Dec 11

Today’s News 11th December 2016

  • THE CIA MOVES TO INVALIDATE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BY BLAMING RUSSIAN HACKING

    It’s happening. After careful analysis of all the media punditry and the ‘leaks’ coming out from the CIA, I can only conclude that there is a concerted effort taking place to invalidate the U.S. elections, in an effort to unseat Donald Trump. Last night the Washington Post reported a leak from inside the CIA, saying they had a report that showed evidence that Russia hacked the elections in order to elect Donald Trump. They’re being very specific about that point. Pay attention.

    Source: Reuters
    The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

    Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Post said intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.

    The officials described the individuals as people known to the intelligence community who were part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and reduce Clinton’s chances of winning the election.

     

    “It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the Post quoted a senior U.S. official as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”

    The Post said the official had been briefed on an intelligence presentation made by the Central Intelligence Agency to key U.S. senators behind closed-doors last week.

    The CIA, in what the Post said was a secret assessment, cited a growing body of evidence from multiple sources. Briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, the Post quoted officials as saying on condition of anonymity.

    In October, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election.

    President Barack Obama has said he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about consequences for the attacks. But Russian officials have denied all accusations of interference in the U.S. election.

    A CIA spokeswoman said the agency had no comment on the report.

    In response to the Washpo article, the Trump campaign issued the following statement.

    “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s representatives said in a statement attributed to the transition team. “The election ended a long time ago … It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.'”

    Bob Baer, former CIA and current ‘Hunting Hitler’ shill, said in an interview today that if the evidence regarding Russia hacking the elections are true, then the only logical thing to do is to hold new elections.

     ‘If the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again.’  

     

    Bear in mind, this is all in response to the Wikileaks revelations about the abject corruptness of both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton camp, via the Podesta emails. Instead of offering an explanation for their egregious actions, the elite cadre inside of the Clinton camp have instead gone on the offensive to blame the messenger. The media is running with this story with long strides, not only suggesting that Russia hacked the elections, but also saying Trump was — in fact — a ‘witting asset’ of Moscow. What’s next, an arrest order for Trump and his campaign staff for being covert Russian spies?

     ‘This nation was attacked by a cyber warfare operation. ‘

    Whatever happened to the smug certainty that the elections wouldn’t be rigged? I suppose what Obama meant was they wouldn’t be rigged had Hillary won, yes? Paul Joseph Watson offers some valuable incite, in regards to the naked hypocrisy of America’s ruling elite.

     

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • "Hard-Core Clinton Fanatic" Manufactured "Viral Fake News" That MSNBC Used To Discredit Wikileaks

    Authored by Glenn Greenwald via The Intercept,

    The phrase “Fake News” has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as “terrorism” and “hate speech”; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets – a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor’s note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean to “vouch for the validity” of the blacklist even though the article’s key claims were based on doing exactly that).

    Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming – with no basis whatsoever – that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored. That lie – and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth – was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic’s David Frum, and Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald.

     

     

    That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked – and thus should be disregarded – was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, the Atlantic and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

    The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he – for some bizarre reason – labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “ are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & not even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”).

    All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called “The Daily News Bin” with the headline: “MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton.” This classic fake news product – citing Nance and Reid among others – was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.

     

     

    From the start, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters – not the WikiLeaks documents – that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.

    When Nance – MSNBC’s “intelligence analyst” – issued his “Official Warning,” he linked to a tweet that warned: “Please be skeptical of alleged . Trumpists are dirtying docs.” That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling itself “The Omnivore,” which had posted an obviously fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.

    But the person who created that forged Goldman Sachs transcript was not a “Trumpist” at all; he was a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the Daily Beast, the person behind the anonymous “The Omnivore” account unmasks himself as “Marco Chacon,” a self-professed creator of “viral fake news” whose targets were Sanders and Trump supporters (he specialized in blatantly fake anti-Clinton frauds with the goal of tricking her opponents into citing them, so that they would be discredited). When he wasn’t posting fabricated news accounts designed to make Clintons’ opponents look bad, his account looked like any other standard pro-Clinton account: numerous negative items about Sanders and then Trump, with links to many Clinton-defending articles.

    In his Daily Beast article, published on November 21, Chacon describes how he manufactured the forged Goldman Sachs speech transcript. He says he did it prior to learning that the WikiLeaks releases of Podesta emails contained actual Clinton speech excerpts to Wall Street banks. But once he realized WikiLeaks had published actual Clinton transcripts, Chacon began trying to lure people he disliked – Clinton critics – into believing that his forged speeches were real, so that he could prove they were gullible and dumb.

    Sadly for Chacon, however, the people who ended up getting fooled by his Fake News items were the nation’s most prominent Clinton supporters, including supposed experts and journalists from MSNBC who used his obvious fakes to try to convince the world that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and thus should be ignored. That it was pro-Clinton journalists who spread his Fake News as real now horrifies even Chacon:

    The tweet went super-viral. It started an almost trending—but still going today—hashtag #bucketoflosers. A tweet declaring it a bad forgery was picked up by Malcolm Nance, an intelligence analyst for MSNBC among others, who tweeted to be wary of the WikiLeaks release. .

     

    That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able to easily spot the fake with “(chaos)” actually written in the side bar and “((makes air quotes))” written before the “bucket of losers” piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from referencing the document and saying: “Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done” . . . .

     

    At the end of the day, did this change anything? I don’t know. I think I inadvertently hurt WikiLeaks, which I’m not proud of—but I’m not too sorry about either. I suspect that some people came to realize that they were believing in fake things.

    That last sentence – that as a result of his fraud, “some people came to realize that they were believing in fake things” – is false, at least insofar as it applies to people like Eichenwald, Frum, Nance and Reid. Even though it was clear from the start to any rational and honest person that there was zero evidence that any of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored, and even though (as Chacon himself says) nobody minimally informed (let alone supposed “intelligence experts”) should have been fooled by his blatant Fake News, none of the journalists who lied to the public about these WikiLeaks documents have even once acknowledged what they did.

    Their Fake News tweets – warning people to view the WikiLeaks documents as fake – remain posted, with no subsequent retraction or acknowledgment of the falsehoods that they spread about the WikiLeaks archive. That includes MSNBC segments which spread this accusation.

    Indeed, not only should it have been blatantly obvious that Chacon’s anonymously posted document did not impugn the WikiLeaks archive, but also the slightest research would have revealed that the person who manufactured the forgery was a Clinton supporter, not a “Trumpist” or a Kremlin operative. Indeed, one of the Clinton-criticizing journalists who Chacon tried to trick, Michael Tracey, said exactly this at the time. But because his facts contradicted the MSNBC/Newsweek political agenda, they were ignored in favor of the lie that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and doctored:

     

     

    I will be shocked if any of them now acknowledge this even with Chacon’s confession. That’s because MSNBC has repeatedly proven that it tolerates Fake News and outright lies from its personalities as long as those lies are in service of the right candidate (when Democrats were smearing Jill Stein as a Kremlin stooge, Reid’s program aired Nance’s lie to MSNBC viewers that Stein had previously hosted her own show on RT: an utter fabrication that MSNBC, to this day, has never corrected or even acknowledged despite multiple requests from FAIR).

     

     

    Every day, literally, you can turn on MSNBC and hear various people so righteously lamenting the spread of “Fake News.” Yet MSNBC itself not only spreads Fake News but refuses to correct it when it is exposed. How do they have any credibility to denounce Fake News? They do not.

    That journalists and “experts” outright lied to the public this way in order to help their favorite candidate is obviously dangerous. This was most powerfully pointed out – ironically – by Marty Baron, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, who told The New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg: “If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?”

    Exactly: if you have prominent journalists telling the public to trust an anonymous group with a false McCarthyite blacklist, or telling it to ignore informative documents on the grounds that they are fake when there is zero reason to believe that they are fake, that is a direct threat to democracy. In the case of the Podesta emails, these lies were perpetrated by the very factions that have taken to most loudly victimizing themselves over the spread of Fake News.

    But the problem here goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. Complaints about Fake News are typically accompanied by calls for “solutions” that involve censorship and suppression, either by the government or tech giants such as Facebook. But until there is a clear definition of “Fake News,” and until it’s recognized that Fake News is being aggressively spread by the very people most loudly complaining about it, the dangers posed by these solutions will be at least as great as the problem itself.

  • Mapping The Top States For Resettling Refugees In 2016

    The Obama administration admitted nearly 85,000 refugees into the United States in fiscal year 2016, the highest number since 1999.  Moreover, as we noted back in September, Obama’s administration has laid the groundwork to increase that number even further in fiscal year 2017 to 110,000 (see “Hillbama Administration Plans To Admit At Least 110,000 Refugees In 2017“). 

