, with such difficulty in achieving corporate or personal tax reform.  “It would lead to a permanent increase in the monetary base. Inflation expectations would go up, which means that real interest rates would go negative. And the theory is that that would provide a bigger thrust towards getting what we all want, which is sustainable and accelerating nominal income growth.“

  Real Risk of Fed Mistakes or Trump Trade War

  Sustainable and accelerating nominal GDP is certainly what’s required while the risk persists that we could be shocked into recession, or the Fed could make a mistake in raising interest rates too aggressively.

  “That’s what happened in December of last year. They raised rates 25 basis points, but the overall financial tightening, in terms of what it meant for the dollar or in credit spreads and the stock market, it was really, like, 75 basis points of tightening. And the next thing you know, the economy slows to stall speed.“

  Another concern for investors is the prospect of a Trump presidency, bringing with it the potential start of a trade war. That could provide the sort of exogenous shock to cause the economy to go into recession, Rosenberg stated, noting that historically all the recessions in the post war period have been created by the Fed.

  “The problem is that when you have the economy running on average 1% growth, or 1% plus, which is not a big cushion. And so, you know, it’s a complicated question to try and handicap a recession on us right now. There’s a lot of people out there that are convinced that a recession is coming.”

  To watch the full interview with David Rosenberg, visit Real Vision TV.  You can access this and many more interviews with a free trial. 

  * * *

  Oh, if Rosenberg’s idea gets traction – and execution –  which it will eventually, as we have said since our first days in 2009, buy lots and lots of gold.

  

  

• For The First Time In 2016, Junk Bond Defaults Are Decelerating

  Earlier this week, we pointed out that we have now anniversaried the low print of oil and gas prices from 2015, and going forward the “base effect” will kick in, sending headline inflation higher, and maybe even sharply higher if oil continues its ascent into the Vienna OPEC meeting. Perhaps an even more interesting base effect was pointed out earlier today by Goldman, which points out that after climbing in virtually linear fashion all year, corporate defaults – particularly in the energy sector – have started to decline for the first time.

  As readers will recall, going into the year, many market participants expressed concerns about the outlook for defaults and downgrades. The fear was that the weak state of corporate balance sheets could cause defaults and downgrades in the Energy and Metals and Mining sectors to spill over into the broader market, especially if corporations continue to struggle to generate organic growth. And while this story is certainly not over yet, it appears that at lest for the time being between the latest – and biggest yet – burst in global central bank liquidity, and rising oil prices, even the most inefficient and leveraged companies appear to have gotten a reprieve for the moment, or as Goldman puts it, “beyond the limited contagion to the broader market, there is also mounting evidence that a gradual recovery in HY defaults and downgrades within commodities-exposed sectors is underway.”

  What this means is that as the chart below shows, for the first time this year, HY defaults have decelerated, especially amongst Metals and Mining and Energy issuers where default risk has been heavily concentrated.

  

  HY ex-Energy default rate at post-crisis lows, limited spillover
  12-month trailing issuer-weighted HY ex-Energy and Metals and Mining default rate

  The 12-month trailing default rate declined to 5.40% in September after climbing through most of 2016 and peaking at 5.71% in August, according to issuer-weighted data collected from Moody’s. And with commodities sectors accounting for nearly three quarters of the total defaulted debt over the past year, the improvement in the Energy and Metals and Mining default trend remains central to the gradual recovery for the HY market overall. In fact, not a single Metals and Mining issuer has defaulted since May, while the monthly default frequency has also slowed down meaningfully for Energy issuers since July, as shown in the next chart below.

  

  As Goldman puts it, “this is a welcome change after defaults amongst Energy producers escalated with rapid intensity from 1.27% at the beginning of 2015 to all-time highs at 29% in August, when using monthly-refreshed cohorts.” And now, the default cycle is shifting back into reverse, at least until the next and perhaps bigger oil price shock.

  It is, however, very bad news for Saudi Arabia and OPEC, as it means that the peak balance sheet pressure facing US shale companies has now passed, and together with those companies which have restructured, and come out of bankrupty without a debt overhang, there is now a smooth runway for much more crude production in the coming months, something which will lead to even greater record output in the near future and ultimately – once supply and demand again matter – far lower prices and the cycle can begin afresh.

  

  

• US 'Relocated' ISIS Terrorists Out Of Iraq, Into Syria To Fight Assad

  Submitted by Vaughan Famularo via TheDuran.com,

  As the Iraqi military with US support closes in on Mosul it is becoming clear that the US plan is to transfer the ISIS troops defending the city to Syria as part of the regime change plan there.

  The Russian news media RIA Novosti, has revealed that US and Saudi leaders have decided to allow the safe passage of 9000 ISIS terrorists to vacate Mosul in Iraq and, relocate into Syria.

  The surprising information was leaked by an anonymous diplomatic source. It was also claimed that this decision was conditional on the terrorists agreeing to fight Syrian and Russian troops in Palmyra and Deir Ezzor.

  In the past two weeks we have witnessed the chaotic musing within the US Political and diplomatic corps once their impotence was exposed in Syria due to the collapse of the ceasefire and, the resumption of hostilities in Aleppo.

   

  The bedlam and frustration exhibited by Western leaders has been apparent to all with wild claims of possible shooting down of Russian jets in Syria and, the continued ache and longing for the implementation of their, No Fly Zone.

  Despite the turbulent political rumblings and threats, Russia and the government of Syria have steadfastly worked to free eastern Aleppo from the remaining terrorists who are now surrounded there.

  The decision to allow ISIS to flee safely into Syria once again reveals to the world the gloved hand that shepherds and steers these terrorists.

  The bombing of Syrian Army soldiers in Deir Ezzor by US and coalition Jets now appear purposed and calculated rather than an accident claimed by the US.

  To add to the controversy, what was generally unreported in the media was a further attack a few days later that destroyed the last two surviving bridges spanning the Euphrates River.

  Their destruction, will isolate the Syrian forces stationed at Deir Ezzor and, make life more difficult for the Syrian people who are already wearing the burden of six years at war.

  As the ISIS terrorists leave Mosul and travel into Syria their objectives are the recently freed city of Palmyra, and the brave city of Deir Ezzor. Whether their safe passage from Mosul includes US and Saudi cover into Syria remains a mystery.

  Regardless their location in eastern Syria allows their masters the tactical advantage of mobilising these proxy forces at the time of their choosing in their ultimate goal of deposing Syrian President Assad.

  

  

• Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy As "Scarier Than Trump's"

  Submitted by SM Gibson via TheAntiMedia.org,

  The Green Party nominee for president of the United States, Jill Stein, has begun matter-of-factly speaking out against the foreign policy agenda of one of her political opponents, Hillary Clinton.

  Dr. Stein, who has strongly advocated for a more peaceful approach to U.S. relations in the Middle East — as well as throughout the world — recently took to her Twitter account to boldly state what may come as a shock to many Americans:

  “Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump’s.”

  The presidential candidate also tweeted the words of her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, who said, “It should [be] clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war.”

   

  Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's, who does not want to go to war with Russia. #PeaceOffensive

  — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 14, 2016

  "It should clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war." — @ajamubaraka Watch live: https://t.co/0B6NJLNY5j

  — Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 13, 2016

  Dr. Stein elaborated on her social media statements when asked by a reporter in Texas this week what she felt a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like.

  “Well, we know what kind of Secretary of State she was,” Stein said in her response. “[Hillary] is in incredible service to Wall Street and to the war profiteers. She led the way in Libya and she’s trying to start an air war with Russia over Syria, which means, if Hillary gets elected, we’re kinda going to war with Russia, folks…a nuclear-armed power.” 

  While many Americans act as if one’s disdain for Hillary Clinton and her policies automatically make them a supporter of Donald Trump for president — or vice versa — Stein went on to vocalize her fear of both major party candidates.

  “Who will sleep well with Trump in the White House? But you shouldn’t sleep well with Hillary in the White House either. Fortunately, we live in a democracy and we have more than two deadly choices,” Stein said, referring to herself and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

  Regrettably for Americans, Stein is right about the Democratic nominee. Those concerned about the future of America with someone as erratic as Donald Trump in the Oval Office are justified in their worry, but to believe Hillary is somehow a “better option” is not only a naive assumption — but a reckless one. A vote for Hillary is undoubtedly a conscious vote to go war with a nuclear-armed superpower.

  Still not a believer? Watch the video below and see for yourself:

  

  

• The End State: 5 Triggering Events That Would Place The U.S. Under Martial Law

  Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

  This article was originally published by Jeremiah Johnson at Tess Pennington’s ReadyNutrition.com

  

  As you are probably well aware, the Obama administration would like nothing more than to place the United States under Martial Law.

  Once that is accomplished, the country and people would be locked down and kept under control on the pretext of continuing with the government and/or maintaining the national security of the U.S.

  Let’s take a look at 5 events the administration would be most likely to utilize to reach this end state.

  Note: All of these can occur simultaneously, successively, or individually in any combination at any time: there is no limit to their use or potential to recur!

  1. Economic Meltdown

  Over the course of this past year, we have seen a tremendous amount of volatility in trade (international) and the U.S.’s domestic manufacturing base.  As our fragile economy is based on 75% of consumer spending, any significant downturn that keeps the shoppers home can lead to disastrous reports.  Lower consumer spending means people do not buy goods and services beyond the absolute essentials, and worse: (in the government’s eyes) they hoard money and withdraw their funds from bank accounts.

  The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) can be seen as a key indicator of raw goods and materials transported to manufacturers and consumers via shipping contracts.  As mentioned in previous articles, Hanjinn Container Company, the7th largest container corporation in the world just filed for bankruptcy over the summer.  You can see the BDI fluctuations day by day when you visit http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BDIY:IND.  It has been fluctuating wildly over the past year.

  Deutsche Bank is on the verge of bankruptcy and large banks such as Bank of Americaand J.P. Morgan have been plagued by losses and lawsuits alike.  The unemployment rate is truly about 25% and the “Soviet” style statistics quacked from the radio on “record gains” and “economic improvements” are false and intentionally misleading.  A “Bank Holiday”has already happened in places such as Indianapolis, and when the politicians, bankers, and oligarchs decide, they will pull the plug on a Federal Reserve system of fiat currency that is already an ineffective laughingstock of a smirking world that is steadily returning to the gold standard.  When that Bank Holiday is declared, you can be sure the financial systems will collapse and Martial Law will be waiting in the wings.

  2. Cyberattack

  This one is definitely one of the administration’s favorites.  We’ve been seeing signs of this with the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and DNI (Director of National Intelligence) letters and statements that the Russian government is hacking into the American electoral and election process.  The “targeting” of the DNC (Democratic National Convention) e-mails was assigned to the Russians and officially the Russian government has been accused by the administration of such, and trying to influence the presidential race on Friday, 10/14/16.

  We also saw on 9/7/16, two days before the 5^th North Korean nuclear test, the corporation based in California that monitors North Korean missile launches and nuclear testing was hacked into.  A DoS (Denial of Service) was placed into their computer systems, preventing them from uploading satellite feeds and photos that would have enabled them to monitor the North Korean launch.  That corporation is the Project on Crowdsourced Satellite Imagery.  You can read more about this in the article “DoS Attack Crashes Website Monitoring North Korea’s Nuclear Test Site,” by Eric Niiler of Wired.com.

  If other governments can crash our internet and servers, do you think it is possible that the U.S. government as directed by the Obama administration can do it on its own? 

  When that occurs, cell phones will go down, the computers will go down, the financial markets will be in a turmoil and cease trading, and ATM’s and bank cards will be rendered useless.  Transportation, inventories, shipping, and deliveries will all be thrown into a turmoil and come to a halt.  For an excellent description of this, read Mac Slavo’s article fromSHTFplan.com entitled “When the Trucking Stops,” that shows how vulnerable our nation’s supply lines are.  Bottom line: if all of this goes down as a result of a cyberattack, Martial Law will immediately follow.

  3. “Unforeseeable/Black Swan” Event

  As of last week, Obama just signed an Executive Order (EO), entitled “Executive Order: Coordinating Efforts to Prepare the Nation for Space Weather Events,” signed10/13/2016.  Such an EO could cover meteor strikes, Coronal Mass Ejections (CME’s) from the sun, a comet, or any other space anomaly.  Not a big deal, you may think?  It is a big deal, because here’s the bottom line:

  Who is to prevent Obama from either causing another nation to launch an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) weapon, or launching one of his own (U.S.-made weapon), taking down the grid and subsequently blaming it on a CME event/solar storm, courtesy of the sun?

  Other events would include potentially man-made or generated storms, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or even volcanic activity.  If one scoffs at such, remember all that it would need is a 1 megaton nuclear “kicker” to set off either Yellowstone Caldera or the San Andreas Fault.  Such natural disasters (initiated by man or genuine) usually result in Martial Law at the state level on a regular basis, much less one that is national in scope…that Obama would jump on to inculcate Martial Law.

  4. Nuclear War/EMP Attack

  Any day we could be at war with North Korea, Iran, China, or Russia.  The resulting devastation, whether a full-scale or a limited nuclear war would automatically set in motion the wheels for COG (Continuity of Government), and a declaration of Martial Law.

  Let me close this portion with my caveat:

  World War III will begin with the detonation of an EMP device or weapon over the continental United States, followed by a limited nuclear exchange and then conventional warfare.

  5. Viral or Bacterial Pandemic

  Either naturally-occurring, or man-made.  The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) just inherited a tremendous amount of “police power” over the summer regarding their newfound ability to quarantine individuals or large groups of people on the suspicion of contamination/communicability regarding viral or bacterial pathogens relating to a potential or real pandemic.

  There is an article by Catherine J. Frompovich entitled “ALERT: U.S. CDC Giving Itself Unconstitutional Powers to Round Up and Detain Citizens En masse Anytime, Anywhere and Throw Away the Key,” dated on 9/3/16.  This article details how these police powers were created in the Federal Register as the Proposed Rule “Control of Communicable Diseases” on August 15, 2016 that are now in effect to be found underFederal Register Number: 2016-18103.  Guess what?  That proposed rule is now law, and could easily be utilized to “justify” Martial Law in the U.S. because of a pandemic: naturally-occurring, man-made, or phony.

  In addition to all of these juicy tidbits, the deciding factor is what I refer to as the “IHM,” or “Incredible Human Mob.”  Yes, Civil Unrest is a factor; yet it is not a method but a “sign/symptom,” a “side-effect” of what happens when one of the aforementioned 5 methods are employed.  “In the interests of public safety,” or “to protect the public,” or “to maintain law and order” are the phrases trumpeted by our benevolent and friendly government.

  As Rahm Emmanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste,” the very ones who are to be protected (the public) are the ones who create the conditions for civil unrest.  It’s literally a “problem that takes care of itself,” and here’s the bottom line to cover the Civil Unrest factor:

  Using the fake justification “in the interests of the safety of the people,” martial law will be declared to confine, restrict, and control the people…protecting them from…themselves.

  Then come the restrictions to travel, the police state in the streets, at the workplace, and the confiscation of firearms.  Then comes the removal of “dissidents and potential troublemakers,” as well as the curfews, restrictions, and limitations in every facet of our society.  Martial Law is an objective of the Obama administration.  The problem is that he (Obama) cannot just arbitrarily declare it.  The declaration requires a prod, such as one of the 5 methods mentioned.  In those circumstances, he then can suspend our rights under the Constitution and bypass the true laws of the U.S.  Such an end state is his desire.  Such an end state would also mean the end…of the United States.

  

  

• Dead. Voter. Walking.

  Thursday humor?

   

  

  Source: Townhall.com

  

  

• Wikileaks Taunts Democrats, Tweets "It Has A Surprise In Store" For Tim Kaine And Donna Brazile

  First, earlier this afternoon, Wikileaks surprised observers when its released in addition to the daily trove of Podesta email, a handful of what appear to be emails sent from Obama’s heretofore secret email adress; then, moments ago, in a tweet that suggests the vendetta between Julian Assange – who we now know is being pressured by the Ecuadorian government in its London embassy under notice from the US State Department –  and Democrats has goten serious, Wikileaks tweeted that “we have a surprise in store for Tim Kaine and Donna Brazile.”

  We have a suprise in store for @TimKaine and @DonnaBrazile.

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016

  … and then it retweeted NBC reported Kailani Koenig who said that “[Tim] Kaine’s been saying hacked Wikileaks emails might not be accurate, so asked him whether he had any examples or had heard if one wasn’t real”, to which he responded “I read of one example yesterday but I can’t pin down which one it was.”

  Kaine’s been saying hacked Wikileaks emails might not be accurate, so asked him whether he had any examples or had heard if one wasn’t real pic.twitter.com/G2S38VS0TM

  — Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) October 20, 2016

  * * *

  Prior to tweeting this, the Wikileaks twitter account mocked Hillary’s statement that 17 agencies have confirmed Russia hacked the US when it said that Hillary Clinton’s  “17 US intelligence agencies” include:
  Coast Guard, DEA, Navel Intelligence, Department of Energy, Air Force recon, and then added that “Clinton’s “17 US intelligence agencies” may be the biggest, most immediately disprovable wopper ever intentionally made during a debate.”

  Hillary Clinton’s “17 US intelligence agencies” include:

  *Coast Guard
  *DEA
  *Navel Intelligence
  *Department of Energy
  *Air Force recon

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016

  Clinton’s “17 US intelligence agencies” may be the biggest, most immediately disprovable wopper ever intentionally made during a debate.

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016

  It is now quite clear that it has gotten very personal between Assange and Clinton, and if the latter is elected president in less than 3 weeks, that drone strike on Julian which Hillary does not remember “joking about”, may suddenly materialize.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  The interesting thing about working in alternative economics is that inevitably you will become the designated buzzkill. You may be presenting the facts on the ground and the reality behind the numbers, but most of what you have to report will not be pleasant. Alternative economists are doomed to be labeled “doom and gloomers.” And that’s okay…

  The truth is what it is, and sometimes it hurts people obsessed with undue positivism and bull market naivety. However, as bad as we seem to be when it comes to a negative outlook, we do not necessarily present the most ugly options on the table.

  There is an undeniable trend by some within the liberty movement to assume a Mad Max-style end game to our ever expanding house of cards. That is to say, they see the only plausible outcome being apocalyptic in nature, and nuclear holocaust fits well within this viewpoint. In many cases, the argument is sometimes presented that WWIII is in the best interests of global elites seeking a catalyst for their so-called “new world order.”

  This is not to say that I don't think WWIII is a possibility; it certainly is.  But I remain rather skeptical of the usefulness of nuclear war for the elites. Primarily because everything they openly claim they hope to accomplish can be accomplished without nukes.

  The narrative of a coming conflict between the East and the West has been boiling steadily as the U.S. election nears its end. Even the mainstream media is insinuating the potential for shots fired. Some believe the results of the election will determine the odds of war. I hold a different position. It seems to me that the rhetoric of East vs. West and nuclear exchange is being exploited as a distraction away from a different but almost equally catastrophic end game — the death of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

  First, let’s be clear; nuclear war does little to serve elitist interests. Consider the fact that globalists have been working diligently since 9/11 to install a vast electronic surveillance infrastructure in major cities around the world. This includes a pervasive video surveillance presence, biometric data collection, facial recognition, voice fingerprinting, etc. This is not only occurring in the U.S. and Europe, but in China and Russia. Vladimir Putin signed the Orwellian “Yarovaya Package” into law in June in Russia putting into motion an electronic surveillance apparatus directly on par with any measures exploited by the NSA. Perhaps ironically, even Edward Snowden, currently living in Russia under asylum, criticized the amendments.

  The point is, an elaborate and costly digital control grid is being built all around us. It makes very little sense for the elites to achieve such a level of full spectrum awareness and then flush it down the tubes in a 1.2 megaton blink of a eye. Keep in mind that a nuclear exchange also includes the targeting of military satellites — everything surveillance worthy will most likely be thoroughly toasted.

  Another issue to consider is the psychological underpinnings of elitism. Elites generally exhibit psychopathy, but it is a psychopathy driven by narcissism rather than nihilism. Narcissists tend to shy away from self destruction and the destruction of the treasures they believe they are entitled to. The elites want total centralization of power and influence, and they want the masses to accept or even demand a system in which globalism becomes sacrosanct. They want the Earth, and they want it nice and pristine for themselves. They might be willing to sacrifice certain appendages of the system, but they are not intent on vaporizing the entire prize.

  Given, psychopaths also do not like to lose. They do have a propensity for attempting to take others down with them if they are on the verge of failure. That said, I think the recent reports of the demise of globalism are greatly exaggerated.

  The narrative of coming world war revolves around certain assumptions. For example, some liberty proponents argue that the success of the Brexit referendum, the Trump campaign and the rise of sovereignty movements are an existential threat to the globalist empire. In their minds, a nuclear war triggered by the elites at this stage makes sense because globalism does appear to be “losing.”

  As I outlined in my last article Global Elites Are Getting Ready To Blame You For The Coming Financial Crash, this is simply not the case. In fact, the rise of conservative and sovereignty movements in the West sets the stage perfectly for the elites to initiate the final act of a world changing fiscal crisis. With these conservative movements in “power,” the ongoing economic collapse can then be blamed on “dangerous populists” rather than the international bankers that created the problem to begin with.

  The globalists are not on the run, they are playing the Hegelian dialectic game as they always have; problem, reaction, solution.

  And, as I have evidenced and outlined in great detail in numerous articles, the “conflict” between East and West is an engineered sham. At the top of the political and financial pyramids of every major nation, including Russia and China, the elites promote globalism and a one world currency under the control of the International Monetary Fund. Putin has openly supported IMF dominance of the global financial structure and the implementation of the SDR as a bridge to a global currency system. Chinese officials have done the same, and as of October, China is a major liquidity amplifier for the SDR. The BRICS bank, which was supposed to be a counterweight to the IMF and World Bank, actually works in collusion with the IMF and World Bank. The bottom line? There is no East versus West, at least not where the elites are concerned.

  The Russians and the Chinese are NOT on our side.  They are not even on their own side. The only legitimate opposition to the globalists is in the form of grassroots movements with very little concrete political influence. Whatever political influence we do gain tends to be quickly co-opted by deceitful measures and false leaders that ultimately serve the elites. Even the Brexit and a Trump presidency are not a real threat because they are functions of a system that the elites control in the absolute, and they would never be allowed to gain traction unless the elites needed scapegoats for a greater economic crisis.

  Our fight has so far been one of disseminating information and countering propaganda; political battles have been rather fruitless. So, again, nuclear war hardly serves the interests of elites under these favorable conditions.

  Nuclear war is also a very poor way of managing the darker goals of globalists. Their desire for substantial population reduction, for example, could be attained far more efficiently through economic collapse and mass starvation rather than the use of missiles and bombs. Food is a better weapon than smashed atoms ever will be. But if the false East/West paradigm is not setting the stage for nuclear war, then what is it being used for?

  As I have examined in the past, the division between East and West far better serves the elites in their effort to slowly but surely unseat the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and replace it with the SDR basket — the next major step towards a single global currency system and a single global monetary authority.

  Let’s be clear, the globalists are NOT pro-dollar or pro-America. They never have been. In fact the Federal Reserve has been destroying the dollar’s purchasing power since the central bank’s inception. And, by asserting the dollar as the world reserve currency, the Fed has actually placed America in a position of severe financial weakness rather than strength. Our dependency on the dollar’s world reserve status to sustain our living standards is so complete that the loss of that status will indeed crush our country. Our system cannot function without reserve status.

  I’ll break it down even further; through the death of the dollar, the elites not only set in motion the chaos needed to justify total centralization and a world currency alternative, but in the process they also could remove the greatest threat to their control — those millions of American citizens still holding to conservative ideals of sovereignty and personal liberty.

  The East vs. West paradigm creates a perfect rational for the end of the dollar’s reserve status. Just look at the geopolitical trends in motion.

  Saudi Arabia with its vast influence over many OPEC nations is shifting away from the U.S. and building closer ties with Russia and China. The distancing of relations between the U.S. and the Saudis is even being encouraged in the U.S. through the passage of the 9/11 Saudi lawsuit bill. This will inevitably lead to the end of the dollar’s petro-status and, by extension, aid in the end of its world reserve status.

  Turkey is now gravitating towards Russia and away from NATO after the very odd and most likely staged “coup” that has given Erdogan unprecedented room for dictatorship. This new relationship may even include military support from Russia.

  Foreign central banks around the world, including Saudi Arabia and China, are currently liquidating their U.S. treasury holdings at record pace.  The program for "de-dollarization" is already well underway.

  The U.S. overall has also lost considerable goodwill among the peoples of the world (or what little goodwill it had left) in the wake of revelations that it along with allies has essentially instigated the breakdown in Syria and funded militant groups that make up the skeleton of ISIS. The continued function of our involvement in destabilizing Syria has no other benefit to the U.S. except to undermine the image of America. It does not give us increased oil dominance. It does not give us increased regional dominance. In fact, our presence in Syria only continues to harm us and bring us into dangerous proximity with Eastern interests.

  There are people who do benefit from this dynamic — the globalists.

  The U.S. is painted as the bumbling villain of our little story, greedy and blinded by visions of empire. The East is set up as the more rational party, the mediator trying to reason with Western madmen. For the globalists, the death of the dollar, which has been an ongoing project of theirs for decades, can now be completed, and they will receive NO blame whatsoever. History, if it is written by anyone other than liberty champions, will say that the East, not the central bankers, destroyed the dollar’s reserve status because it had to. History will say that we had it coming.

  In the aftermath, the elites hope to come to the rescue as global economic instability erupts with the failure of the dollar system. As they openly admit in The Economist in 1988, the dollar must be replaced by the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights; the new world order needs a great financial reset before it can take root. But, this is a much different methodology from widespread nuclear war.

  Questions arise as to November’s election and how this might affect East vs. West relations. I see no indication that it makes a difference who ends up in the White House as far as the economic result is concerned. As I have stated before, I believe Trump is the most likely candidate. Relations with the East are already in irreversible and engineered decline and even if Trump has good intentions, the globalists will pull the plug on financial support to markets not long after he enters the Oval Office. Eastern nations have been preparing for a break from the dollar for years. They work closely with the IMF. If anything, Trump’s presence will accelerate the reset.

  I think the notions of nuclear war and East vs. West conflagration endure for many reasons. An extreme distaste for Barack Obama has led many liberty proponents to assume that the man will never give up his seat of power. These people do not understand that Obama is nothing more than a Muppet, a middleman with no true influence. The elites do not need him in office to continue their program.

  Others assume that the mere chance of a Trump presidency is so dangerous to the elites that they would rather push the nuclear button than risk it. I think this is a bit naive. As stated in past articles, conservative movements are gaining control of a ship that is already sinking. They are being set up. A Trump win might help the elites. If the U.S. economy and currency collapses under Trump, conservative movements can be blamed. If they collapse under Clinton, the banking cabal will be blamed. It seems clear to me which option better serves elitists.

  A nuclear war is also perhaps subconsciously enticing to some people. The idea that the slate could be wiped clean leaving only the prepared to come out of the smoke and ash to rebuild could in some ways be considered a preferable outcome. Compare that to liberty movements taking the blame for an economic calamity while battling against an encroaching globalist machine, sacrificing for years or possibly decades on the mere chance that we can, through force of will and ingenuity, defeat a well organized empire with an established mass surveillance network and millions of duped citizens on its side.

  Hell, I’m actually an optimist when it comes to our ability to overthrow globalism, but I see no easy way out of this situation. I find it saddening that the coming fight is so frightening to people that they would rather assume a nuclear nightmare is on the way. The slower agony of economic decay and a rebellion against Big Brother may be less appetizing, but in my view, it is unavoidable.

  

  

• Debate Post-Mortem: "Bad Hombres", "Putin Puppets", Chris Wallace Wins "Bigly"

  The debate started with 'no handshakes' once again and while there was no 'dancing' around the ring, a quiet, polite start rapidly turned ugly once the two candidates warmed up. Second Amendment supporting Trump slammed babyslaying Clinton; questions over who was the biggest "puppet"; Trump declined to support election result and threw a "such a nasty woman" comment across the stage.  While it was a close-call between Trump and Hillary, for once we suggest Chris Wallace wins tonight.

   

  Who won tonight's debate?

  • 14 say Trump
  • 12 say Clinton
  • 4 say it was a draw#DebateNight

  — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 20, 2016

   

  • *TWITTER SAYS MOST DEBATE CONVERSATION ABOUT TRUMP, 59%-41%
  • *TRUMP HAD 56% SHARE OF FACEBOOK CONVERSATION, CLINTON 44%: STMT

  No Handshake….