    Of course, not every state is doing their “fair share” to house the massive influx of immigrants with Pew Research Center recently pointing out that the top ten states are taking in 54% of refugees.

    Infographic: The Top U.S. States For Refugee Resettlement In 2016 | Statista

     

    As Pew points notes, California, Texas and New York alone resettled 24% of incoming refugees while Nebraska took in the most on a per capita basis.

    California, Texas and New York resettled the most refugees in fiscal 2016 (which began on Oct. 1, 2015, and ended Sept. 30, 2016), together taking in 20,738 refugees, or about a quarter (24%) of the U.S. total. Michigan, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, Washington, Pennsylvania and Illinois, which each received 3,000 or more refugees, rounded out the top 10 states by number of resettled refugees. Overall, 54% of refugees admitted to the U.S. in 2016 were resettled in one of these 10 states.

     

    At the other end of the spectrum, some states and the District of Columbia took in few or no refugees in fiscal 2016. Arkansas, the District of Columbia and Wyoming resettled fewer than 10 refugees each, while two states – Delaware and Hawaii – took in none.

     

    In fiscal 2016, Nebraska (76), North Dakota (71) and Idaho (69) resettled the most refugees per 100,000 residents. Other states like Vermont (62), Arizona (60) and Kentucky (54) far exceeded the U.S. national average of 26 refugees per 100,000 residents.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was the top country of origin for refugees resettled in the U.S. in 2016 while Syria was a close second.

    The Democratic Republic of the Congo (16,370) was the top origin country among refugees resettled in 2016. Some 10% were resettled in Texas, 7% in Arizona and 6% in both New York and North Carolina.

     

    However, Syrian refugees – the second-largest origin group with 12,587 resettled in fiscal 2016 – have garnered more attention from state leaders, with 31 governors opposing this group’s resettlement in their states. Even so, resettlement patterns of Syrian refugees across the states are similar to the national average. California had the largest number (1,450) of resettled Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, followed by Michigan (1,374) and Texas (912).

    And while the Obama administration has announced plans to admit even more refugees in 2017, we suspect president-elect Trump may have other ideas.

  • Trump Picks Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson As Secretary Of State

    In a move that is certain to infuriate those who see Trump as nothing more than a puppet of the Kremlin, moments ago NBC reported that Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil and late entrant into the SecState race after his first meeting with the president elect this past Tuesday at the Trump Tower, has been picked by Trump to serve as his next Secretary of State.

    As NBC adds, Tillerson met Saturday with Trump at Trump Tower in New York, the president-elect’s spokesperson confirmed.  The selection of Tillerson comes after Trump and his transition team spent weeks searching for someone to fill the post of the top U.S. diplomat. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani were reportedly in the running. Giuliani said Friday he had taken his name out of consideration.

    The 64-year-old Texas oilman, whose friends describe as a staunch conservative, emerged as a Secretary of State contender only last week following a meeting with Trump, when it was speculated that he would consider the offer “due to his sense of patriotic duty and because he is set to retire from the company next year.” Tillerson’s appointment would introduce the potential for sticky conflicts of interest because of his financial stake in Exxon: he owns Exxon shares worth $151 million, according to recent securities filings.

    A quick biographical sketch of Tillerson courtesy of the WSJ:

    The son of a local Boy Scouts administrator, Tillerson was born in Wichita Falls, Texas. He attended the University of Texas, where he studied civil engineering, was a drummer in the Longhorn band and participated in a community service-oriented fraternity.

    He joined Exxon in 1975 and has spent his entire career at the company.

    For most of his adult life, he has also been closely involved with the Boy Scouts of America, even occasionally incorporating the Scout Law and Scout Oath into his speeches.  Mr. Tillerson played an instrumental role in leading the organization to change its policy to allow gay youth to participate in 2013, Mr. Hamre said. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates subsequently moved to lift the organization’s ban on gay adult leaders as Boy Scouts president in 2015.  “Most of the reason that organizations fail at change is pretty simple: People don’t understand why,” Mr. Tillerson said in a speech after the 2013 decision, urging leaders to communicate about the policy to help make it successful. “We’re going to serve kids and make the leaders of tomorrow.”

    * * *

    However it is not his Boy Scout exploits that will be the key talking point for pundits in the coming days, but rather his close relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

    According to the WSJ, few U.S. citizens are closer to Mr. Putin than Mr. Tillerson,  a recipient of Russia’s Order of Friendship, bestowed by the president…

    … who has known Putin since he represented Exxon’s interests in Russia during the regime of Boris Yeltsin.

    “He has had more interactive time with Vladimir Putin than probably any other American with the exception of Henry Kissinger,” said John Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary during the Clinton administration and president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank where Mr. Tillerson is a board member.

    Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson with Vladimir Putin, then Russia’s prime minister, at
    a signing ceremony in the Black Sea resort of Sochi in August 2011.

    In 2011, Mr. Tillerson struck a deal giving Exxon access to prized Arctic resources in Russia as well as allowing Russia’s state oil company, OAO Rosneft, to invest in Exxon concessions all over the world. The following year, the Kremlin bestowed the country’s Order of Friendship decoration on Mr. Tillerson.

    The deal would have been transformative for Exxon. Mr. Putin at the time called it one of the most important involving Russia and the U.S., forecasting that the partnership could eventually spend $500 billion. But it was subsequently blocked by sanctions on Russia that the U.S. and its allies imposed two years ago after the country’s invasion of Crimea and conflicts with Ukraine.

    Tillerson spoke against the sanctions at the company’s annual meeting in 2014. “We always encourage the people who are making those decisions to consider the very broad collateral damage of who are they really harming with sanctions,” he said.

    As such, many have speculated that under his regime, the State Department may quietly drop any existing sactions against Russia.

    * * *

    Then there is the thorny issue of potential conflicts of interest, and his massive holdings of Exxon stock.

    One of the first issues Tillerson would have to resolve as secretary of state would be his holdings of Exxon shares, many of which aren’t scheduled to vest for almost a decade. The value of those shares could go up if the sanctions on Russia were lifted. 

    The shares would likely have to be sold under State Department ethics rules, Chase Untermeyer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar, said in an interview. “He could not erase his strong relationship with a particular country,” Mr. Untermeyer said. “The best protection from a conflict of interest is transparency.”

    Tillerson will sell his $150+ million in XOM shares tax free, courtesy of the same tax break that was introduced in 1989 under the administration of President George H.W. Bush, which allowed Hank Paulson, Colin Powell and plenty of other public servants to dispose of their equity holdings without paying taxes: to get the tax relief, it must be deemed “reasonably necessary” for a public official to divest his shares, or a congressional committee must require the asset sale, according to section 1043 of the tax code, something which is virtually assured in the case of Tillerson.

    * * *

    Finally, the environmentalists will certainly be displeased with Trump’s choice, even thought Tillerson helped shift Exxon’s response to climate change when he took over as CEO in 2006. He embraced a carbon tax as the best potential policy solution and has said climate change is a global problem that warrants action. That was a break from his predecessor, Lee Raymond.

    Still, Mr. Tillerson is a polarizing figure among Democrats and environmental activists. They have accused Exxon of sowing doubt about the impacts of climate change during Mr. Raymond’s tenure and say Mr. Tillerson hasn’t done enough to disclose the future impact of climate-change regulations on the company’s ability to get oil out of the ground.

    “This is certainly a good way to make clear exactly who’ll be running the government in a Trump administration—just cut out the middleman and hand it directly to the fossil-fuel industry,” said Bill McKibben, the environmental activist and founder of 350.org.

     

    Exxon has disputed the criticism and accused activists and Democratic attorneys general of conspiring against the company.

     

    The son of a local Boy Scouts administrator, Mr. Tillerson was born in Wichita Falls, Texas. He attended the University of Texas, where he studied civil engineering, was a drummer in the Longhorn band and participated in a community service-oriented fraternity.

     

    As secretary of state, Tillerson would be fourth in line to the presidency.

    No matter how US diplomacy plays out under Tillerson, however, one thing is certain: at least Mitt Romney will not be setting US foreign policy for the next four years. This particular ritual humiliation has now been duly completed…

    Finally, as NBC also adds, Tillerson’s deputy secretary of state for day-to-day management of the department will be former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

    To summarize: a cabinet run by Wall Street and big oil (with a neocon backstop), and a handful of veteran generals thrown in. The writing should be on the wall as to what comes next.

  • Clinton Aides "Soul Crushed" By Speculation Of Russian Election "Interference"

    As the debacle of the too-secret-to-show-you fantasy CIA report ‘proving’ Russia’s interference with the US election becomes the new news cycle narrative, Hillary Clinton staffers are reportedly “soul crushed” by these new ‘facts’.

    Following her screaming match with Trump campaign manager KellyAnne Conway last week, Clinton campaign manager Jennifer Plamieri tweeted this morning about her devastation at the ‘news’ of Russian interefence…

    “We shouted about this as loud as we could,” added former Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin in another tweet. “Hardly anyone listened.”

    As The Hill reports, other former staffers took aim at Trump, whose transition team blasted the CIA in a statement Friday night following the report, saying, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

    And so it is that ‘they’ lost the election due to Russian interference and the biased electoral college, and not in any way due to running ‘the most flawed candidate ever’ and promising more of the same?

  • Keep The Federal Courts Out Of The Electoral College

    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The United States was originally constructed in such a way that the states themselves would dominate the electoral process. Historically, states have determined who can vote, when they vote, and how they vote. Through this power states have also been given limited de facto power of determining citizenship.

    Over time, the federal courts have increasingly seized local prerogatives in this matter, but even today, states and counties are the primary government organizations that conduct elections, collect the votes, print the ballots, and determine the winners. 

    This is appropriate, of course, since the United States was intended to function on a confederation model in which it would be up to the states to decide for themselves how they would send representatives to Congress. There is no such thing as a "national election" in the United States because there wasn't supposed to be a single nation. 

    Unfortunately, in the wake of the 2016 election, opponents of the election's outcome have been petitioning the Supreme Court to step in and take even more power away from the states in deciding how presidents are selected through the Electoral College. Specifically, two electors in Colorado are suing in federal court to overturn a state law that requires members of the electoral college to support the winner of the statewide vote: 

    The two electors, Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich, are suing to overturn a Colorado law that requires them to support the winner of their statewide popular vote — Hillary Clinton — during the general election last month.

    In this case, the two electors who are suing are pro-Clinton, and Clinton won the statewide vote in Colorado. So, as electors, they'll be voting for the candidate they supported in the general election anyway. But, they're hoping their lawsuit will lead to the nullification of state laws over the electoral college, which could free up electors in other states. Currently, in addition to Colorado, 28 states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws mandating the electors vote for the winner of the statewide vote. Failure to comply with these mandates, however, generally bring only a fine. 

    This follows a mandate from the current US Constitution which states in Article II, Section 1 that: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

    In other words, the text is explicit that the state legislature has nearly untrammeled control over how electors are appointed.

    Thus, by extension, the state legislature could also be entitled to force electors to legally pledge to support the winner of the statewide vote. 

    This method would also be reminiscent of methods used prior to the 17th Amendment when members of the legislature were pledged to appoint to the US Senate the winners of statewide votes. 

    Of course, the method that states use to appoint or bind electors is beside the point. States ought to be free to appoint, manage, remove, or regulate electors totally outside any interference from federal courts, federal regulators, or federal policymakers of any kind. If fifty states employ fifty different methods of assigning electoral votes, this would merely reflect the diversity of the American states. 

    Were the federal courts to step in and begin regulating states on how they manage their electoral college votes, it would be a significant swing in favor of federal centralization and greater federal power. 

    The Current System Favors the Democrats 

    As a final note, we might also look at how the current system of binding electors to the statewide vote in each state actually favors the Democrats. The fact that the state legislatures so often defer to the winner of the statewide vote limits legislative power, and puts electoral votes beyond the reach of the legislature once the votes are counted. This helps the Democrats in a period where the Republicans have an overwhelming advantage at the state-government level. 

    For example, given current party control of state government, were legislatures to reserve to themselves more active control over the electoral college, Republicans would be guaranteed victory in at least  23 states where the GOP has a so-called trifecta — control over all houses of the legislature and the governor's office. This means the GOP would get 248 out of the necessary 270 electoral votes right off the bat. The Democrats by this measure would win 7 states for a total of 86 electoral votes.  Once we add in other states where the GOP controls the legislature but not the governor's office, the GOP easily wins the necessary electoral votes. 

    This advantage will be even greater once the GOP's additional state-level gains in the 2016 election take effect next year. Post-2016, the GOP will have a trifecta in 24 states with 255 electoral votes. The Democrats will have a trifecta in 6 states with 83 electoral votes.

  • Nate Silver "Calculates" Hillary Would Win If Not For Comey, Russia As Democrats Come Swinging

    In the immediate aftermath of last night’s WaPo article revealing a “secret” CIA assessment according to which Russia (without a shred of evidence) helped Trump win the election, we explained – in five points – how this was nothing short of a “soft coup” attempt by leaders of the US Intel community and Obama administration to influence the Electoral College vote. To wit:

    1. Announce “consensus” (not unanimous) “conclusion” based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist – which is virtually all of them – in America will hyperventilate about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

    Shortly thereafter, the prominent beacon of liberal thought, Paul Krugman, confirmed that this agenda was quickly taking shape when he tweeted that “we’ll have a president who lost the pop vote by 2.1%, got in thanks to FBI and Putin. And supporters will demand respect. Um, no.”

    He continued: “Also note CIA held findings until after election; FBI splashed its story — which turned out to be LITERALLY nothing — 10 days before”, and concluded furiously that “The big problem, for me at least, it how to keep the rage on a simmer, rather than boiling over. The path to justice will be long 9:24 AM – 10 Dec 2016.”

    That was the initial salvo. It was to be followed promptly by many other liberal voices who have not only concluded that if it not for Russia, Trump would not win, but that without the involvement of FBI director Comey and Vladimir Putin, Hillary would have won the key swing states, and thus the presidency. Case in point, statistician Nate Silver who, together with all other experts, called the election drastically wrong, and is now seeking scapegoats. He appears to have found them.

    And so, with Krugman laying out the ideological strawman, and “statistical genius” Nate Silver validating the fabricated strawman by calculating the odds of Hillary’s victory if it wasn’t for the FBI and evil Russian government hackers, the Democrats have come out swinging, with another liberal commentator, Keith Olberman, laying out the party line that “Priority now is preventing swearing in of Trump (R-Russia). From 9/28: “Is @realDonaldTrump Loyal To This Country?”…

     

    …followed the the punchline: getting the Electoral College to “realize” that Clinton would be the winner, if only the unproven intervention of Putin (and his lapdog, FBI diretor Comey) had not happened.

    From Politico:

    A Democratic congressman is suggesting that members of the Electoral College should be able to consider Russian interference in the presidential election — and whether it influenced the outcome — when deciding how to cast their vote.

     

    Cicilline appears to be the first member of Congress and the highest-ranking elected official in the country to endorse the notion that electors aren’t simply rubber stamps for their states’ popular vote. Earlier Saturday, he retweeted a Rhode Island-based national security expert who argued that the intelligence community “must brief electoral college about Russia before vote.”

     

    “To the extent that foreign interference in the United States presidential elections may have influenced the final result, I believe the electors have the right to consider that,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said in a statement to POLITICO on Saturday.

     

    Cicilline’s comments come amid the explosive determination by the U.S. intelligence community that Russia interfered in the presidential election in support of Donald Trump. Trump’s transition team has forcefully denied the conclusion.

     

    “EC exists to protect republic from candidate under foreign influence,” the expert, Salve Regina University researcher Jim Ludes, wrote.

     

    Cicilline stopped short of endorsing that sentiment in his statement to POLITICO. But in a second tweet on Saturday, he urged the White House to publicize information surrounding the CIA’s assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump. “Before the Electoral College votes,” he added.

    If Trump isn’t profusely nervous at this very moment – when everyone from the Obama administration, to US intel, to every living, breathing liberal, to the “unbiased” press – will be screaming that Trump should not get the Dec. 19 EC vote and effectively engaging in a “soft coup”, then he is not paying attention.

  • Officials Admit Radioactive Fish Off U.S. West Coast Have "Disturbing Fingerprint Of Fukushima"

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    The entire Pacific Coast of the United States, Canada and Mexico has been contaminated with radioactive particles from Fukushima.

    And finally, it is being officially acknowledged. This is really happening…

    It is a stark reminder that the effects from Fukushima radiation continually spilling into the ocean have not been abated. The site continues to leak highly toxic radioactive material to this day. Nothing has stopped.

    via the Associated Press / CBS News:

    “Radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster detected on Oregon shores”

     

    • • • • •

     

    Seaborne radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster has been detected on Oregon shores, researchers say.

     

    Seawater samples from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach indicate radiation from the nuclear disaster but at extremely low levels not harmful to humans or the environment.