  .@realDonaldTrump and @HillaryClinton take the stage for the final #debate pic.twitter.com/jS4XEOBlBI

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

  *  *  *

  Round 1 – SCOTUS – Clinton Win

  • Trump subdued, focused on Pro-life, second Amendment, defending constitution
  • Clinton better able to discuss details, knows constitutional court details better.

  Round 2 – IMMIGRATION – Trump Win

  • Trump pushed stronger borders, Clinton focused on "ripping families aprt"
  • Clinton claimed Trump choked on the wall.
  • Clinton pivot to blame Russia for leaks on 'open borders' thrown back in her face.
  • Argument over who is 'puppet'

  Round 3 – THE ECONOMY – Tie

  • Hillary claimed "will add no debt" – which as we know means no growth.
  • Trump slams NAFTA, more of the same Obama policies with Clinton

  Round 4 – FITNESS TO BE PRESIDENT – Tie

  • Sexual harrassment allegations denied aggressively.
  • Wikileaks documents and pay-to-play hard to argue with.
  • Why does Hillary take Saudi money when they kill gay people?
  • Trump focused on donors/special interests when Hillary brought up taxes.
  • "Rigged" discussion well argued by Trump but Hillary made him look 'whiney' and his comment "I will leave you in suspense" did not sound good.

  Round 5 – FOREIGN HOTSPOTS – Trump Win

  • Hillary claims she will defeat ISIS, Trump attacks by pointing out 'element of surprise'.
  • Hillary eloquent, Trump less hawkish.
  • Using WikiLeaks, Trump lands one of his cleanest blows of the night. "John Podesta said some horrible things about you. And he was right."

  Round 6 – NATIONAL DEBT – Trump Win (Hillary un-credible)

  • Focused on Obamacare costs to start
  • Clinton tax wealthy but no growth
  • Trump "massive tax cuts"
  • Biggest lie of the night Clinton: "I pay for everything I'm proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt."

  Round 7 – CLOSING STATEMENT – Tie

  • *CLINTON, IN CLOSING ARGUMENT, SAYS WANTS TO BENEFIT ALL IN U.S.
  • *TRUMP SAYS CLINTON WIN WOULD BE FOUR MORE YEARS OF OBAMA PLANS

  Finally, Mexican Peso settled it…

  

   

  But then someone panic bid Peso to 'prove' Hillary won?

  

   

  But of course, just as we started the day…

  Trump's refusal to concede an election day loss now leading Politico, CNN, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LAT and BuzzFeed. pic.twitter.com/UQPfq15558

  — CJR (@CJR) October 20, 2016

  *  *  *

  1. SCOTUS

  Second Amendment

  • *CLINTON SAYS CENTRAL ELECTION ISSUE WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY TO BE
  • *SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO SIDE WITH U.S. PEOPLE, NOT COS.:CLINTON
  • *CLINTON: MY COURT NOMINEES WOULD STAND UP TO THE `POWERFUL'
  • Clinton mind-blowingly talked about dark-money in politics and its effects on the election.

  Clinton: "There's no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment."

   

  Clinton: "There's no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment." #DebateNight #Decision2016 pic.twitter.com/YuzmEh8YJK

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  Clinton: "I respect the tradition of gun ownership," but we must have "reasonable regulation"

   

  Hillary Clinton said she supports the Second Amendment while touting the need for comprehensive reform to the nation's gun laws.

  "I see no conflict between saving people's lives and defending the Second Amendment," she said.

  The Democratic nominee called for comprehensive background checks and closing the gun show lope hole.

  • *TRUMP SAYS SUPREME COURT IS `WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT'
  • *TRUMP SAYS SUPREME COURT UNDER CLINTON THREATENS 2ND AMENDMENT
  • *TRUMP: MY JUSTICES WILL BE `PRO-LIFE,' CONSERVATIVE

  Trump: "Justice Ginsburg made some very, very inappropriate statements toward me"

   

  .@HillaryClinton: "I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment” pic.twitter.com/ZAWQ3AZ6t5

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

   

  Abortion

  • *CLINTON: I WILL DEFEND ROE V WADE, PLANNED PARENTHOOD
  • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP USING `SCARE RHETORIC' ON ABORTION, HEALTH
  • *TRUMP: ROE V WADE COULD GET OVERTURNED IF HIS JUSTICES ADDED

   

  Trump on abortion: "With what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother" pic.twitter.com/FF8rQWWtSl

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  2. IMMIGRATION

  • *TRUMP REITERATES ARGUMENT FOR STRONGER BORDERS TO COUNTER DRUGS

  "There are some bad hombres here and we're going to get 'em out"

   

  .@realDonaldTrump: “We have some bad hombres here and we’re going to get them out” pic.twitter.com/qMB4XWKLAK

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

   

  • *CLINTON SAYS `MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS' WITH TRUMP ON SUPREME COURT
  • *CLINTON ON DEPORTATIONS: I DON'T WANT TO RIP FAMILIES APART
  • *CLINTON SPEAKS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS
  • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP `CHOKED' IN MEXICO TRIP
  • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP USED UNDOCUMENTED LABOR TO BUILD TRUMP TOWER

  Clinton attempted to pivot away from being pinned on immigration to raising Russia…

  “You are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks,” Clinton said. “What is really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the internet. This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government.”
  Clinton called on Trump to reject “Russian espionage.”

   

  Trump shot back: “That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders.”

  Clinton called Trump "a puppet"…

  Clinton on Putin: "He would rather have a puppet as president of the United States." #DebateNight #Decision2016 pic.twitter.com/1jUl0l0Mqv

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  He responded…

  .@realDonaldTrump, responding to Clinton's Putin puppet remark: "No, you're the puppet" pic.twitter.com/MA5wKL3gne

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

   

  • *CLINTON: RUSSIA ESPIONAGE ON ELECTIONS SYSTEM AT HIGHEST LEVELS

   

  .@realDonaldTrump to @HillaryClinton: "That was a great pivot" pic.twitter.com/rQjRv8ll3U

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

   

  3. THE ECONOMY

  • *CLINTON: WANT TO HAVE BIGGEST JOBS PROGRAMS SINCE WORLD WAR II
  • *CLINTON: TRUMP'S ECO PLAN COULD LEAD TO ANOTHER RECESSION
  • *TRUMP SAYS CLINTON ECONOMIC PLAN IS A `DISASTER'
  • *TRUMP SAYS U.S. ALLIES SHOULD `PAY UP' FOR DEFENSE COSTS
  • *TRUMP SAYS WOULD RENEGOTIATE NAFTA, IF HE CAN'T WOULD END IT
  • *CLINTON SAYS TRUMP HAS `CROCODILE TEARS' OVER OUTSOURCING
  • *TRUMP: U.S. ECONOMY IS `STAGNANT'; SAYS LAST JOBS REPORT BAD
  • Hillary: "I wont add a penny to the debt"

   

  • *TRUMP TO CLINTON: YOU TALK BUT YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING DONE

  "She totally lied about TPP… she did call it the gold standard"…

  Trump on TPP: "She totally lied, she did call it the gold standard." #DebateNight #Decision2016 pic.twitter.com/zdvpAzW22w

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  "I am going to renegotiate NAFTA"

   

  Trump: "I am going to renegotiate NAFTA, and if I can't make a great deal, then we're going to terminate NAFTA." #DebateNight #Decision2016 pic.twitter.com/p2PbVXS8gK

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

   

  4. FITNESS TO BE PRESIDENT

  • *TRUMP ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ACCUSATIONS: IT'S ALL LIES, FICTION

  Clinton belittles women…

  Clinton: "Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger." #DebateNight #Decision2016 https://t.co/LvjQQgs8YF

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  Clinton: "While I was monitoring the Osama bin Laden raid, he was hosting The Apprentice"…

  .@HillaryClinton: While I was monitoring the Osama bin Laden raid, @realDonaldTrump “was hosting The Apprentice.” pic.twitter.com/x8Um0olcGz

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

   

  When Clinton took aim at past violence at Trump's rallies, he shot back by saying "she caused the violence." He's referencing new videos from conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe, whose newly-released hidden camera footage purports to show Democratic operatives plotting chaos at a Trump rally in Chicago. O'Keefe has been accused in the past of using selectively-edited video and duping interviewees.

  • *CLINTON DESCRIBES CLINTON FOUNDATION AS WORLD-RENOWNED CHARITY
  • *CLINTON SAYS SHE'S HAPPY TO COMPARE HER FOUNDATION W/ TRUMP'S

  Clinton Foundation a criminal enterprise…

  .@realDonaldTrump calls the Clinton Foundation a “criminal enterprise” pic.twitter.com/JwEAi3gRb9

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

  •   *TRUMP DECLINES TO SAY IF HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT 
  • *TRUMP ON IF HE'LL ACCEPT ELECTION RESULT: I'LL LOOK AT THE TIME 

   

  Trump on whether he will accept election results: "I will look at it at the time." #DebateNight #Decision2016 https://t.co/oORIIpRPzn

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  • *CLINTON ON TRUMP NOT SAYING HE'D ACCEPT RESULT: `HORRIFYING'

  Definitely a problem for Trump…

  Voters want the candidates to support the election results. No excuses.

  Hillary did. Trump did not. #Debate pic.twitter.com/LH7J4JPMC2

  — Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 20, 2016

   

   

  5. FOREIGN HOTSPOTS

  • *CLINTON: WON'T BACK U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ AS OCCUPYING FORCE
  • *TRUMP: WE'LL TAKE MOSUL EVENTUALLY, BUT WHO'S GOING TO GET IT?
  • *TRUMP: IRAN IS TAKING OVER IRAQ, WE'VE MADE IT SO EASY FOR THEM
  • *TRUMP SAYS SYRIA'S ASSAD MUCH SMARTER THAN PEOPLE THOUGHT
  • *TRUMP: IF ASSAD FALLS IN SYRIA, YOU MAY WIND UP WITH WORSE

  Using WikiLeaks, Trump lands one of his cleanest blows of the night. "John Podesta said some horrible things about you. And he was right."

  .@realDonaldTrump: "John Podesta said some horrible things about you. And he was right." https://t.co/cItzmSmmFh | Getty pic.twitter.com/8y4IbuArqv

  — POLITICO (@politico) October 20, 2016

  "Whatever happened to the element of surprise?"

  Trump on Mosul strategy: "What ever happened to the element of surprise?" #DebateNight #Decision2016 https://t.co/6czJHWWKpo

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

   

  6. NATIONAL DEBT

  Quickly focused on Obamacare costs

  • *OBAMACARE PROBABLY WILL DIE OF ITS OWN WEIGHT, TRUMP SAYS
  • *TRUMP REITERATES CALL TO REPEAL, REPLACE OBAMACARE LAW
  • *CLINTON SAYS WILL `NOT CUT BENEFITS' FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

  And with the biggest lie of the night… Clinton: "I pay for everything I'm proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt."

  Clinton: "I pay for everything I'm proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt." #DebateNight #Decision2016 https://t.co/jsfT2R0JUK

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2016

  

  

• Trump-Clinton III: The Final Sin-City Showdown – Live Feed

  Following Pence's pounding of Kaine and Trump's trouncing of Clinton in the last two debates, the final showdown promises fireworks.

  

  Trump's arsenal is full after two weeks of embarrassing documents from WikiLeaks and The FBI, and with the news cycle beginning to lose contact with his sexual harrassment allegations, Clinton (having gone dark for a week) will remain focused on temperament, temperament, temperament.. and the fact that Trump is not a woman.

  

  Interestingly, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has asked to change the setup of the pre-debate greetings on Wednesday night, The New York Times reports…

  At the previous two debates, the spouses of both candidates have met to shake hands. But this time around, former President Bill Clinton and Melania Trump will enter the debate hall in a way that avoids having the families cross paths.

   

  Two people with direct knowledge of the situation told the Times that the Clinton camp requested the change after the last debate after GOP nominee Donald Trump invited three women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault and fourth whose rapist Hillary Clinton was court-appointed to defend in 1975.

  Here are five things that The Hill points out to watch for as the candidates square off beneath the neon lights of the nation’s gambling capital:

  Will they shake hands?

  In a sign of how much disdain the candidates have for one another, Trump and Clinton declined to shake hands as they took the stage at the start of their second debate. Instead, they greeted each other with a cold “hello,” then shuffled to within about 3 feet of one another as they turned to face the audience. Trump was just minutes removed from a press conference with three women who have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment and one whose rapist Hillary Clinton was court-appointed to defend in 1975. Meanwhile, Clinton was preparing to unload on Trump for his obscene remarks about groping women. The moment was satirized on “Saturday Night Live” over the weekend, in which Alec Baldwin’s Trump and Kate McKinnon’s Clinton circled each other like jiu jitsu fighters, extending their hands for a shake but recoiling before they touched. Advisers to both nominees are surely choreographing the opening moment to ensure their candidate doesn’t come off looking bad. That opening moment could be a sign of how nasty things will get.

  Does Trump have any wild cards left?

  It’s almost a given that Trump, the Republican nominee, will unload on his Democratic rival with everything he has. Women and independents have been fleeing Trump’s campaign, helping Clinton to open up a comfortable lead in recent national polls. The map of battleground states leans strongly in Clinton’s favor, making her the heavy favorite as the clock ticks down to the finish. Trump needs a campaign-altering moment or two if he’s going to change the trajectory of the race with less than three weeks to go before Election Day. The GOP nominee’s press conference with Bill Clinton’s accusers at the last debate was an attempt to rattle Hillary Clinton. It didn’t work.

   

  Since then, Trump has thrown everything he has at Clinton, saying she would be jailed if he wins the White House and demanding they both take a drug test before the debate to see if performance-enhancing chemicals are keeping her competitive. Trump will have his pick of controversies to exploit on Wednesday night, aided by the WikiLeaks email dumps and the release of documents pertaining to the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was secretary of State. Does Trump have a new stunt or revelation up his sleeve? Will it matter?

  Does Clinton play it safe or go for the kill?

  Trump is on the ropes. Will Clinton go for the knockout blow on Wednesday night? Polls show that Clinton won the second debate, but some of her supporters were frustrated that she was not more aggressive in going after Trump, who limped in amid backlash over his lewd remarks about women and a civil war in the Republican Party over his candidacy. Clinton might view the debate as her opportunity to vanquish Trump and lay the groundwork for a governing mandate. Trump’s polling weakness has provided the Clinton campaign with an opportunity to expand the map into traditionally red states like Alaska, Georgia, Utah and Arizona. Control of the Senate is a toss-up, and if Trump’s free-fall continues, the Republican majority in the House might be in play, too. The pressure will be on for Clinton not to just win but also to deliver for down-ballot Democrats as they play for seats that seemed out of reach not long ago. That means rolling the dice with an aggressive debate, similar to the one her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), tried for in the vice presidential debate. It could mean hitting Trump where he’s weakest by bringing up his female accusers and crude remarks. But that could move against her by provoking Trump to go nuclear on the Clintons’ personal lives.