    Of course, they claim that it is “safe” because the levels are low. USA Today emphasized the ridiculously minuscule dose of radiation that say, a swimmer would get at the beach – while admitted for the first time that those warning about the spreading radiation were, in fact, correct. exposure:

    “Should we be worried about Fukushima radiation?”

     

    • • • • •

     

    The levels are very low and shouldn’t harm people eating fish from the West Coast or swimming in the ocean, according to Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

     

    […]

     

    Cesium-134, the so-called fingerprint of Fukushima, was measured in seawater samples taken from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach in Oregon, according to researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

    Of course, the idea that radiation was reaching California and the West Coast, and that fish were being contaminated by Fukushima radiation from thousands of miles across the Pacific was considered – yep – “fake news” at the time. The alarmist cries of conspiracy theorists and hypochondriacs were just non-sense, jibberish, delusions and paranoia. Typical hyperbolic non-sense from people caught up in an echo chamber.

    But now, it is an admitted fact that Fukushima radiation is impacting U.S. shores.

    Sorry to ignore and deride your claims, above group of deplorables. Turns out you were right, or at least on to something.

    The source in this story, as well as most of the other “big” stories on Fukushima over the past several years, is Ken Buesseler, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

    He has been a consistent and authoritative voice on Fukushima, sharply criticizing the government role in ignoring the problem, and shedding light on the vast ripple that the nuclear disaster has caused in the biggest of ponds.

    Regardless, the linear thinking about “low levels” ignore the mounting scientific evidence about cumulative exposure to radioactive isotopes and other toxins and free radicals.

    What’s interesting is how much different the same Ken Buesseler is portrayed in different mainstream media accounts… where sometimes only half of the message gets through.

    While the The New Yorker pointed out the complexity of dealing with long-term health issues that could be connected to radiation, via Ken Beusseler’s comments from 2015:

    “Is Radioactive Water Worth Worrying About?”

     

    …

     

    Whether any of this actually matters depends on whom you ask. “There’s a nuclear-power side that’s very quick to be dismissive and say, ‘Don’t worry your pretty little heads, you’re not in harm’s way,’ “ Ken Buesseler, a marine-chemistry researcher at Woods Hole and the organizer of the sampling initiative, told me. “The flip side are the people screaming, you know, ‘Stay out of the Pacific, don’t swim in Monterey, I’m going to move, tell your friends, this is a catastrophe!’ “ At the levels detected in Ucluelet, Buesseler has calculated, you’d need to swim six hours a day for a thousand years to get the radiation equivalent of a dental X-ray.

     

    The full impact of nuclear fallout, however, depends on more than becquerels, which merely count the number of times per second that an unstable atom somewhere in the sample fires off a particle. These particles, and the differing amounts of energy with which they are ejected, have a wide range of effects on the body. We process cesium like an electrolyte, which means that it is diffused throughout the body and eventually excreted in urine. Half of the amount that is ingested is lost within a few months, which limits exposure.

     

    By contrast, strontium-90, another common component of nuclear waste, is a calcium-like “bone seeker” that becomes concentrated in the skeleton and teeth. Since it stays there for years rather than months, even relatively low doses increase the risk of conditions such as bone cancer and leukemia. From a human health perspective, Buesseler sees a potential strontium leak as far more worrying than a little cesium.

    So, as far as nuclear waste goes, cesium-134 is not as bad as strontium-90, but that doesn’t mean there are no harmful effects, and it doesn’t mean that strontium isotopes aren’t affecting the Pacific and West Coast as well – because it has been detected there, and more can be expected to be found:

    screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-8-17-09-pm

    The biomagnification of the food chain – as low levels of radiation build up in lower life forms and in turn become consumed (and often concentrated) by higher life forms – will increase human exposure in ways that simple measures for exposure time simply do not account for. Its effects will be masked, but not impotent.

    What happens to man and the environment when he is exposed to low levels of radiation over the decades and many years that make up his life? What about its impact on DNA through epigenetics? science now knows that gene expression is changed when it is exposed to dangerous materials in the body.

    When blue fin tuna that migrate from Japan to the West Coast were found to contain radioactive particles, again, via Ken Buesseler, the mainstream media downplayed the risks, while alternative media sources sounded the alarm – something that shouldn’t be happening is:

    screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-7-24-53-pm

    While the facts in the report remain the same, Forbes, among other mainstream outlets, downplayed the perception of the problem, and essentially giving credence to that idea that there isn’t a problem at all:

    screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-7-25-42-pm

    Forbes even published this misleading ‘appeal to conservation’:

    screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-8-34-10-pm

    And don’t forget Ann Coulter’s claim that radiation is good for you, too.

    It wasn’t until 2016 – a full five years after the meltdown – that Japanese officials, and in turn outlets like CBS News, admitted that there was indeed a cover-up, and a concerted effort not to use ‘branding’ and ‘perception’ words like “meltdown”… even though one was underway:

    screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-8-36-04-pm

     

    Latent diseases and disorders have a way of subtly cropping up, creating a silent genocide of worn down people suffering from chronic disease and inflammation that gives way to cancers, heart and brain diseases, autoimmune disorders and the like.

    That is the biggest risk that Fukushima still poses today.

    Ignored since just after it happened in 2011, the authorities have FINALLY officially acknowledged what they dared not admit since the cover-up began in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that crippled the nuclear power plant and began the long, slow poisoning of the Pacific Ocean, and all the life that is sustained from it.

    This is a horror, and the mainstream media as it is, with your interests above all others, has assured you that this ongoing disaster is, nonetheless, perfectly safe. Everything is fine, back to your regularly scheduled program….

    screen-shot-2016-12-09-at-8-35-42-pm

     

  • City Of Chicago Working Around Clock To Clear 18 Inches Of Bullet Casings From Streets

    Fact or Fiction?

    With cartridge accumulations reaching two feet or more in some areas, experts say Chicago is on track for the highest annual ammunition-depth total on record.


     

    Promising that every effort would be made to limit the impact on residents’ day-to-day lives, Chicago officials announced Wednesday that a fleet of plows was working around the clock to clear more than 18 inches of fresh bullet casings that had blanketed the metropolitan area overnight.

     

    Sources at the city’s Department of Streets and Sanitation confirmed that over 250 ammunition-removal vehicles had been deployed to deal with the knee-deep layer of spent cartridges, which have been steadily accumulating on Chicago’s streets, alleys, and pedestrian walkways since the previous evening.

     

    “Our crews have been out there all night trying to make our roadways passable, but given how quickly the handgun and semi-automatic shells have piled up, it’s going to take some time,” DSS commissioner Charles L. Williams told reporters, thanking the public for its patience while crews made their way across the stricken municipality. “We’re making good headway, but as you can imagine, it’s not an easy job, especially with casings continuing to fall throughout the city.”

     

    “So unless you have an emergency, we’re urging all citizens to stay put for the time being,” he added. “Right now, it’s just not safe to be out in such treacherous conditions.”

     

    Williams stated that as casing levels surpassed 12 inches, scores of extra workers from outside the city were called in to help keep pace with the buildup. In addition, numerous dump truck crews have reportedly been tasked with carting off entire trailers full of cartridges from the hardest-hit areas and depositing them in nearby landfills before circling back to pick up more.

     

    According to sources, by the morning rush hour, over 300 public and private schools in the Chicago area had been either closed or delayed due to concerns over the large amounts of ammunition covering the city. Citing increased hazards, officials further advised residents to stay off back streets and avoid venturing out at night.

     

    “Man, it’s brutal out there,” said Paul Bergeron, 34, a resident of the Lawndale neighborhood on Chicago’s West Side, showing reporters where plows had piled up over nine feet of empty casings in the parking lot of the grocery store across from his apartment. “I ran out to Walgreens, and on my way back, I nearly took a spill trudging through all the .40-caliber shells—I just wanted to get home as quickly as possible.”

     

    “Growing up in Kansas, I never saw anything nearly like this, but it is what it is,” he continued. “When you’re living here, you learn to deal with the bullets and adjust your life accordingly.”

     

    Some locals, however, have complained that the areas receiving priority attention from the city’s plows were not consistent with those that had been most severely affected. In Chicago’s western and southern neighborhoods, for example, eyewitnesses reported that cartridges had risen as high as some first-floor windows, making it difficult for the occupants to even open their front doors.

     

    “The plows always seem to get to the rich neighborhoods first, that’s for sure,” said Gloria Hawkins, 53, a lifelong resident of the South Side community of Auburn Gresham. “Down here, you have no choice but to go out there into the ammo and shovel your car out yourself. It can be pretty frustrating when things are really bad out, because by the time you finish clearing the walk in front of your house, there’s already an inch or two of fresh bullet casings piling up where you started.”

     

    “But we’ll get through it, just like we always do,” Hawkins continued. “This city is very much used to this sort of thing.”

    Source: The Onion

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 10

Today’s News 10th December 2016

  • Cash Is No Longer King: The Phasing Out Of Physical Money Has Begun

    Submitted by Shaun Bradley via TheAntiMedia.org,

    As physical currency around the world is increasingly phased out, the era where “cash is king” seems to be coming to an end. Countries like India and South Korea have chosen to limit access to physical money by law, and others are beginning to test digital blockchains for their central banks.

    The war on cash isn’t going to be waged overnight, and showdowns will continue in any country where citizens turn to alternatives like precious metals or decentralized cryptocurrencies. Although this transition may feel like a natural progression into the digital age, the real motivation to go cashless is downright sinister.

    The unprecedented collusion between governments and central banks that occurred in 2008 led to bailouts, zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing on a scale never before seen in history. Those decisions, which were made under duress and in closed-door meetings, set the stage for this inevitable demise of paper money.

    Sacrificing the stability of national currencies has been used as a way prop up failing private institutions around the globe. By kicking the can down the road yet another time, bureaucrats and bankers sealed the fate of the financial system as we know it.

    A currency war has been declared, ensuring that the U.S. dollar, Euro, Yen and many other state currencies are linked in a suicide pact. Printing money and endlessly expanding debt are policies that will erode the underlying value of every dollar in people’s wallets, as well as digital funds in their bank accounts. This new war operates in the shadows of the public’s ignorance, slowly undermining social and economic stability through inflation and other consequences of central control. As the Federal Reserve leads the rest of the world’s central banks down the rabbit hole, the vortex it’s creating will affect everyone in the globalized economy.

    Peter Schiff, president of Euro-Pacific Capital, has written several books on the state of the financial system. His focus is on the long-term consequences of years of government and central bank manipulation of fiat currencies:

    “Never in the course of history has a country’s economy failed because its currency was too strong…The view that a weak currency is desirable is so absurd that it could only have been devised to serve the political agenda of those engineering the descent. And while I don’t blame policy makers from spinning self-serving fairy tales (that is their nature), I find extreme fault with those hypnotized members of the media and the financial establishment who have checked their reason at the door. A currency war is different from any other kind of conventional war in that the object is to kill oneself. The nation that succeeds in inflicting the most damage on its own citizens wins the war. ” [emphasis added]

    If you want a glimpse of how this story ends, all you have to do is look at Venezuela, where the government has destroyed the value of the bolivar (and U.S. intervention has further exacerbated the problem). Desperation has overcome the country, leading women to go as far as selling their own hair just to get by. While crime and murder rates have spiked to all-time highs, the most dangerous threat to Venezuelans has been extensive government planning. The money they work for and save is now so valueless it’s weighed instead of counted. The stacks of bills have to be carried around in backpacks, and the scene is reminiscent of the hyperinflation Weimar Germany experienced in the 1920s. Few Western nations have ever experienced a currency crisis before, meaning many are blind to the inevitable consequences that come from the unending stimulus we’ve seen since 2008.

    In order to keep this kind of chaos from spreading like a contagion to the rest of the world, representatives are willing to do anything necessary, but this comes at a cost. Instead of having to worry about carrying around wheelbarrows full of money, the fear in a cashless society will likely stem from bank customers’ restricted access to funds. With no physical way for consumers to take possession of their wealth, the banking interests will decide how much is available.

    The level of trust most people still have in the current system is astonishing. Even after decades of incompetence, manipulation, and irresponsibility, the public still grasps to government and the established order like a child learning how to swim. The responsibility that comes with independence has intimidated the entire population into leaving the decisions up to so-called  ‘experts.’ It just so happens that those trusted policymakers have an agenda to strip you and future generations of prosperity.

    Some of the few hopes in this war against centralization are peer-to-peer technologies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. These innovative platforms have the potential to open up markets that circumvent state-controlled Ponzi schemes. The future development of crypto-assets has massive potential, but being co-opted is a real danger.

    The greatest threat to individual freedom is financial dependence, and as long as your wealth is under someone else’s control, it can never be completely secure. Unfortunately, private blockchains are becoming increasingly popular, creating trojan horses for those just learning about the technology (in contrast, Bitcoin’s transaction ledger is public) . Without the decentralized aspect of a financial network, it is just a giant tracking database that can be easily compromised like any other.

    The World Economic Forum released a report on the future of financial infrastructure. Giancarlo Bruno, Head of Financial Services Industries at WEF stated:

    “Rather than to stay at the margins of the finance industry, blockchain will become the beating heart of it. It will help build innovative solutions across the industry, becoming ever more integrated into the structure of financial services, as mainframes, messaging services, and electronic trading did before it.”

    The list of countries who are exploring integrating blockchain technology into their central banking system is extensive. Just to name a few; Singapore, Ukraine, France,  Finland and many others are in the process of researching and testing out options.

    For those who appreciate more tangible wealth, diversifying into hard assets like gold and silver is a great first step. It’s not about becoming a millionaire or getting rich quickly, but rather, using precious metals as vehicles for investment in the long-term. Regardless of what events unfold over the decades to come, the wealth preserved in physical form is more secure than any other asset. Forty years ago it was possible to save your money in the bank and accumulate interest over time, but that opportunity no longer exists. Those who fail to adapt to this new financial twilight zone will likely find themselves living as slaves to debt for years.

    Control and confidence are two of the most important things in the system we live in. Once these digital spider webs have been put into place, the ability for an individual to maintain privacy or anonymity will all but disappear. Only through understanding the subversive actions being taken can people protect themselves from having to put their future in someone else’s hands. The cash that allows free transactions without tax burdens or state scrutiny won’t be around much longer. There will be many rationalizations for a cashless society in the years to come, but without fixing this broken financial system first, this will only ensure that despotism gains an even sturdier foothold.

  • Trump's Bait And Switch?

    Submitted by Nomi Prins via TomDispatch.com,

    Given his cabinet picks so far, it’s reasonable to assume that The Donald finds hanging out with anyone who isn’t a billionaire (or at least a multimillionaire) a drag. What would there be to talk about if you left the Machiavellian class and its exploits for the company of the sort of normal folk you can rouse at a rally?  It’s been a month since the election and here’s what’s clear: crony capitalism, the kind that festers and grows when offered public support in its search for private profits, is the order of the day among Donald Trump’s cabinet picks. Forget his own “conflicts of interest.” Whatever financial, tax, and other policies his administration puts in place, most of his appointees are going to profit like mad from them and, in the end, Trump might not even wind up being the richest member of the crew. 

    Only a month has passed since November 8th, but it’s already clear (not that it wasn’t before) that Trump’s anti-establishment campaign rhetoric was the biggest scam of his career, one he pulled off perfectly. As president-elect and the country’s next CEO-in-chief, he’s now doing what many presidents have done: doling out power to like-minded friends and associates, loyalists, and — think John F. Kennedy, for instance — possibly family. 

    Here, however, is a major historical difference: the magnitude of Trump’s cronyism is off the charts, even for Washington. Of course, he’s never been a man known for doing small and humble. So his cabinet, as yet incomplete, is already the richest one ever. Estimates of how loaded it will be are almost meaningless at this point, given that we don’t even know Trump’s true wealth (and will likely never see his tax returns). Still, with more billionaires at the doorstep, estimates of the wealth of his new cabinet members and of the president-elect range from my own guesstimate of about $12 billion up to $35 billion. Though the process is as yet incomplete, this already reflects at least a quadrupling of the wealth represented by Barack Obama’s cabinet.

    Trump’s version of a political and financial establishment, just forming, will be bound together by certain behavioral patterns born of relationships among those of similar status, background, social position, legacy connections, and an assumed allegiance to a dogma of self-aggrandizement that overshadows everything else. In the realm of politico-financial power and in Trump’s experience and ideology, the one with the most toys always wins. So it’s hardly a surprise that his money- and power-centric cabinet won’t be focused on public service or patriotism or civic duty, but on the consolidation of corporate and private gain at the expense of the citizenry.

    It’s already obvious that, to Trump, “draining the swamp” means filling it with new layers of golden sludge, similar in color to the decorations that adorn buildings with his name, including the new Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House where foreign diplomats are already flocking to curry favor and even the toilet paper holders in the lobby bathrooms are faux-gold-plated.