   

  The aggressiveness backfired on Kaine, showing there is risk in such a strategy. And the WikiLeaks email dump revealed what insiders have long known: Clinton’s inner circle and campaign team are cautious to a fault. They may decide the best course of action is to duck into victory formation and run out the clock with a safe debate performance that seeks to avoid riling Trump.

  Will the moderator make a difference?

  Trump and many conservatives believe the moderators were on Clinton’s side in the first two debates. Veteran NBC newsman Lester Holt opened himself up to criticism for failing to ask Clinton about her private email server or foreign donations to her family’s charitable foundation. And Trump openly warred with the moderators at the second debate, accusing CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC News’s Martha Raddatz of allowing Clinton to speak past her allotted time and lashing out at them for cutting his attacks on Clinton short. Those attacks resonated among conservatives, even if Trump ended the last debate with slightly more speaking time than Clinton. Republicans are hopeful that Fox News’s Chris Wallace — who has a solid reputation as a nonpartisan journalist — will make Clinton’s life miserable. Wallace has said he won’t fact-check the candidates in real time — a practice that has been the focal point of fierce debate within reporting circles — leaving the candidates to pick their spots and make a convincing case for their version of the truth on their own. As an anchor at the conservative news outlet, Wallace is more likely to focus on issues that other media outlets are apt to gloss over. Expect him to ask Clinton about an email exchange, revealed by WikiLeaks, in which one of her top aides disparaged Catholicism and Christianity. The newly released documents pertaining to the investigation of Clinton’s personal server will surely lead to a question about Trump’s allegations of “pay-for-play” at the State Department. And the WikiLeaks dump also revealed Clinton’s support for “open borders,” her differing views in public and in private, and a trove of other data points that Fox News has covered with relish. Of course, Wallace was no patsy in the GOP primary debates, so Trump can expect the tough treatment will flow both ways.

  What will their closing arguments be?

  This is it. The third debate is the last time the candidates will be seen by this many people. The first two debates brought between 65 million and 80 million viewers each. For Trump, it’s the best shot for a game-changing moment. For Clinton, it’s an opportunity to seal the deal. Trump has signaled that he will make this a “change” election to the end. The question voters are struggling over is whether Trump will be a responsible agent of change or a reckless danger who will burn the system to the ground. So far, a strong majority of voters view him as the latter, with vast swaths of the electorate saying he is not commander in chief material. Trump must convince voter that he can be trusted as a leader. Clinton’s closing argument is similarly complicated. She is viewed as an untrustworthy and opportunistic career politician — a considerable liability in the year of the outsider. Still, recent polls show Clinton’s base is more energized than it once was, helping her to pull away from Trump. She will be looking to maintain that momentum by giving undecided voters a reason to vote for her, not just against Trump.

  Which guests are they bringing?

  News broke Tuesday night that Trump invited Malik Obama, President Obama’s Kenyan-born half-brother, to be one of his guests for Wednesday’s showdown. Also on Trump’s list is Patricia Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith. Smith spoke at the Republican convention in Cleveland this summer, said “I blame Hillary Clinton personally” for the death of her son in the 2012 attacks in Libya. Cited by CBS, campaign CEO Steve Bannon told CNN that Smith and Malik Obama are “just an appetizer,” and that Trump will have other guests who relate to the Clintons’ past.

  One of them could be Leslie Millwee, a former Arkansas reporter who on Wednesday accused Bill Clinton of assaulting her in 1980: BuzzFeed reported that she is attending the debate. However, the Trump campaign would not confirm that Millwee was a guest of Trump’s.

  Clinton’s guest list includes Hewlett Packard CEO Meg Whitman, a longtime Republican and former California gubernatorial candidate who endorsed Clinton earlier this year and has raised money on her behalf. Mark Cuban, the investor and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, will also be in attendance; Cuban also attended the first debate in September as a guest of Clinton’s. Also attending as Clinton’s guests are former NBA player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Clinton’s campaign announced Wednesday. Clinton’s other guests include Karla Ortiz, a woman from Nevada born to undocumented parents; Astrid Silva, a DREAMer and immigrant’s rights activist in Nevada; Ryan Moore, a man with a rare form of dwarfism known as spondyloepiphyseal Dysplasia dwarfism; Ofelia Diaz Cardenas, a woman from Mexico who crossed the border illegally in 1999 and now has a work permit; and the mother and teacher of Pvt. Damian Lopez-Rodriguez, a man who served in the U.S. Army in Iraq and was killed while awaiting U.S. citizenship.

  * * *

  Of course, for many there is a far simpler problem: it's the third debate and you still have no idea where your preferred candidate stands on a one given issue? Fear not: the following summary from Goldman breaks it all donw.

  

  

  And given that the debate is in the gambling capital of America, WaPo reports a surge in wagers such as if Donald Trump says the word “rigged” five times or more during tonight’s debate, bookies will be paying out. Oddsmakers are even taking bets on whether the presidential candidates will shake hands.

  "Unleash hell"!

  So will we see First-Debate Trump or Second-Debate Trump? Live Feed…

  *  *  *

  Finally, given that the debate is taking place in Las Vegas, the drinking game to make it pallatable to many…

  

  h/t DebateDrinking.com

  And keep score here…

  

  

• Oklahoma High School Teacher Instructing Students That "To Be White Is To Be Racist, Period"

  It is no great secret that educators in our country tend to skew toward the left side of the political spectrum.  One can barely pick up a newspaper these days without having to read some outrageous story about University administrators caving to the whims of pampered millennials who suffer panic attacks as a result of exposure to the latest “micro-aggressions” or “trigger words.”  In fact, just a few weeks back, we wrote about how San Francisco State was building separate campus housing for African American students because the Black Student Union thought students of color needed a special place where they could “safely live and talk about issues affecting African-Americans” (see “San Francisco State Builds Segregated Dorms Where African-Americans Can “Safely Live And Talk”“).  Who knew that segregation was making a come back as a “progressive” policy?

  But the latest case of liberal educator lunacy, according to EAG News, comes from Norman North High School, in Oklahoma, where a teacher is apparently “teaching” students that “to be white is to be racist, period.”  Since when did pushing extreme progressive rhetoric become part of the high school curriculum?  In the good ole days this kind of insanity was reserved for the liberal elite professors at the university level but we guess those days are over.

  The lecture began with a video about the “Mistreatment of Native Americans” that prompted the student to record the lesson and ended with the teacher’s lecture about racism.

   

  In the video, a man “pulls out this globe with a bottle of white out and marks over a country or a piece of country and puts his name on it,” the student said.

   

  “So he was basically comparing what he had done to the globe to what we did to America,” she said.

   

  “To be white is to be racist, period,” the teacher said in the recording. “Am I racist? I say yea. I don’t want to be. It’s not like choose to be racist, but do I do things because of the way I was raised?”

   

  The student was naturally offended by her teacher labeling her a racist.

   

  “Half of my family is Hispanic so I just felt like, you know, him calling me a racist just because I’m white … I mean, where’s your proof in that,” the girl said. “I felt like he was encouraging people to kind of pick on people for being white.”

  To make matters even worse, a comment issued by the school superintendent implies that no disciplinary action will be taken against the outrageous comments of the teacher in question.  Which is not terribly surprising given that teacher contracts, courtesy of their unions, have become so onerous that teachers basically have to be caught on film cutting off a student’s arm before they can be fired…which is an amazingly “effective” incentive structure.

  Norman Public Schools Superintendent Joe Siano offered a statement to the news site that blamed the teacher, but did not offer any details on what, if any, disciplinary action the teacher would face.

   

  “Racism is an important topic that we discuss I our schools. While discussing a variety of philosophical perspectives on culture, race and ethics, a teacher was attempting to convey to students in an elective philosophy course a perspective that had been shared at a university lecture he had attended,” the statement read.

   

  “We regret that the discussion was poorly handled. When the district was notified of this concern it was immediately addressed. We are committed to ensuring inclusiveness in our schools.”

  So, just to clarify, is the logical conclusion of this thought process that it is technically a “hate crime” for two white people to procreate?

  

  

• Clinton Foundation Insider Makes Stunning Admission: "Bill Is Far More Conflicted Every Single Day"

  For several days now we have been posting about the tensions between Doug Band and Chelsea Clinton (see here, here and here). The whole dispute between the two seemingly started when Chelsea raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest related to Band’s firm, Teneo, which she thought had sought favors from the State Department on behalf of clients, including MF Global.

  But, in the latest batch of WikiLeaks emails, Band escalates the situation to a whole new level by rattling off a litany of other Clinton Foundation conflicts including with Bill Clinton who he says is “far more conflicted every single day in what he does” than Teneo.

  

   

  Justin Cooper then decides to pile on by also highlighting Bill’s many conflicts.  Per the email below, Cooper expresses frustration that nothing in the proposed conflicts resolution memo addresses “how wjc’s activities interface with each other or how this structure resolves his own conflicts.”

  

   

  Meanwhile, in another email sent just a few days later, Band points out that he negotiated a speaking deal with UBS in which Bill Clinton was paid $150,000 for 6 speeches to be given between 2011 and 2012.  The more interesting part though is that Band says he “could care less if he does them or not“…of course not, because the speeches aren’t really the point now are they?

  

   

  The next exchange between Robby Mook, John Podesta and Huma Abedin shows just how much disconnect there is between campaign trail rhetoric and real life.  The emails below, highlight just how far Hillary is willing to go to cater to her large wall street donors while pretending to be fighting for “main street.”  The exchange starts when Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, highlights that Bill’s March 15, 2015 speech to Morgan Stanley may be delayed…a delay that Mook would prefer because it corresponds with Hillary’s first day of campaigning in Iowa which Mook argues is just “begging for a bad rollout.”

  But apparently Hillary was more in favor of collecting the speaking fees, as Huma shoots back that “HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech.“

  

   

  The chain continues on as “HRC reiterates her original position” that Bill should move forward with the Morgan Stanley speech despite the potential political consequences in Iowa.  We guess that clears up any doubts on where her true loyalties lie.

  

   

  Finally, if there was any doubt left in your mind that the Clinton’s are fighting for the little guy, then it will be promptly eliminated after reading this next email exchange in which two Clinton staffers ponder why Bill refuses to have dinner with small donors.  As Teddy Geoff points out:

  “i don’t understand why the optics of hobnobbing with the rich and powerful are somehow better than the optics of sitting down with a few $5 donors. it seems like the latter is what we ought to be emphasizing, not running away from.”

  But, as pointed out below, the Clinton Foundation has “always been careful about protecting his brand.”  We guess they’re concerned about speaking fees dropping to $45,000 per hour vs. $50,000 per hour if Bill happens to be seen in public with a minimum wage worker?

  

  

  

• Has World War 3 Already Started?

  Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

  It took 3 million soldiers, 3,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery pieces, and 2,500 aircraft…

  “Operation Barbarossa” was the code name for Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

  It was the largest military operation in human history.

  The Nazis had already conquered most of Europe. Hitler had grown overconfident from his recent military victories. Now he was hunting for big game… Stalin’s USSR.

  Throughout history, many European invaders, including Napoleon, suffered monumental defeats when they took on Russia. Despite this, Hitler thought he could succeed where they had failed.

  The idea was to inflict a total defeat on the Soviets in a matter of months, before the notoriously brutal Russian winter began.

  At first, it looked like the Germans might succeed. The Soviets were taken by surprise and were disorganized.

  But those initial victories wouldn’t be enough. Thanks to stubborn resistance and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of Soviet troops, Operation Barbarossa stalled.

  The Germans didn’t make it to Moscow before winter. The ruthless cold weather would prove to be a far more effective weapon than anything in the Soviet arsenal. Hitler’s hopes of quickly taking out the USSR perished in the brutal cold. It ultimately turned the tide of the war against Germany.

  But the Soviet victory cost millions of lives. By the end of the war, the Soviets had lost over 20 million people. Some estimate they lost many millions more. By comparison, the U.S. lost around 400,000 people.

  So, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Russians get a little prickly when a foreign military starts marching toward their borders.

  And recently… for the first time since Operation Barbarossa, German tanks are once again advancing on Russia’s border.

  You probably haven’t heard this extraordinary piece of news. That’s because the mass media has basically ignored and obscured it. They’ve been busy covering far more important things… like transgender issues and Kim Kardashian’s latest stunt.

  That’s why I want to tell you about Operation Anaconda 2016.

  It’s the largest war game in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. It’s essentially a rehearsal to secure a quick NATO victory in the event of war with Russia.

  It was launched from Warsaw, Poland, recently and involves 31,000 NATO troops.

  Operation Anaconda 2016 is one of the most important stories you’re not hearing about. It shows how perilously close the world is to another global war.

  I found out about Operation Anaconda 2016 while in Warsaw with Doug Casey earlier this year.

  (Incidentally, Poland is one of the cheapest, enjoyable countries I’ve ever been to. A 30-minute taxi ride from the middle of Warsaw to the airport is only $5. You’ll be hard-pressed to find an entrée in one of the nicest restaurants for over $15.

  Poland does not use the European currency, the euro. It has its own currency, the zloty. And the zloty’s weakness is a big reason Poland is so inexpensive today. By the way, “zloty” means “gold” in Polish. But the currency has no tie to gold. It’s just a paper currency, like the dollar and euro are.)

  Operation Anaconda 2016 is controversial even within NATO. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently said:

  Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.

  Although Steinmeier said Operation Anaconda 2016 is symbolic, he failed to mention exactly what it symbolizes.

  First, an anaconda is a giant snake. It kills its prey by squeezing it. From the Russian perspective, they’re the ones who feel squeezed. This is precisely what the U.S. has been doing by fomenting so-called colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia (both on Russia’s periphery) and trying to absorb them into NATO.

  Second, this unprecedented “tank parade” on Russia’s borders symbolizes nothing less than World War 3.