    The rarified world of his cabinet choices is certainly a universe away from the struggling working class folks he bamboozled with promises of bringing back American “greatness.” And yet the soaring value of his cabinet should be seen as merely a departure point for our four-year (or more) leap into what is guaranteed to be an abyss of inequality and instability. Forget their wealth. What their business conflicts, relationships, and ideological stances indicate about what they’ll do to America is far more worrisome. And though Trump promised (and tweeted) that he’d be “completely out of business operations,” the possibility of such a full exit for him (or any of his crew) is about as likely as a full reveal of those tax returns.

    Trumping History

    There is, in fact, some historical precedent for a president surrounding himself with such a group of self-interested power-grabbers, but you’d have to return to Warren G. Harding’s administration in the early 1920s to find it. The “Roaring Twenties” that ended explosively in a stock market collapse in 1929 began, ominously enough, with a presidency filled with similar figures, as well as policies remarkably similar to those now being promised under Trump, including major tax cuts and giveaways for corporations and the deregulation of Wall Street. 

    A notably weak figure, Harding liberally delegated policymaking to the group of senior Republicans he chose to oversee his administration who were dubbed “the Ohio gang” (though they were not all from Ohio). Scandal soon followed, above all the notorious Teapot Dome incident in which Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall leased petroleum reserves owned by the Navy in Wyoming and California to two private oil companies without competitive bidding, receiving millions of dollars in kickbacks in return. That scandal and the attention it received darkened Harding’s administration. Until the Enron scandal of 2001-2002, it would serve as the poster child for money (and oil) in politics gone bad. Given Donald Trump’s predisposition for green-lighting pipelines and promoting fossil fuel development, a modern reenactment of Teapot Dome is hardly beyond imagining.

    Harding’s other main contributions to American history involved two choices he made. He offered businessman Herbert Hoover the job of secretary of commerce and so put him in play to become president in the years just preceding the Great Depression.  And in a fashion that now looks Trumpian, he also appointed one of the richest men on Earth, billionaire Andrew Mellon, as his treasury secretary.  Mellon, a Pittsburgh industrialist-financier, was head of the Mellon National Bank; he founded both the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), for which he’d be accused of unethical behavior while treasury secretary (as he still owned stock in the company and his brother was a close associate), and the Gulf Oil Company; and with Henry Clay Frick, he co-founded the Union Steel Company.  

    He promptly set to work — and this will sound familiar today — cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. At the same time, he essentially left Wall Street free to concoct the shadowy “trusts” that would use borrowed money to purchase collections of shares in companies and real estate, igniting the 1929 stock market crash. After Mellon, who had served three presidents, left Herbert Hoover’s administration, he fell under investigation for unpaid federal taxes and tax-related conflicts of interest.

    Modernizing Warren G.

    Within the political-financial establishment, the more things change, the more, it seems, they stay the same. As Trump moves ahead with his cabinet picks, several of them already stand out in a Mellon-esque fashion for their staggering wealth, their legal entanglements, and the policies they seem ready to support that sound like eerie throwbacks to the age of Harding.  Of course, you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, so here are the top four of the moment (with more on the way).

    Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross (net worth $2.9 billion)

    Shades of Andrew Mellon, Ross, a registered Democrat until Trump scooped him up, made his fortune as a corporate vulture (sporting the nickname “the king of bankruptcy”).  He was notorious for devouring the carcasses of dying companies, spitting them out, and pocketing the profits.  He bought bankrupt steel companies, while moving $6.4 billion of their employee pension benefits to the rescue fund of the government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation so he could make company financials look better. In the early 2000s, his steel industry deals bagged him an impressive $267 million. Stripped of health-care benefits, retired steelworkers at his companies didn’t fare as well.   

    Trump, of course, has promised the world to the sinking coal industry and out-of-work coal miners. His new commerce secretary, however, owned a coal mine in West Virginia, notoriously cited for hundreds of violations, where 12 miners subsequently died in an explosion.  

    Ross also made money running Rothschild Inc.’s bankruptcy-restructuring group for nearly two-and-a-half decades. A member (and once leader) of a secret Wall Street fraternity, Kappa Beta Phi, in 2014 he remarked that “the one percent is being picked on for political reasons.” He has an art collection valued conservatively at $150 million, or 3,000 times the average American’s income of $51,000. In addition, he happens to own a Florida estate only miles down the road from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago private club.

    While Trump has lambasted China for stealing American jobs, Ross (like Trump) has made money from China. In 2010, one of that country’s state-owned enterprises, China Investment Corporation, put $500 million in Ross’s private equity fund, WL Ross & Company. Ross has not disclosed whether these investments remain in his fund, though he told the New York Post that if Trump believes there are conflicts of interest among any of his investments, he would divest himself of them. In August 2016, his company had to pay a $2.3 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle charges for not properly disclosing $10.4 million in management fees charged to his investors in the decade leading up to 2011.

    In October, Ross assured Bloomberg that China will continue to be an investment opportunity.  As secretary of commerce, the world will become his personal business venture and boardroom, while U.S. taxpayers will be his funders. He is an ardent crusader for corporate tax cuts (wanting to slash them from 35% to 15%). As head of the commerce department, the man the Economist dubbed “Mr. Protectionism” in 2004 will be in charge of any protectionist policies the administration implements.

    Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (family wealth $5.1 billion)

    DeVos, the daughter of a billionaire and daughter-in-law of the cofounder of the multilevel marketing empire Amway, has had no actual experience with public schools. Unlike most of the rest of America (myself included), she never attended a public school, nor have any of her children. (Neither did Trump.) But she and her family have excelled at the arithmetic of campaign contributions. They are estimated to have contributed at least $200 million to shaping the conservative movement and various right-wing causes over the last half-century.  As she wrote in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1997, “My family is the biggest contributor of soft money to the Republican National Committee.” That trend only continued in the years that followed. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, since 1989 she and her relatives have given at least $20.2 million to Republican candidates, party committees, PACs, and super PACs. 

    The center further noted that, “Betsy herself, along with her husband, Dick DeVos, Jr., has contributed more than $7.7 million to federal candidates, committees, and parties since 1990, including almost $4.8 million to super PACs.”  Her brother, ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince, founded the controversial private security contractor Blackwater (now known as Academi). He also made two considerable donations to Make America Number 1, a super PAC that first backed Senator Ted Cruz and then Trump.

    So whatever you do, don’t expect Betsy De Vos’s help in allocating additional federal funds to elevate the education of citizens who actually do attend public schools, or rather what Donald Trump now likes to call “failing government schools.” Instead, she’s undoubtedly going to promote privatizing school voucher programs and charter schools across the country and let those failing government schools go down the tubes as part of a Republican war on public education.  

    Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao (net worth $25 million)

    As the daughter of a wealthy shipping magnate, a former labor secretary for George W. Bush, and the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Chao’s establishment connections are overwhelming. They include board positions at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp and at Wells Fargo Bank.  While Chao was on its board, Wells Fargo scammed its customers to the tune of $2.4 million, and incurred billions of dollars of fines for other crimes. She was silent when its former CEO John Stumpf resigned in a blaze of contriteness.   

    In 2008, Chao ranked 8th in Bush’s executive branch in terms of net worth at  $16.9 million. In 2009, Politico reported that, in memory of her mother who passed away in 2007, she and her husband received a “personal gift” from the Chao family worth between $5 million and $25 million. In 2014, the Center for Responsive Politics ranked McConnell, with an estimated net worth somewhere around $22 million, as the 11th richest senator. As with all things wealth related, the truth is a moving target but the one thing Chao’s not (which may make her a rarity in this cabinet) is a billionaire.

    Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (net worth between $46 million and $1 billion)

    Hedge fund mogul and Hollywood producer Steven Mnuchin is the third installment on Goldman Sachs’s claim to own the position of Treasury secretary. In fact, when it comes to the stewardship of the country’s economy, Goldman continues to reign supreme.  Bill Clinton appointed the company’s former co-chairman Robert Rubin to Treasury in gratitude for his ability to bestow on him Wall Street cred and the contributions that went with it. George W. Bush appointed former Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Hank Paulson as his final Treasury secretary, just in time for the “too big to fail” economic meltdown of 2007-2008.

    Now, Trump, who swore he’d drain “the swamp” in Washington, is carrying on the tradition. The difference? While Rubin and Paulson pushed for the deregulation of the financial industry that led to the Great Recession and then used federal funds to bail out their friends, Mnuchin, who spent 17 years with Goldman Sachs, eventually made an even bigger fortune by being on the predatory receiving end of federal support while scarfing up a failed bank.

    In 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), formed in 1934 to insure the deposits of citizens at commercial banks, closed 25 banks, including the Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank. In early January 2009, the FDIC agreed to sell failed lender IndyMac to IMB HoldCo LLC, a company owned by a pack of private equity investors led by former Goldman Sachs partner Mnuchin of Dune Capital Management LP for about $13.9 billion. (They only had to put up $1.3 billion in cash for it, however.)

    When the deal closed on March 19, 2009, IMB formed a new federally chartered savings bank, OneWest Bank (also run by Mnuchin), to complete the purchase. The FDIC took a $10.7 billion loss in the process. OneWest then set about foreclosing on IndyMac’s properties, the cost of which was fronted by the FDIC, as was most of the loss that was incurred from hemorrhaging mortgages. In other words, the government backed Mnuchin’s private deal big time and so helped give him his nickname, the “foreclosure king,” as he became an even wealthier man.

    By October 2011, protesters were marching outside Mnuchin’s Los Angeles mansion with “Stop taking our homes” signs. OneWest soon became mired in lawsuits and on multiple occasions settled for millions of dollars. Nonetheless, Mnuchin sold the bank for a cool $3.4 billion in August 2015. Shades of the president-elect, he also left another beleaguered company, Relativity Media, where he had been co-chairman, two months before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2015.

    Mnuchin’s policy priorities include an overhaul of the federal tax code (aimed mainly at helping his elite buddies), financial deregulation (including making the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 significantly more lenient for hedge funds), and a review of existing trade agreements. He has indicated no support for reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated commercial banks that held citizens’ deposits and loans from the speculative practices of investment banks until it was repealed in 1999 under the Clinton administration.

    Gilded Government

    Hillary Clinton certainly cashed in big time on her Wall Street connections during her career and her presidential campaign. And yet her approach already seems modest compared to Trump’s new open-door policy to any billionaire willing to come on board his ship. His new incarnation of the old establishment largely consists of billionaires and multimillionaires with less than appetizing nicknames from their previous predatory careers. They favor government support for their private gain as well as deregulation, several of them having already specialized in making money off the collateral damage from such policies.

    Trump offered Americans this promise: "I'm going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people." In his world, best means rich, and serious means seriously shielded from the way much of the rest of the country lives. Once upon a time, I, too, worked for Goldman Sachs. I left in 2002, the same year that Steven Mnuchin did.  I did not go on to construct deals that hurt citizens. He did. Public spirit is a choice.

    Aspiring to run government as a business (something President Calvin Coolidge tried out in the 1920s with dismal results for America), Trump is now surrounding himself with a crew of crony capitalists who understand boardroom speak, but have nothing in common with most Americans.  So give him credit: his administration is already one of the great political bait-and-switch productions in our history and it hasn’t even begun.  Count on one thing: in his presidency he’ll only double down on that “promise.”

  • NBC's Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against "Fake News"

    Now this is rich.  Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is now going on a crusade against “fake news.”  On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading “fake news” via their twitter accounts.

    “The retired Army 3-star general has passed on some gems himself.  Here are a few…Flynn retweeted accusations that Clinton is involved with child sex trafficking and has “secretly waged war” on the Catholic Church, as well as charges that Obama is a “jihadi” who “laundered” money for Muslim terrorists.

     

    As we talked about here last night, fake news played a role in this election and continues to find a wide audience.  A BuzzFeed news study of Donald Trump’s own tweets where they followed back news stories to their root source found more of them came from Breitbart originally than any other single source.”

     

    So, we should probably just ignore that time Williams simply “mis-remembered” being in a helicopter taking on combatant fire when he was actually completely safe in a convoy about an hour away.

    “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.”

     

    This pretty much sums it up…

    Williams

     

    And, of course, more breaking news from Williams’ current employer, the beacon of impartiality and purveyor of “real news,” MSNBC.

     

    In conclusion:

    Glass Houses

  • With 65% of ATMs Nonoperational, Goldman Warns India Is "Returning To Barter System"

    India continues to stagger from bad to worse followinhg Modi's demonetization. With just 35% of ATMs nationwide operational, Goldman warns the shortage of cash continues to incentivize the use of alternate payments, including extension of informal credit and a return to barter systems. Addtionally, the slowdown in activity is dramatically reflected in lower tax collections and discounts offered by luxury car companies.

    Goldman Sachs  recently introduced their India 'De-monetization dashboard' in which they track the progress of the Indian government's recent currency reform announced on November 8 via a variety of high-frequency data, including money supply, credit/deposit, interest rates, physical asset premia, real economic activity, price indicators and capital flows.

    This week’s update shows that cash availability at ATMs is still low. On real economic activity, there were no major data releases this week. However, PMIs and auto sales data released last week suggested a significant slowdown in activity. Separately, anecdotal evidence suggested continued weakness in activity as shown in the lower indirect tax collections and various discounts given by luxury car companies.

    Monetary infrastructure

    According to Livemint, 95% of ATMs (out of 200,000 in the country) have been re-calibrated to accept new notes but only 35% of the re-calibrated ATMs are operational. Banks are preferring to make cash available in their own branches instead of making cash available at ATMs. Daily data from ATMs in the four key metro cities – namely Bengaluru, Delhi, Kolkata and Mumbai – show that people are still facing a ‘cash crunch’ in about half of the ATMs. The shortage of cash continues to incentivize the use of alternate payments including electronic payment systems, extension of informal credit and a return to barter systems. The government has further announced various measures to promote digital and non-cash transactions including discounts on digital purchase of fuel, suburban train tickets, and service tax exemptions on transaction charges up to INR 2000 on December 8.
     
    Exhibit 1: Shortage of cash in ATMs continues

    Source: CashNoCash, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
     
    Exhibit 2: Still very elevated search interest for retailers accepting electronic payment

    Trends in Google searches for key financial terms in India

    Source: Google, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

    Real activity indicators

    On real activity, no major data was released this week. However, last week, India's Nikkei Markit manufacturing PMI moderated in November after rising to a 22-month high in October (Exhibit 3). The weakness was across the board, suggesting softening in manufacturing activity post the de-monetization announcement on November 8. The Nikkei Markit services PMI also dropped sharply in November driven by a significant decline in new business, also indicating the potential impact of the cash shortage.

    Separately, industry-wide November auto sales (Exhibit 4) showed commercial vehicle sales declined by over 18% mom s.a., car sales declined by 4% mom s.a. and two-wheeler sales dropped by 15% mom s.a. Furthermore, registrations of motor vehicle have fallen since November 2016.

    Exhibit 3: India's composite PMI declined sharply in November led by weak services PMI

    Source: Haver Analytics, Nikkei Markit
     
     
    Exhibit 4: Auto sales contracted sharply in November

    Source: CEIC, Company data, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
     
    Exhibit 5: Motor vehicle registrations have fallen

    (December data only partial month)

    Source: Road Transport Office, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
     

    The latest anecdotal evidence (Exhibit 6) suggests continued weakness in activity during the fourth week post announcement of de-monetization. The slowdown in activity is reflected in lower tax collections and discounts offered by luxury car companies.

    Exhibit 6: Real activity anecdotal evidence

    Source: Live Mint, The Economic Times, Times of India, Business Standard, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

    Monetary and financial indicators

    Money supply

    Reserve money expanded by 0.5% yoy as of the week ending December 2, 2016 after a decline of 16.8% yoy the previous week. This was mainly driven by a INR4.7 trillion increase in bankers' deposits with the RBI (+128.4%yoy) post the temporary increase in Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) to absorb excess liquidity in the system on November 26 (Exhibit 7). This increase in CRR will be withdrawn from December 10 as announced by the RBI. The central bank also mentioned that they have distributed INR 4 trillion of new high denomination notes so far.

    Trends in hard assets premia

    Domestic gold and silver premia, as measured by the difference between USD-equivalent domestic prices and global prices, appear to have normalized after an initial spike. Bitcoin premia (we calculate this as the difference between the price of Bitcoin on India exchanges and those abroad) also moderated somewhat this week (Exhibit 15).
     
    Exhibit 15: Hard assets premia somewhat normalised four weeks post announcement

    Source: CEIC, Haver Analytics, Bloomberg, Unocoin, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
     
     
    Exhibit 16: Google Trends on gold prices have normalised while Bitcoin stayed elevated

    Trends in Google searches for key physical asset words

    Source: Google, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research
     

  • The Mainstream Media Is Asking For A Government Bailout Via Censorship

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate over Wikileaks — not because the email were untrue but because they proved what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to combat what will be declared “fake” news or propaganda. It is only the latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually embrace censorship.

     

    – From Jonathan Turley’s: Washington Post Issues Correction To “Fake News” Story

    Watching Hillary Clinton attack “fake news” and calling for legislative action against free speech she doesn’t like got me thinking. Why is she doing this? Yes, it’s obviously related to her notorious personality trait of never taking responsibility for anything and attaching herself to an invented controversy in order to deflect blame for her monumentally embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. But there’s more going on here. A lot more.