  (Doug Casey: It’s provocative, and actually quite insane. The Western media paints the Russians as the aggressors, which—let me shock you by saying this—is the opposite of the truth. Russia is an economic minnow, producing nothing but oil and gas, and mostly unprofitably, at current prices. Its population is in permanent decline, and it’s actually a disintegrating empire with a dozen secession movements. Its only serious industrial sector is manufacturing weapons, but even the most advanced Sukhois and MiGs (like the F-22 and F-35) are artifacts of a bygone era. The Russians aren’t in a position to threaten anyone—entirely apart from the fact that conquering neighboring countries no longer makes sense. In today’s world, you’re no longer acquiring an asset to be looted, but taking on a liability.

  As for NATO, it’s outlived its usefulness by over 25 years. The huge military bureaucracy is just a hammer in search of a nail. It should be abolished before it gets everyone in a lot of trouble.)

  Russian President Vladimir Putin has reacted to Operation Anaconda 2016 with alarm. At a recent press conference, he warned Western mainstream media journalists that the world is sleepwalking into World War 3, saying:

  We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger—this is what worries me.

  How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.

  U.S. politicians like to use Putin as a piñata to show how tough they are. Hillary Clinton has declared Putin to be the new Hitler. This is the kind of thinking that fueled Operation Anaconda 2016.

  Now, we’re not referees charged with deciding which political players are good guys and which are bad guys.

  However, the portrait of Putin as a Hitler or a crazy man leading his country toward disaster—the picture you get from the mainstream media and from many politicians—is suitable only for propaganda posters.

  I don’t give two you-know-whats about what happens in Eastern Europe, except to the extent it might spark World War 3 and cause us to get vaporized in a nuclear exchange.

  Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

  *  *  *

  It’s always been true, as Bourne said, that “war is the health of the State.” But it’s especially true when economic times get tough. That’s because governments like to blame their problems on outsiders; even an imagined foreign threat tends to unify opinions around those of the leaders.

  Since economies around the world are all weakening, and political leaders are all similar in essential mindset, there’s good reason to believe the trend toward World War 3 is accelerating.

  Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can do to practically change the trajectory of this trend in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible and even profit from the situation.

  That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video. Click here to watch it now.

  

  

• Mexico Orders Banks To "Stress Test" For A Trump Victory

  It’s official: Donald Trump is now a systemic threat.

  As part of the Mexican stress test, alongside more traditional calamities such as recession, economic crisis, and market crash, the Mexican financial authorities have ordered local banks to assess the potential impact of Donald Trump winning the U.S. presidential election, Reuters reports. Citing six bank sources, Reuters says that alongside a “normal” annual stress test, the banks were asked to conduct an additional test to examine the macroeconomic effects and volatility resulting from a potential Trump victory on Nov. 8.

  The local regulator, the Financial System Stability Board (CESF) said that as a result of the ongoing risk surrounding the U.S. election and an expected tightening in Federal Reserve monetary policy, it had examined the results of stress tests of the country’s financial system. “These exercises showed that the banking sector maintains adequate levels of capital and liquidity to face adverse scenarios,” the CESF, which includes representatives from the Finance Ministry, the Bank of Mexico and the banking regulator CNBV, said in its statement.

  However, while the rest of the stress test is largely fluff, what Mexico really wanted to know is what happens to local banks if Trump becomes president in 19 days: as a result the tests “were specifically aimed at modeling the possible impact of a Trump victory over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, the latest example of the panic the Republican candidates campaign has induced in Mexico.“

  Among other things, Trump has vowed to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if he wins, and build a southern border wall that Mexico would pay for. Fears that Trump could take the White House have also weighed on the peso which is down nearly 8 percent so far this year.  Trump was in Mexico City briefly in August for a highly contentious visit that led to widespread criticism of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and helped precipitate the resignation of then finance minister Luis Videgaray, who was seen as the architect of the meeting.

  Still, Mexico is far less nervous than it was just a month ago: one of the banking sources told Reuters that Trump’s recent collapse in the polls following a string of groping accusations had helped calm concerns that he might win. Of course, the reason why S&P futures traded limit down on the night of Brexit is because just like now, the outcome was taken for granted by all involved, with virtually all polls guaranteeing the preferable outcome.

  It remains to be seen if Trump can repeat the Brexit shock.

  

  

• The Missing "Oh Shit" Link Revealed: Hillary Admits "I Asked That They Be Deleted"

  Back in September we wrote about the circumstances leading up to the “Oh Shit” moment when Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks deleted Hillary’s 30,000 “personal emails” (the full notes is here:  “The “Oh Shit” Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena“).  Within the original FBI interview notes, Hillary “stated she never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her e-mails to avoid complying with FOIA, State, or FBI requests for information.”  Moreover, just last week, in sworn testimony provided to Judicial Watch, Hillary also denied asking for the emails to be deleted.  That said, a new email discovered in the latest WikiLeaks dump seems to offer a direct contradiction to what Hillary previously told both the FBI and Judicial Watch.

  So which version is true?

  –  FBI Notes:  “Clinton stated she was also unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.”

  –  Judicial Watch Testimony:   “She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.”

  –  Private Talking Points (WikiLeaks):  “As I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones.  I asked that they be deleted.”

   

  Before getting into the details, here is the background from the FBI notes on how Hillary’s personal emails came to be deleted. 

  Shortly after providing the data dump to the State Department, in “December 2014 or January 2015,” both Heather Samuelson and Cheryl Mills requested that all emails be removed from their computers using “a program called BleachBit to delete the e-mail-related files so they could not be recovered.” 

  For her part, “Clinton stated she never deleted, nor did she instruct anyone to delete, her e-mails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information” though the following notes suggest she did agree to change her email retention policy to 60 days.

  

   

  A few months later, on March 4, 2015, Hillary received a subpoena from the House for all of her emails on all of her personal servers.

  

   

  Which brings us to the “Oh Shit” moment which occurred on March 25, 2015.  On that fateful day, Paul Combetta realized that he had forgotten to change Hillary’s email retention policy to 60 days.  But, the existence of the Congressional subpoena now meant that those emails needed to be preserved.  Despite acknowledging the subpoena, after a call with Hillary’s attorney, David Kendall, and Cheryl Mills, Combetta proceeded to delete the emails anyway.
  

  

  Ironically, both Mills and Clinton subsequently denied any knowledge that the “personal emails” were deleted.

  “Mills stated she was unaware that [Redacted] had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015.  Clinton stated she was also unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.”
  

  

   

  Which leads us to our final question…if, as reported to the FBI, Hillary was unaware that her “personal emails” were deleted in March 2015 then why, in internal talking points that never surfaced publicly before today, did Clinton admit that “As I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones.  I asked that they be deleted.”

  Apparently, Hillary has both a public and private position on exactly what happened in March 2015…we’ll let you decide which is more reflective of the truth.
  

  

   

  Finally, we’ll leave you with one more Hillary variation of an “answer” to the exact same question.  The following response was offered to Judicial Watch as part of a FOIA lawsuit and the answer was specifically provided under oath.

  Question:  After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed?  If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

   

  Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 23 as outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that it was her expectation that all of her work-related and potentially work-related e-mail then in her custody would be provided to the State Department in response to its request.  Secretary Clinton believes that her attorneys retained copies of the e-mails provided to the State Department in December 2014, but she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.  Secretary Clinton decided that, once her work-related and potentially work-related e-mails were provided to the State Department, she had no reason to keep her personal e-mails, which did not relate to official State Department business.  She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.

   

  So, we ask again, which version is true?

  –  FBI Notes:  “Clinton stated she was also unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.”

  –  Judicial Watch Testimony:   “She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.”

  –  Private Talking Points (WikiLeaks):  “As I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones.  I asked that they be deleted.”

   

  Finally, we leave you with this:

  

  

• ECB Preview: What Wall Street Thinks Mario Draghi Will Say Tomorrow

  In many ways, the task facing the ECB’s Mario Draghi is the most daunting of all central bankers. On one hand, the ECB head has to keep financial conditions as loose as possible to stimulate the lethargic credit pathways in Europe, on the other European banks and insurance companies have been the most severely impacted by the ECB’s Negative interest rate policy. Which is why some have suggested that pursuing a BOJ-like policy of “curve manipulation”, where the 10Y is pegged at a certain level and allowing the curve to steepen while pushing short rates even lower may be the best approach for the central bank. However, due to the peculiarities of the joint European bond market, where political considerations make such an experiment particularly complicated complex, it is unlikely that the central bank will be able to mimic the BOJ’s exercise in progress.

  Making matters worse for the ECB is the intertwined nature between depressed European bank equity prices and local lending. As Deutsche Bank suggestively cautioned earlier, “our view has been that, in what is predominantly a bank dominated market, lending standards (and then actual lending) could soon be hurt by the depressed nature of European bank equity prices as bank equity prices have led lending by 12 months since the Euro commenced (updated graph included in the piece). The tightening seen yesterday is still way below GFC levels but given recent equity trends it is a potential worry in the quarters ahead. Perhaps this is another sign to central banks that current monetary policy could hurt lending in so far as it hurts bank equity prices. It is not clear that the ECB has any inclination to change direction but it feels increasingly unlikely that they can ease further without causing collateral damage.”

  As DB concludes, “the path of monetary policy is becoming more and more complicated.”

  Still, Draghi has to say something, and as Bloomberg notes, the ECB meeting on Thursday may boil down to Draghi’s communication about asset purchases, with market watchers focusing on just one key aspect: any hint of QE tapering would spur a large scale sell-off in the rates market, according to most of the sellside strategists.

  Here is what the prevailing consensus of what Draghi may and should say tomorrow looks like:

  • Rates markets are pricing a dovish outcome
  • Draghi will need to put the tapering discussion back in the box to avoid an adverse market reaction, according to BofAML
  • Any euro move triggered by ECB could be short-lived as the outlook for the currency remains linked to the market pricing of a Fed rate increase this year
  • ECB is expected to stay on hold this week for many reasons, including risk events such as U.S. elections and the constitutional referendum in Italy; staff economic forecasts will be released only in December
  • Outlook for any technical changes to QE such as issue limit and deposit rate floor for purchases as well as any indication of by how long the buying program would be extended, if at all, will be watched

  Below is the full breakdown by bank of what Wall Street’s strategists believe will happen tomorrow:

  BofAML (Gilles Moec, Athanasios Vamvakidis, Ralf Preusser)

  • Expects Draghi to sound dovish and reject talk of early tapering; central scenario sees ECB announcing in December that it will prolong QE until September 2017 at the current EU80b pace
  • EUR may weaken; still, the impact is unlikely to be sustained as a QE extension expected; sees EUR/USD below 1.1000 if Fed hikes rates and the ECB extends QE in Dec.
  • Draghi will need to put the tapering discussion back in the box to avoid an adverse market reaction in rates
  • The QE discussion seems to have moved on from tapering to technicalities; tweaking QE parameters reduces the risk of further bull flattening in core rates

  RBS (Giles Gale, Ross Walker, Clement Mary-Dauphin)

  • Importance of meeting has increased as it will be a difficult communication exercise for the governing council while markets are betting on a volatile outcome
  • A communication mistake could spur a large sell-off in EUR rates, peripheral spreads widening and curves steepening; still, expect the magnitude of the move to be somewhat smaller than during the “bund tantrum”; sees ~50-70bps upside in 30y rates
  • If ECB sends a strong signal that QE is going to be extended, announces issue and issuer limit relaxations, reiterates its accommodative stance and addresses taper concerns, investors should expect lower rates, bull flattening and tighter peripheral spreads
  • Base-case scenario is for a nine-month extension with unchanged EU80b monthly pace and a relaxation of issue- issuer limits at December meeting

  UBS (Reinhard Cluse, Nishay Patel)

  • Base-case scenario remains that ECB will announce a six- month extension of QE in December, with ongoing purchases of EU80b per month
  • Still, given the resilience in growth, the pick-up in inflation and concerns about the negative side effects of low interest rates and bond yields, believe a tapering decision in December shouldn’t be dismissed easily
  • Rates markets seem to be pricing in a fairly dovish outlook for ECB monetary policy and euro zone fundamentals, setting a high bar for the ECB to deliver a more dovish outcome than what is already priced in
  • If expectation regarding technical changes to the ECB’s QE program materializes (above all, higher issue limits for non-CAC bonds and scrapping the deposit rate floor in December), euro zone yield curve should steepen materially
  • Foresees German 10-year yields rising further and reaching 0.15% by year-end and 0.50% by end-2017

  GOLDMAN SACHS (Dirk Schumacher)

  • Draghi will stress that the timeline for QE will be decided based on the inflation outlook, and that technical constraints will not stand in the way of an extension
  • Continue to expect the ECB to extend the QE at December meeting beyond March 2017 — at least initially– at the current volume of EU80b
  • While ECB may have arguments for why it may consider tapering the purchases, a large majority on the Governing Council probably still view the net effect of the ECB’s policy measure on growth and inflation as positive
  • Says there is probably a broad agreement among the Governing Council that there would be no sudden stop, but rather a gradual decline in the monthly volumes purchases, once it decides to end the QE

  CITIGROUP (Harvinder Sian, Guillaume Menuet)

  • This week’s meeting has some asymmetric bear steepening risk as there may be some news on the technical PSPP shifts, which could remove long-end negative convexity support
  • Draghi may not be hawkish but he will probably also not be as dovish as the consensus expects when asked about taper risks; says it’s hard to see a bullish inference
  • Baseline scenario for this month is ECB announcing an increase in the issue/issuer limit from 33% to 50% and a relaxation of the rule that prohibits purchases of bonds with a yield below the deposit facility rate; this should be enough to address any scarcity concerns well beyond March: MORE

  JPMORGAN (Greg Fuzesi, Mika Inkinen,Paul Meggyesi)

  • Doesn’t expect changes this week; decisions about extending QE and changing modalities are linked and will likely be taken together in December
  • Says ECB is almost 100% certain to extend QE beyond March, and sees only a 20% risk of a reduction in the pace to EU60b/month; as compromise with the hawks, expects the extension to be only for six months, rather than nine
  • Recommends paring back on bearish duration exposure; close shorts in 15Y Germany, and take profit on 3s/5s steepeners
  • Front-end swap spreads already price in ECB buying below the depo floor; fade the richness in Schatz swap spreads via Schatz/Bund OIS swap spread curve steepener
  • Take profits on short EUR/JPY straddles; ECB meeting could prove reasonably inconclusive about the ECB’s policy intentions and so partially reverse the recent downward pressure on EUR/USD

  BARCLAYS (Cagdas Aksu, Huw Worthington)

  • Decision on QE extension or parameter changes will likely be on hold until December
  • If there are any announcements, they are more likely to be on technical parameter changes than the extension of the program
  • Base case is for QE to be extended at the December meeting by six-nine months beyond March 2017, seeing a reduction in size also possible at the March meeting next year
  • Stick with a portfolio of trades that have a term and credit premium increase bias in EGB peripheral curves and spreads; in core, continue to favor being long belly ASWs outright, as well as versus longer-end ASWs
  • Trades include long 10s/30s Ireland steepener, short 30y BTPs vs Germany, long 7y France ASW and short 5s/15s Finnish ASW box

  NOMURA (analysts including Jordan Rochester)

  • Stronger indications of a QE extension would keep EUR/USD on its current depreciation path, while steepening curves with stable risk sentiment would also sustain the momentum of USD/JPY appreciation
  • If ECB communication further increases market concerns over near-term tapering, curves may steepen and risk sentiment deteriorate; this would challenge the recent trend of EUR/USD depreciation and USD/JPY appreciation, though not Nomura’s main scenario

  DEUTSCHE BANK (Francis Yared):

  • ECB likely to wait until December before announcing the technical changes to QE, but Draghi may give some indications about the range of possible outcome
  • Maintain the same strategic bias toward a bear steepening of the curve; make tactical adjustments to portfolio to reflect current valuations and a slightly less favourable macro backdrop
  • In Europe, exit the Bobl-Buxl ASW spread; among other trades, maintain the 10s30s steepener which somewhat lags in the repricing of QE expectations

  UNICREDIT (Marco Valli, Vasileios Gkionakis)

  • Sees upside risks for EUR as its underperformance suggests that some market participants may be gearing up for some sort of announcement at ECB meeting
  • It would be premature for the ECB to do so now, without updated economic projections
  • Central scenario remains that the ECB will announce a six-nine-month extension of QE beyond March 2017 in December

  Source: Bloomberg

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Why Is Obama Threatening Russia With World War 3 Right Before The Election?

  Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  It sure seems like an odd time to be provoking a war with Russia.  As I write this, we stand just a little bit more than three weeks away from one of the most pivotal elections in U.S. history, and Barack Obama has chosen this moment to strongly threaten the Russians.  As I wrote about on Friday, Reuters is reporting that Obama is contemplating “direct U.S. military action” against Syrian military targets, and the Russians have already indicated that any assault on Syrian forces would be considered an attack on themselves.  The rapidly deteriorating crisis in Syria has already caused tensions with Russia to rise to the highest level since the end of the Cold War, but now Obama is adding fuel to the fire by publicly considering “an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia”.  Apparently Obama believes that Russian hackers are interfering in the election and so he wants payback.  The following comes from an NBC News article entitled “CIA Prepping for Possible Cyber Strike Against Russia“…

  The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

   

  Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging “clandestine” cyber operation designed to harass and “embarrass” the Kremlin leadership.

   

  The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation.

  Somebody should tell Obama that he is not playing a video game.  A cyber attack is considered to be an act of war, and the Russians would inevitably retaliate.  And considering how exceedingly vulnerable our cyber infrastructure is, I don’t know if that is something that we want to invite.

  At the end of last week, Vice President Joe Biden also publicly threatened the Russians…

  On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden met “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd for an interview that has raised serious concern in Russia.

   

  Without bothering to question the authenticity of the claims, Todd took the allegations of Russian hacking at face value, opening his interview with a loaded question: “Why haven’t we sent a message yet to Putin?”

   

  After a moment of stunned silence, Biden responded, “We’re sending a message. We have the capacity to do it and it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”

   

  When Todd asked if the public will know a message was sent, Biden replied, “Hope not.”

  The Russians firmly deny that they had any involvement in the hacking, and so far the Obama administration has not publicly produced any firm evidence that the Russians were behind it.

  Perhaps the Obama administration privately has some evidence, but at this point they have not shown that evidence to the American public.

  So for Joe Biden to be making these sorts of threats is a very dangerous thing.  The Russians are taking these threats very seriously, and they are preparing to protect their interests…

  ‘The threats directed against Moscow and our state’s leadership are unprecedented because they are voiced at the level of the US vice president.

   

  ‘To the backdrop of this aggressive, unpredictable line, we must take measures to protect (our) interests, to hedge risks,’ a Kremlin spokesman said, according to RIA Novosti news agency.

  Here in the United States, most people don’t even realize that we could be on the verge of a major conflict with Russia.

  But over in Russia things are completely different.  Talk of war is everywhere, and the potential for war is the number one topic in the Russian media right now.  Just check out some of the recent Russian media headlines about the conflict between our two nations…

  • -“Bad News for Washington: Syrian Conflict Revealing New World Order”
  • -“US anti-Russia rhetoric goes nuclear with threats of covert cyber-attacks”
  • -“Who can win World War Three if it can be won at all?”
  • -“In Contrast to Clinton, Trump Has No Appetite for War With Russia”

  And one Russian television network recently instructed their viewers to locate the nearest bomb shelter in case a nuclear war between the United States and Russia suddenly erupts…

  A terrifying Russian television broadcast explicitly told civilians to find out where their nearest bomb shelter is and repeatedly asked viewers if they were ready for nuclear war.

   

  One apocalyptic broadcast told viewers on Moscow’s state-owned TV channel NTV: “If it should one day happen, every one of you should know where the nearest bomb shelter is. It’s best to find out now.”

  I don’t believe that the Russians are crazy to be thinking that a war might be coming.

  To me, it almost seems as though Obama wants one.

  Could it be possible that a conflict with Russia will be used to alter, change or influence the upcoming election in November?

  The truth is that it isn’t going to take much for the shooting to begin.  If Obama orders airstrikes against Syrian forces, the Russians have said that they will shoot back…

  Ash Carter has threatened Russia with “consequences”. After blowing up the ceasefire, the Pentagon – supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff — now is peddling “potential strikes” on Syria’s air force to “punish the regime” for what the Pentagon actually did; blow up the ceasefire. One can’t make this stuff up.

   

  Major-General Igor Konashenkov, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman, sent a swift message to “our colleagues in Washington”; think twice if you believe you can get away with launching a “shadow” hot war against Russia. Russia will target any stealth/unidentified aircraft attacking Syrian government targets – and they will be shot down.

   

  The only serious question then is whether an out of control Pentagon will force the Russian Air Force – false flag and otherwise — to knock out US Air Force fighter jets, and whether Moscow has the fire power to take out each and every one of them.

  I discussed the potential for war with Russia in my latest video.  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and war with Russia will be put off…

  But without a doubt the crisis in Syria is not going to be resolved any time soon because it is one giant mess.  Most people don’t realize that the Syrian civil war has essentially been a proxy war between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam from the very beginning.  Jihadist rebels that are being armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and Turkey are fighting Hezbollah troops that are being armed and funded by Iran.  And now Turkish forces have invaded northern Syria, and this threatens to cause a full-blown war to erupt between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds.  Of course ISIS is right in the middle of everything causing havoc, blowing stuff up and beheading anyone that doesn’t believe in their radical version of Sunni Islam.

  It is absolutely insane that the United States and Russia could potentially go to war because of this conflict.  Both sides are determined to show the other how tough they are, and one false move could set off a spiral of events from which they may be no recovery.

  The American people very foolishly elected Barack Obama twice, but up until now the consequences have not been quite as dire as many had been projecting.

  However, right here at the end of his second term Obama is facing a moment of truth.  If he ends up dragging us into a war with Russia, the American people will ultimately bitterly regret putting him into the White House.

  

  

• Why Did Vote-Rigging Robert Creamer Visit The White House Over 200 Times During The Obama Admin

  Earlier today we wrote about a new Project Veritas undercover video that uncovered several democratic operatives openly discussing, in explicit detail, how to commit massive voter fraud.  One of the operatives was a person by the name of Robert Creamer who is a co-founder of a democratic consulting firm called Democracy Partners.  Within the video, an undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally by having them work as contractors, to which Creamer can be heard offering support saying that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick” (see: “Rigging Elections For 50 Years” – Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2“).

  Unfortunately, the embarrassing video caused Creamer to subsequently resign from consulting the Hillary campaign as he issued a statement saying that he was “stepping back from my responsibilities working the [Hillary] campaign” over fears that his continued assistance would be a distraction for the campaign. 

  But voter fraud isn’t Creamer’s only criminal specialty.  A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that Creamer spent 5 months in federal prison back in 2006 for a “$2.3 million bank fraud in relation to his operation of public interest groups in the 1990s.”

  So, with that kind of history, you can imagine our surprise when we discovered that a Mr. Robert Creamer showed up on the White House visitor logs 340 times beginning in 2009 when Obama took office and culminating with his latest visit in June 2016.  Moreover, in 45 of those instances, Creamer was scheduled to meet with POTUS himself.  Perhaps this is just two old Chicago “community organizers” hanging out?

  <a href=”https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/Robert-Creamer/9vny-arr6” _mce_href=”https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/Robert-Creamer/9vny-arr6” title=”Robert Creamer” target=”_blank”>Robert Creamer</a>

  Powered by Socrata

   

  According to his website bio, Creamer has been a “political organizer and strategist for over four decades” and has been very involved with the Obama administration over the years.  He even “provided strategic advice” to Obama on the “Iran nuclear deal.”  Ironically, Creamer “began his organizing career in 1970 working with Chicago’s Citizen Action Program (CAP), which had been organized by Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation.”

  Robert Creamer has been a political organizer and strategist for over four decades.

   

  During that time he has worked with many of the country’s most significant issue campaigns. He was one of the major architects and organizers of the successful 2005 campaign to defeat the privatization of Social Security. He has been a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, hold Wall Street accountable, pass progressive budget priorities, and enact comprehensive immigration reform.

   

  He is General Consultant to Americans United for Change where he helped coordinate the campaigns to pass President Obama’s landmark jobs and economic recovery legislation.

   

  Creamer has provided strategic advice for a wide array of progressive causes ranging from the movement to stop gun violence, defending the Obama Administration’s Iran nuclear deal, raise the minimum wage and guarantee the right of collective bargaining.

   

  During the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections he worked with the Democratic National Committee as a consultant to the Obama Presidential Campaign coordinating field based rapid response to Republican Presidential candidates.

   

  During his career, Creamer has worked on hundreds of electoral campaigns at the local, state and national level.

   

  Creamer began his organizing career in 1970 working with Chicago’s Citizen Action Program (CAP), which had been organized by Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. CAP successfully campaigned to reduce the sulfur dioxide in Chicago’s air by almost two thirds.

   

  In 1974 he founded the Illinois Public Action Council – later known as Illinois Citizen Action – which became the state’s largest consumer advocacy organization and progressive political coalition. He directed the organization for 23 years.

   

  Creamer has been a full time political consultant since 1997 when he co-founded the Strategic Consulting Group, now a component part of Democracy Partners.

   

  He graduated from Duke University and did graduate work at the University of Chicago.

   

  He is a board member of the Midwest Academy organizer training institute and the Sentencing Project which is seeking to end mass incarceration and reform the nation’s sentencing laws.

   

  Creamer is an author and regular contributor to the Huffington Post. He is married to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky from Illinois. His recent book is titled, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.

  Finally, Creamer’s wife is none other that Jan Schakowsky, a U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 9th congressional district which she has served since 1999.

  

   

  Just another plume of smoke?

  

  

• "Rigging Elections For 50 Years" – Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2

  Update 1:  Just shortly after posting video #2 earlier this afternoon, Project Veritas has claimed its second victim as Bob Creamer has announced he will be “stepping back from my responsibilities working the [Hillary] campaign.”

   

  BREAKING: BOB CREAMER FIRED pic.twitter.com/akCloCv7pd

  — James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 18, 2016

   

  Ironically, the mainstream media is still refusing to play the Project Veritas videos claiming that their authenticity needs to first be verified.  Perhaps we could suggest that two people being fired from their respective employers is sufficient evidence to suggest that, at least in the minds of the people closest to the situation, the videos are, in fact, legitimate…just a thought.

  Below is what we wrote earlier today:

  * * *

  Yesterday we noted the release of Part 1 of a multi-part video series created by Project Veritas revealing some of the dirty, behind-the-scenes secrets of the democratic party.  Part 1 was dedicated to uncovering plots by democratic operatives to incite violence at Trump rallies, a strategy they referred to as “bird dogging” (we provided a full summary here:  “Undercover Footage Shows Clinton Operatives Admit To Inciting “Anarchy” At Trump Rallies“).

  It didn’t take long for yesterday’s video to claim it’s first casualty as Scott Foval, the National Field Director for Americans United for Change, was fired shortly after the video’s release.  Foval’s former employer released the following statement:

  “Americans United for Change has always operated according to the highest ethical standards.  Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change.“

  . @woodhouseb It really doesn’t look like @AU4Change “operates according to the highest ethical and legal standards.” @seanhannity #Veritas pic.twitter.com/Z8nFA4fgUg

  — James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 18, 2016

   

  That said, perhaps the more disturbing revelation from the first video was that one agitator, Zulema Rodriguez, who admitted to inciting “violent protests” that forced Trump to cancel a Chicago rally back in March, was paid directly by the Hillary campaign just a few weeks before that event.  In fact, according to data from the Federal Election Commission, Zulema has been collecting fees from a lot of political organizations recently…turns out that picking fights at Republican rallies is a lucrative business…who knew? 

  

   

  And now we have Part II of the series in which O’Keefe reveals how people, like Foval, successfully organize massive voter fraud in key swing states.  Among other things, Foval goes into great details about how fraudulent out-of-state voters are hired on at fake “shell companies” just so they can register to vote and are then paid for their votes through “paychecks” from those same entities.  Foval goes on to detail how the operatives bring people in to different states, using their own personal vehicles or by having shell companies rent vehicles, instead of using busses which would make it easier to prove a conspiracy.

  “It’s a very easy thing for Republicans to say, “Well, they’re bussing people in.” Well, you know what? We’ve been bussing people in to deal with you fucking assholes for fifty years and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way to do it.”

   

  “When I do this I think as an investigator first – I used to do the investigations. I think backwards from how they would prosecute, if they could, and then try to build out the method to avoid that.”

  Per Planet Free Will, the video also features Bob Creamer, a fraudster who served time for a $2.3mm bank fraud in relation to his operation of “community organizing” groups in the 90s.  Creamer is also the founder of Democracy Partners and husband of Democrat congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. The undercover journalist details a plan to register Hispanic voters illegally having them work as contractors, to which Creamer replies that “there are a couple of organizations that that’s their big trick,” and that “turnout is huge, huge, huge.”