    To set the stage, we need to examine the types of people who are most jumping on the “fake news” meme. What you’ll find is that it’s a who’s who of the most contemptible and corrupt people in America. As Glenn Greenwald so accurately noted in his piece published earlier today:

    Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

     

    But the problem here goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. Complaints about Fake News are typically accompanied by calls for “solutions” that involve censorship and suppression, either by the government or tech giants such as Facebook. But until there is a clear definition of “Fake News,” and until it’s recognized that Fake News is being aggressively spread by the very people most loudly complaining about it, the dangers posed by these solutions will be at least as great as the problem itself.

    Just in case you think the above is an exaggeration, is there an individual in America more distrusted and more widely viewed as a compulsive liar than Hillary Clinton? The list of her outright lies is nearly endless (see: Video of the Day – Watch Hillary Clinton Lie for 13 Minutes Straight). Not only that, but Hillary Clinton was more than happy to promote obvious fake news stories one week before the election. Here’s the most egregious example:

    This was fake news, but somehow I doubt Hillary will be looking for Congress to take her to task for legitimizing and spreading it.

    Then there’s the downright comical example of Brian Williams. You know, the NBC anchor who literally lost his job for promoting fake news about himself (see: NBC’s Brian Williams is Forced to Admit His Tale of Being on a Downed Helicopter in Iraq Was Pure Fantasy). Now he is one of the “esteemed pundits” railing against the terror of fake news. You can’t make this stuff up.

    The Hill reports:

    MSNBC anchor Brian Williams, who lost his job with NBC’s nightly news for exaggerating details of his time reporting in Iraq, slammed President-elect Donald Trump and members of his transition team for spreading fake news throughout the election.

    Pure comedy, but let’s get serious. At this point, I want to direct your attention to what is perhaps the most astute commentary on the fabricated “fake news” push to date. The following was the concluding paragraph to Jonathan Turley’s, Washington Post Issues Correction To “Fake News” Story:

    The current controversy is different. Many people in Washington are irate over Wikileaks — not because the email were untrue but because they proved what many had long suspected . . . that Washington is a highly corrupt place full of truly despicable people. For people who make their living on controlling media and information, it was akin to the barbarians breaching the walls of Rome. So the answer is to call for government regulation to combat what will be declared “fake” news or propaganda. It is only the latest effort to convince people to surrender their rights and actually embrace censorship. 

    This perfectly describes what is going on at the most macro level, and reminded me exactly of what Wall Street did in the aftermath of its destruction of the U.S. economy during the financial crisis. Faced with a potential loss of their fortunes, jobs and reputations, Wall Street invented a meme that the industry needed to be bailed out without consequences in order to “save Main Street.” This was one of the most brazen, yet successful examples of propaganda I have witnessed in my entire life.

    Wall Street got exactly what it wanted and then some. It proceeded to pay out record bonuses the very next year (2010) and not a single executive was held accountable or went to jail. Free market capitalism was completely suspended in order to save some of the wealthiest and most privileged people in America. They used the levers of the state to save themselves and preserve this key segment of status quo power.

    Fast forward eight years, and we witness yet another spectacular status quo failure. Due to its clownish and completely inaccurate coverage of the 2016 election, the mainstream media and the pundit class generally completely torched its reputation. As a result, alternative, independent media is eating their lunch. Rather than accept the consequences of this historic failure, legacy media has decided to take a page from the Wall Street playbook. They are asking for a government bailout. However, this bailout is far more dangerous than the one which preceded it.

    While the Wall Street bailout consisted of showering financial criminals with infinite sums of money until they were once again masters of the universe, the media is asking for a bailout via censorship. Yes, that’s right. Hillary Clinton and other status quo fake news peddlers are actively asking for Congressional action in order to silence their competition.  This isn’t just about protecting the status quo narrative for the sake of maintaining a transparently false manufactured reality. It’s equally about preserving the status, wealth, reputation and careers of individuals whose failures should have landed them on the street, unemployed for their almost incomprehensible and well documented incompetence. Just like we continue to suffer from incompetent criminal elites on Wall Street, the media now wants to build a similar government-sponsored wall around itself. Such an outcome would be an unmitigated disaster for this nation.

    Instead, what we actually need in this country (and what I expect to happen) was perfectly articulated in a recent article by Nathan J. Robinson in his must read article in Current Affairs titled, The Necessity of Credibility. He writes:

    Yet it is telling that after the election, the people who were most wrong during the campaign are still producing voluminous commentary. No outlet that wanted to regain trust and build audiences would be keeping such people on its staff. But “pundit tenure” is powerful. Thus is also likely that the quest for credible media will necessitate the creation of new media. CNN and The Washington Post have never shown a particularly encouraging capacity for introspection and self-improvement, and it’s unlikely that they’re contemplating major internal overhauls in their mission and accountability practices. Their institutional imperatives consist, after all, largely of seeking views and clicks. For them, the 2016 election was a success rather than a failure. A lot of people, after all, tuned in. Why should they do things any differently? Thus it would be useful to have fresh, truly independent outlets, ones that disclose their biases, are transparent in their methods, and are constantly trying to improve themselves rather than simply pursuing the same useless sensationalism and empty horse-race punditry. 

    The last thing this country needs is another bailout of establishment crooks.

    For related articles, see:

    ‘Then We Will Fight in the Shade’ – A Guide to Winning the Media Wars

    Obama Enters the Media Wars – Why His Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical

    Hillary Clinton Enters the Media Wars

    The Death of Mainstream Media

     

    Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of “Russian Propaganda” Websites

    Additional Thoughts on “Fake News,” The Washington Post, and the Absence of Real Journalism

  • Tucker Carlson Takes on Washpo Reporter Who Claimed Trump Won Because of 'Angry White Men'

    The warm blanket that democrats wrap themselves in at night is a dream that angry white men will die off in large enough numbers so that a true renaissance of psychotic illiberals — like Jennifer Rubin — can rise to power and lead America into the next phase towards its ultimate demise. It’s a very potent and divisive thing for journalists to say, pretending to know the spirit and soul of men based upon the color of their skin. The lie, or fake news, of massive hordes of white men descending from their trailer park thrones on election night to vote for Trump, en masse, is a myth.

    The same, so called racist, white men were the good folks  who voted for Obama twice, once in 2008 and again in 2012 —  so there’s always that.

    Specifically tackling the argument of who voted for Trump, the numbers don’t lie. He received less white votes than Romney and 3x the amount of black Americans. Perhaps the very nervous and mentally addled Jennifer Rubin should set aside her confirmation bias prior to making scathing allegations about a race of people. Then again, it’s rather trendy to deride and to shame white people these days, isn’t it?

    whites hispanics blacks Jennifer Rubin and her ilk are perfect examples of why democrats have lost over 900 legislative offices over the past 6 years and hold just 11 governorships. The party, literally, is dying. When it comes to the discussion of race and moving on, I believe Morgan Freeman had the best public response to a journalist in recent times. It was short, poignant, and absolutely true.

     

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • Don't Be Fooled. The Trump Rally Is Not A Sign Of Economic Health

    Submitted by Steven Horowtiz via The Foundation for Economic Education,

    The headlines tell us that the Dow Jones is up around 1,000 points since Donald Trump won the election on November 8th. The conventional wisdom is that this shows how much confidence people have in Trump’s ability to generate a healthy American economy. The argument is that if people are willing to buy stock in American firms, this indicates their belief that those firms will see improving profits over the next few years. They then draw the conclusion that more profitable firms indicate a healthier American economy.

    Although this argument is correct about stock prices reflecting an increasing belief in the profitability of US firms, it makes a major error in assuming that profitable firms necessarily mean a better economy.

    The Economy Isn't A Thing

    First, it’s important to understand that phrases like “a healthier economy” are themselves problematic. The “economy” is not the thing we should be concerned about. In fact, in some fundamental sense there’s no such thing as “the economy.” As Russ Roberts and John Papola memorably put it in the music video “Fight of the Century:”

    The economy’s not a car.
    There’s no engine to stall.
    No experts can fix it.
    There’s no “it” at all.
    The economy is us

    Things are not “good/bad for the economy.” They are good or bad for the people who comprise the market process, specifically in our capacity as consumers. All the economy amounts to is people engaging exchanges in order to better satisfy their wants. What we should care about is whether or not people are able to better satisfy those wants.

    And “better satisfy” here means not just more and better goods and services, but at cheaper prices too. Lower prices mean that consumers have income left over to purchase goods they otherwise couldn’t, enabling them to