  

  

• Mystery Deepens Around Fate Of Julian Assange

  The following tweets posted by WikiLeaks yesterday set off a massive bout of speculation over the fate of Julian Assange who has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for nearly 4 years.  There has been much speculation that the sudden change in support for Assange from the Ecuadorian government was prompted by political leverage being asserted by the Obama administration to thwart the release of emails that are proving to be very damaging to the Hillary presidential campaign. 

  Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

  We can confirm Ecuador cut off Assange’s internet access Saturday, 5pm GMT, shortly after publication of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speechs.

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

   

  Now, just this morning, WikiLeaks sent the following tweet, quoting “multiple US sources,” saying that, in fact, John Kerry personally asked the Ecuadorian government to shut down Assange and his leaks of Clinton’s emails.

  BREAKING: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 18, 2016

   

  Obviously, despite their efforts, cutting off Assange’s internet access has done nothing to slow the release of emails.  But, as the Associated Press has reported, those close to Assange, including staffers Kristinn Hrafnsson and Sarah Harrison, have gone silent while the Ecuadorian embassy is refusing to provide any updates on Assange’s fate.  

  WikiLeaks staffers Kristinn Hrafnsson and Sarah Harrison did not return repeated messages seeking comment. A woman who answered the phone at the embassy said she was not authorized to say anything.

  Of course, the real question is to what extent the Ecuadorian government has been compromised and what that ultimately means for the fate of Assange.  Clearly, Assange has made numerous enemies over the years with his repeated release of confidential information that has been somewhat embarrassing for many world leaders.  Certainly, Hillary’s opinion on how to handle Assange was made quite clear when she asked, “can’t we just drone this guy?”  

  Hillary Clinton on Assange “Can’t we just drone this guy” — report https://t.co/S7tPrl2QCZ https://t.co/qy2EQBa48y

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 3, 2016

   

  According to various media outlets, the Ecuadorian government has offered no immediate comment on the question of internet access, but foreign minister, Guillaume Long, confirmed that Assange remained under government protection and affirmed that his protection would remain so long as the “circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.”  Loosely translated, the full statement reads as follows:

  “Faced with the speculation of the last few hours, the Government of Ecuador ratifies the validity of the asylum granted to Julian Assange four years ago.  We reaffirm that his protection by the Ecuadorean state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.“

  Ecuador ratifica vigencia de asilo concedido a Julian Assange pic.twitter.com/CWvzFnNbpH

  — Cancillería Ecuador (@CancilleriaEc) October 17, 2016

   

  According to Reuters, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa has been an ardent supporter of Assange’s right to free speech though he admits to having a personal relationship with Hillary Clinton and has suggested he would like for her to win the U.S. presidency “for the good of the United States and the world.”

  The government of leftist President Rafael Correa has long backed Assange’s right to free speech, though the Wikileaks saga has caused some strain in relations with the United States, including the expulsion of diplomats in 2011.

   

  Correa, whose term will end next year, has said he is behind Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who he says he knows personally, in the U.S. presidential election.

   

  “For the good of the United States and the world … I would like Hillary to win,” Correa told broadcaster Russia Today last month.

  As we draw nearer to November 8th, we suspect that the “political leverage” applied by the Obama administration against the Ecuadorian government will become ever more intense.  Given the increasing level of political pressure he will certainly face in the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see just how much President Correa truly supports “Assange’s right to free speech.”

  

  

• American Psycho: Sex, Lies & Politics Add Up To A Terrifying Election Season

  Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  When it comes to sexual predators, there should be no political bright line test to determine who gets a free pass and who goes to jail based on which candidate is better suited for office.

  Yet almost 20 years after Bill Clinton became the first and only sitting president to be sued for sexual harassment and impeached for lying under oath about his sexual escapades while in office, the Left and the Right are still playing politics with women’s rights.

  I should know.

  As one of Paula Jones’ lawyers in her sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton (Hillary Clinton infamously and erroneously accused me of being part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”), I saw first-hand how quickly Hillary Clinton and the nation’s leading women’s rights groups demonized any woman who dared to accuse Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct while turning a blind eye to a long list of incidents involving groping, propositioning, and pressuring women for sexual favors.

  Trust me, it was a very long list.

  As journalist Marjorie Williams documented in “Clinton and Women” for Vanity Fair:

  “The man in question [Bill Clinton] has been sued for sexual harassment over an episode that allegedly included dropping his trousers to waggle his erect penis at a woman who held a $6.35-an-hour clerical job in the state government over which he presided.

   

  Another woman has charged that when she asked him for a job he invited her into his private office, fondled her breasts, and placed her hand on his crotch.

   

  A third woman confided to friends that when she was a 21-year-old intern she began an affair with the man… Actually, it was less an affair than a service contract, in which she allegedly dashed into his office, when summoned, to perform oral sex on him…

   

  Let us not even mention the former lover who was steered to a state job; or the law-enforcement officers who say the man used them to solicit sexual partners for him; or his routine use of staff members, lawyers, and private investigators to tar the reputation of any woman who tries to call him to account for his actions.”

  I also witnessed first-hand the hypocrisy of the Religious Right, which was eager to stand in judgment over Clinton for his marital infidelity, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the indiscretions of other conservative politicians in their midst.

  *  *  *

  Fast forward 20 years, and the women’s rights groups that were silent when Bill Clinton was being outed as a sexual predator have suddenly found their voice and their outrage in the face of accusations that Donald Trump groped and kissed women without their consent. Likewise, the religious groups that were aghast over Clinton’s sexual immorality have somehow created a sliding scale of sin that allows them to absolve Trump of his own indiscretions.

  It’s like being in the Twilight Zone.

  Only instead of Rod Serling’s imaginary “land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas,” we’re trapped in an all-too-real land of politics and lies, where freedom and integrity play second fiddle to ambition and greed.

  Nothing is real.

  This year’s presidential contest and its candidates have, through their double-talking and lies, pulled back the curtain to reveal that what we see is all part of an elaborate hoax, a cruel game where “we the people” are just pawns to be used, abused, discarded and demonized when convenient.

  All this talk about sexual predators is just so much political maneuvering to score points off one another. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump care one whit about the victims of sexual harassment.

  Frankly, they don’t seem to care much about the rest of the populace, either.

  For all intents and purposes, we’re all victims of a perverse, perverted, psychotic mindset that views the citizenry as lesser beings: lacking in value, unworthy of respect, and completely undeserving of the legal rights and protections that should be afforded to all Americans.

  This is what happens when politics is allowed to trump principle: “we the people” lose.

  The women’s movement lost when it chose politics over principle, then and now.

  Women have been suffering because of that choice ever since. As feminist Jessica Valenti acknowledged in the Washington Post, “For women in America, equality is still an illusion… Because despite the indisputable gains over the years, women are still being raped, trafficked, violated and discriminated against—not just in the rest of the world, but here in the United States.”

  The Religious Right lost when it chose politics over principle, then and now.

  By compromising their values, they have made themselves completely irrelevant in matters of public policy. “As an organized and potent force in national politics, the Christian right has faded into nothingness,” policy analyst Paul Waldman concluded for the Washington Post. “It now exists for nothing more than to be patted on the head and sent on its way with an encouragement to vote in November.”

  The media—through its careful crafting of news stories to advance one politician over another—chose politics over principle, then and now. Barring a few exceptions, they have become little more than mouthpieces for the corporate elite.

  The citizenry is faced with a choice right now: to be distracted by mudslinging and circus politics or to forge a new path for the nation that rejects politics in favor of locally-based, transformative grassroots activism.

  Commentator Dan Sanchez is right: the act of voting is indeed futile.

  Voting in this political climate merely advances the agenda of the police state and affirms the government’s pillaging, raping, killing, bombing, stealing, shooting and many acts of tyranny and injustice.

  Mark my words: no matter who wins this election, the predators of the police state will continue to wreak havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives.

  After all, police officers are still shooting unarmed citizens. Government agents—including local police—are still being armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies are still fleecing taxpayers. Government technicians are still spying on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors are still making a killing by jailing Americans for profit and waging endless wars abroad.

  Are any of these issues being discussed right now? Not a single one.

  It boggles the mind.

  How is it possible that out of 318 million Americans in this country, we have been saddled with two candidates whose personal baggage and troubled histories make them utterly unfit for office anywhere but in the American police state?

  We need to stop being victimized by these political predators.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, I’m not just talking about the ones running for office, but the ones who are running the show behind the scenes—the shadow government—comprised of unelected government bureaucrats whose powers are unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and beyond the reach of the law.

  Stop voting for their puppet candidates. Stop tolerating their long list of abuses. Stop making excuses for a system that long ago ceased to be legitimate. Most of all, stop playing by their rules and make them start playing by ours.

  My fear is that we are nearing the point of no return.

  “We the people”—men and women alike— have been victims of the police state for so long that not many Americans even remember what it is to be truly free anymore. Worse, few want to shoulder the responsibility that goes along with maintaining freedom.

  Yet as John Adams warned, “A government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

  There is no way to erase the scars left by the government’s greed for money and power, its disregard for human life, its corruption and graft, its pollution of the environment, its reliance on excessive force in order to ensure compliance, its covert activities, its illegal surveillance, and its blatant disdain for the rule of law.

  Still, we can forge a new path.

  There is so much work to be done in order to right what is wrong with our nation, and there is so little time to fix what has been broken.

  Let’s not waste any more time on predator politics. Let’s get to work.

  

  

• Global Markets Shrug As China 'Manages' To Meet GDP Expectations

  A couple of trillion dollars of freshly created debt and a collapsing currency (which did nothing for the trade balance which was described as "not very solid" by authorities) along with a dead stock market, a bond market at record low yields (unconvinced at any recovery) and a housing bubble and China's National Statistics Bureau 'nails it' with 'meets' across the board (albeit Industrial production disappointed).

   

  Yuan is accelerating weaker to 6 year lows… (but it didn't help trade)

  

   

  And yet another resurgence in total social financing (aggregate credit) In China…

  

   

  And the data was a snoozefest:

  • Industrial Production YoY MISS: 6.1% vs +6.3% Exp from +6.3% prior (6.0% to 6.5% range)
  • Retail Sales YoY MEET: +10.7% vs +10.7% Exp from +10.6% prior (10.5% to 11.0% range)
  • Fixed Assets Investments YTD YoY MEET: +8.2% vs +8.2% Exp from +8.1% prior (8.0% to 8.6% range)
  • GDP YoY MEET: +6.7% vs +6.7% Exp from +6.7% prior (6.4% to 6.9% range)

  

  Bloomberg notes that the industrial output gain is weaker than forecast while retail sales are bang in line – confirming the narrative that China's economy is rebalancing steadily toward consumption from manufacturing.

  It seems the surge in credit is not helping…

  

   

  NBS says in statement that China's economy still faces uncertainties. Sheng says economic situation generally stable in Jan.-Sept.

  China’s economy remained stable in the third quarter, all but ensuring the government’s full-year growth target will be hit and paving the way for a policy switch toward reining in financial risks.

  Bloomberg's Chief Asia Economics Correspondent Enda Curran notes:

  These numbers put to bed any talk of a Chinese hard landing in 2016. Anything can happen in the final quarter, of course, but it's hard to see the narrative shifting too much as we head into a year of political change.

   

  The bigger issue now is whether the authorities have the confidence to take on the really thorny issues around paring back debt and leverage. That very much remains to be seen.

   

  Top three challenges in the coming months: containing the property surge, paring back debt and, let's not forget, keeping a lid on capital outflows.

  If the Fed ever does get round to hiking and the dollar resumes its rally, that will put downward pressure on the yuan and test the resolve of SAFE to defend it.

  *  *  *

  The reaction to the data – for now – is a rebound weaker in the Yuan (marginal) and a tick or two in USDJPY and US equity futures. Stephen Innes, a Singapore-based senior trader at foreign exchange company OANDA, said:

  "There was a collective sigh of relief with the key GDP print coming in on the government target.

   

  As the dust settles with the retail sales print looking rather bouncy, the China economy as a whole appears to be in better shape than some of the pessimistic analysts' reads heading into the data. Global risk should remain supported."

  

  

• Hacked Salesforce Presentation Showed No Interest In Twitter, But These 2 Companies May Be "In Play"

  In an amusing turn of events, the WSJ reports that according to a May 2016 presentation that, paradoxically, came from a trove of thousands of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s emails that were hacked and published in September by DCLeaks, Salesforce was looking at more than a dozen potential acquisition targets that did not include Twitter, which CRM allegedly was close to acquiring only to change its mind in the last minute. Instead, the presentation notes two public companies, previously undisclosed, which may spike in trading tomorrow on hopes of an imminent Salesforce acquisition.

  Titled M&A Target Review and marked “draft and confidential,” the 60-slide document identified 14 possible targets, from design- and marketing-software maker Adobe Systems Inc., which has a current market value of $53.7 billion, slightly larger than Salesforce itself, to Pegasystems Inc., a vendor of business-automation software valued at $2.3 billion. The reason Powell got the presentation is because he sits on Salesforce’s board of directors. Tonight’s revelation will likely open up an entirely new avenue for hackers to pursue, one which involves penetrating the email accounts of board members whose infrastructure may not be as safe and sound as the company on whose board they sit.

  As the WSJ notes, “the presentation provides a peek into the kind of discussions around deal making that many big companies have, almost always in private. It was sent to directors ahead of a board meeting on May 20, amid a particularly active M&A period for the tech industry generally and in particular for Salesforce, which agreed to acquire nine companies for a total of $3.8 billion between February and September of this year.”

  The presentation focused on Salesforce’s attempt to acquire LinkedIn, with which it was in exclusivity and which had the internal codename of “Project Burgundy.” Ultimately, LinkedIn agreed to be acquired by Microsoft in a $196/share transaction worth $26.2 billion.  “We were closer than we realized—maybe a $105 cash plus $105 stock would have done it!” Mr. Benioff wrote, referring to LinkedIn.

  But what is even more interesting, and what will be actionable information ahead of tomorrow’s open, is that the presentation also highlights two public companies which also have a project names “Sonoma” and “Tuscany”, and which Salesforce was either meeting in May or was considered “In Play.” A third project, “Champagne” involved the formerly public company Demandware, which Salesforce in June agreed to acquire for $2.8 billion.

  The two outstanding companies which will likely spike ahead of tomorrow’s open due to the leaked document’s suggestion Salesforce may still be interested in acquiring, are ServiceNow, aka “Sonoma” a business software firm with a current market value around $12.4 billion, and Tableau Software which makes data visualization software, aka Tuscany.

  

  There were various other companies listed in the hacked slide deck:

  The leaked document also appears to indicate that some of the technology companies mentioned may have been for sale at the time. Like other companies on the list that have since been sold, Tableau is marked “In Play.”

  Some of the potential targets have since been acquired by other companies. Marketing automation firm Marketo Inc. soon after the presentation said that Vista Equity Partners had agreed to buy it for $1.79 billion. Salesforce rival Oracle Corp. in June agreed to acquire NetSuite Inc., for $9.3 billion, a deal that still awaits approval by NetSuite shareholders.

   

  And data-visualization firm Qlik Technologies Inc. later was purchased by Thoma Bravo, a private-equity firm, for $3 billion. Salesforce ultimately bought BeyondCore, a competitor of Qlik and Tableau, for about $110 million.

   

  Salesforce clearly viewed some of the companies listed as long shots. Box Inc., which offers online file-sharing and collaboration services, and Zendesk Inc., a maker of customer-service software, appear on the list with the note “CEO has no interest.” Similarly, human resources software provider Workday Inc. is noted as “less interested.” It isn’t clear which parties lacked interest.

  And just like that Wall Street has found a new focus for future “due diligence” – hacked email dumps.

  The full 60-page hacked slideshow is shown below.

  

  

• Saudis, China Dump Treasuries; Foreign Central Banks Liquidate A Record $346 Billion In US Paper

  One month ago, when we last looked at the Fed's update of Treasuries held in custody, we noted something troubling: the number dropped sharply, declining by over $27.5 billion in one week, the biggest weekly drop since January 2015, pushing the total amount of custodial paper to $2.83 trillion, the lowest since 2012. One month later, we refresh this chart and find that in the latest weekly update, foreign central banks continued their relentless liquidation of US paper held in the Fed's custody account, which tumbled by another $22.3 billion in the past week, pushing the total amount of custodial paper to $2.805 trillion, another fresh post-2012 low.

  
   

  Then today, in addition to the Fed's custody data, we also got the latest monthly Treasury International Capital data, which showed that the troubling trend presented last one month ago, has accelerated. Recall that a month ago,  we reported that in the latest 12 months we have observed a not so stealthy, in fact quite massive $343 billion in Treasury selling by foreign central banks in the period July 2015- July 2016, something truly unprecedented in size and scope.

  Fast forward to today when in the latest monthly update, that of July, we find that what until a month ago was "merely" a record $343 billion in offshore central bank sales in the LTM period ending July 30, one month later this number has risen to a new all time high $346.4 billion, or well over a third of a trillion in Treasuries sold in the past 12 months. 

  

  Among the biggest sellers – on a market-price basis – not surprisingly was China, which in July "sold" $34 billion in US paper (the actual underlying number while different, as this particular series is adjusted for Mark to Market variations, will be similar), the biggest monthly dump going back to 2012, and bringing its total to $1.185 trillion, the lowest total since 2012.

  

  It wasn't just China: Saudi Arabia also continued to sell its TSY holdings, and in August its stated holdings (which again have to be adjusted for MTM), dropped from $96.5BN to $93Bn, the lowest since the summer of 2014.

  

  As we pointed out one month ago, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that both foreign central banks, sovereign wealth funds, reserve managers, and virtually every other official institution in possession of US paper, is liquidating their holdings at a very troubling pace. In some cases, like China, this is to offset devaluation pressure; in others such as Saudi Arabia, it is to provide the funds needed to offset the collapse of the petrodollar, and to backstop the country's soaring budget deficit.

  So who are they selling to? The answer, at least for now, is private demand, in other words just like in the stock market the retail investor is the final bagholder, so when it comes to US Treasuries, "private investors" both foreign and domestic are soaking up hundreds of billions in central bank holdings. We wonder if they would do that knowing who is selling to them.

  Meanwhile, while just two months ago yields had tumbled to near all time lows, suddenly the picture is inverted, and long-yields are suddenly surging on concerns the BOJ, the Fed, and maybe even the ECB will soon taper their purchases of the long end.

  What happens if in addition to the relentless selling from foreign official institutions, private sellers also declare a buyer's strike. The answer? More Fed monetization of US debt will be the most likely outcome, aka more QE. We bring this up because, amusingly, the Fed is still harboring some naive hope it can/will raise rates in the coming week and/or months.

   

  

  

• From 'Socialist Utopia' To 'Silence Of The Lambs' – Venezuela's Overcrowded Prisons Devolve Into Cannibalism

  Once a flagship socialist nation, Venezuela has now devolved into complete chaos as declining oil revenue has resulted in economic ruin, massive inflation, food shortages and spikes in violent crime.  The increasing criminal activity has led to massive overcrowding of Venezuelan jails where felons have been forced to live in squalid conditions.

  According to the Independent, one such overcrowded facility was Táchira Detention Center where 350 inmates were housed despite the facility’s capacity for only 120 people.  Earlier this month, the adverse living conditions, including insufficient rations for inmates, at the facility resulted in riots that devolved into complete chaos as numerous visitors were taken hostage and 2 inmates were “stabbed, hanged to bleed, and then fed to the detainees.”  The gruesome event was orchestrated by a man named Dorancel Vargas (aka “People Eater) who was jailed in 1999 for cannibalism.

  Juan Carlos Herrara told local media his son, Juan Carlos Herrera Jr, was stabbed, hanged, dismembered and then eaten at the Táchira Detention Center.

   

  According to reports, 350 men had been crammed into the detention centre, which has a capacity of 120.

   

  Speaking to reporters on Monday, after a visit to the prison three days after the mutiny had subsided, Mr Herrara said: “One of those who was with him when he was murdered saw everything that happened.

   

  “My son and two others were taken by 40 people, stabbed, hanged to bleed, and then Dorancel butchered them to feed all detainees,” referring to the notorious Dorancel “people-eater” Vargas – jailed in 1999 for cannibalism.

   

  “The [inmate] with whom I spoke to told me that he was beaten with a hammer [in order] to force him to eat the remains of the two boys.

   

  “I beg you to give me at least one bone so we can bury him and relieve some of this pain.”

   

  “They cut them up and fed them to several [of the fellow inmates], they made the bones disappear. Dorancel cut the flesh.”

   

  Of course, we have written numerous times recently about the devolving economic crisis in Venezuela that has resulted in severe shortages of food, clean water, electricity, medicines and hospital supplies all of which have resulted in a desperate population which has resorted to the black market and violence for survival.

  Below is a good recap of the current situation from a recent post.

  * * *

  Submitted by Susan Warner via The Gatestone Institute,

  For many Venezuelans, by every economic, social and political measure, their nation is unravelling at breakneck speed.

  Today, a once comfortable middle-class Venezuelan father is scrambling desperately to find his family’s next meal — sometimes hunting through garbage for salvageable food. The unfortunate 75% majority of Venezuelans already suffering extreme poverty are reportedly verging on starvation.

  Darkness is falling on Hugo Chavez’s once-famous “Bolivarian revolution” that some policy experts, only a short time ago, thought would never end.

  In a 2007 study on the Chavez years for the Washington, DC-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval wrote:

  “[a]t present it does not appear that the current economic expansion is about to end any time in the near future. The gains in poverty reduction, employment, education and health care that have occurred in the last few years are likely to continue along with the expansion.”

  While it was not so long ago that many people heralded Venezuela as Latin America’s successful utopian Socialist experiment, something has gone dreadfully wrong as the revolution’s Marxist founder, Hugo Chavez, turned his Chavismo dream into an economic nightmare of unimaginable proportions.

  The question of whether Socialism can be an effective economic system was famously raised when Margaret Thatcher said of the British Labor Party:

  “I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means.”

  In short: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

  When President Nicolas Maduro inherited the Venezuelan Socialist “dream”, in April of 2013, just one month after Chavez died, he was facing a mere 53% inflation rate. Today the Venezuelan bolivar is virtually worthless, and inflation is creeping to 500% with expectations of much more. A recent Washington Post report stated:

  ” …markets expect Venezuela to default on its debt in the very near future. The country is basically bankrupt. It is not easy for a nation to go bankrupt with the largest oil reserves in the world, but Venezuela has managed it. How? Well, a combination of bad luck and worse policies. The first step was when Hugo Chávez’s socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything from two-cent gasoline to free housing. That may all seem like it’s a good idea in general — but only as long as there’s money to spend. And by 2005 or so, Venezuela didn’t have any.”

  Chavez had the good fortune to die just before the grim reaper showed up on Venezuela’s doorstep. According to policy specialist Jose Cardenas:

  “What began as a war against the ‘squalid’ oligarchy in order to build what he called ’21st-century socialism’ — cheered on as he was by many leftists from abroad — has collapsed into an unprecedented heap of misery and conflict.”

  Maduro is doubling down on the failed Chavismo economic and social policies that have contributed to an inflationary crisis not seen since the days of the 1920’s Weimar Republic in Germany, when the cost of a loaf of bread was a wheelbarrow full of cash.

  Demonstrations and public cries for food are the unpleasant evidence of a once-prosperous society being torn apart by the very largess that marked its utopian ideals less than a decade ago.

  There are dire reports of people waiting in supermarket lines all day, only to discover that expected food deliveries never arrived and the shelves are empty.

  In desperation, some middle class families have organized online barter clubs as helpless citizens seek to trade anything for diapers and baby food, powdered milk, medicines, toilet paper and other essentials missing from store shelves or available only on the black market for double and triple already impossibly inflated prices..

  There are horrific tales of desperate people slaughtering zoo animals to provide their only meal of the day. Even household pets are targeted as a much-needed source for food. This is a desperate time for a desperate people.

  As things continue to worsen, President Maduro, unfortunately, is doubling down on the proven failed policies and philosophies of “Bolivarian Socialism,” while diverting attention away from the crisis — pointing fingers at so-called “enemies” of Venezuela such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and others.

  Efforts to convince Maduro to enlist help from outside have failed, according to a report in the Catholic magazine, Crux:

  Maduro has refused to accept help from international charitable organizations, including the Vatican-sponsored Caritas Internationalis, which through different affiliates has tried to send medicine and food.

   

  “Denying that there’s a crisis and refusing to let the world send medicine and food is not possible,” said Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, archbishop of Caracas.

   

  The prelate believes that Maduro is refusing to accept help in an attempt to hide the “very grave situation of total shortage,” which far from improving, he said, continues to deteriorate.

  According to Breitbart:

  “The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference, the organization of the nation’s Catholic bishops, issued a scathing statement condemning president Maduro for giving the military full control of the nation’s food supply, accusing him of being at the helm of a devastating “moral crisis” and crippling every aspect of life in Venezuela.”

  In what some economists have been calling a “death spiral”, the government’s failed economic policies are at the same time causing and trying to stem a runaway inflation with price-fixing policies which, in turn, are triggering shortages. Maduro is strongly urging businesses and farmers to sell their goods at severe losses, forcing shut-downs when the cost of doing business becomes prohibitive.

  According to a recent Bloomberg report, the black market is thriving because goods are unavailable at prices fixed by the government. There are reports of ordinary people quitting inadequate-paying jobs to set up black market operations, hoping to be able to make enough to sustain life.

  A dozen eggs was last reported to cost $150, and the International Monetary Fund “predicts that inflation in Venezuela will hit 720% this year. That might be an optimistic assessment, according to some local economic analysts, who expect the rate to reach as high as 1,200%.”

  According to a Bloomberg report from April:

  “In a tale that highlights the chaos of unbridled inflation, Venezuela is scrambling to print new bills fast enough to keep up with the torrid pace of price increases. Most of the cash, like nearly everything else in the oil-exporting country, is imported. And with hard currency reserves sinking to critically low levels, the central bank is doling out payments so slowly to foreign providers that they are foregoing further business.

   

  “Venezuela, in other words, is now so broke that it may not have enough money to pay for its money.”

  In the midst of this galloping cataclysm, there is no shortage of pundits who simplistically assert that the catastrophe is caused solely by the international collapse of oil prices. However, according to Justin Fox at Bloomberg:

  “The divergence between Venezuela’s revenue and spending started long before (the 2014) oil-price collapse. When oil prices hit their all-time high in July 2008, government revenue — 40 percent of which comes directly from oil — was already falling. The main problem was Venezuelan oil production, which dropped from 3.3 million barrels a day in 2006 to 2.7 million in 2011. It was still at 2.7 million in 2014, according to the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy.”

   

  “Venezuela isn’t running out of oil. Its proven reserves have skyrocketed since 2000 as geologists have learned more about the heavy crude of the Orinoco Belt. But getting at that oil will take a lot of resources and expertise, both things that Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA, best known in the U.S. for its Citgo subsidiary), has been lacking in since Chavez initiated a sort of hostile takeover starting in the early 2000s. First he kicked out 18,000 workers and executives, 40 percent of the company’s workforce, after a strike. Then he started demanding control of PDVSA’s joint ventures with foreign oil companies. One could interpret this in the most Chavez-friendly way possible — he was aiming for a more just allocation of his nation’s resources — and still conclude that he made it harder for PDVSA to deliver the necessary tax revenue.”

  Cronyism and corruption prevailed under Chavez when oil was selling at almost $200 a barrel — at a time when Venezuela could have put some money away for the inevitable rainy day. But President Hugo Chavez and successor president Maduro, were busy buying votes and consolidating power with free giveaways, according to Michael Klare in The Nation.

  Behind the doom and gloom Venezuela’s collapse is the continuing specter of street crime and murder, according to Time.com in a May 2016 report:

  “The country’s runaway murder rate is just one of the factors driving opposition to President Nicolas Maduro in a country where shortages of food and basic goods are chronic, inflation is running rampant and the government is jailing political prisoners. But it serves as a bloody illustration of just how close to outright societal collapse Venezuela has come since the end of the 20th century, as gangs, guerrillas and militia defend their turfs and traditional authority structures fall by the wayside.”

  Venezuela’s crime rate is one of the highest in the world. Called the world’s most homicidal nation, Venezuela has more than street crime, thuggery and murder. Drug cartels, black marketeers, narcoterrorists, white collar criminals and money launderers are unfortunate hallmarks of the Chavez/Maduro legacy.

  The ruin of this once prosperous, oil-rich nation might be a harbinger for other nations, such as the United States, which may be tempted into believing that Socialist giveaway policies actually can provide the promise of a free lunch for longer than the next election cycle. Or might that be all many politicians need or want?

  

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest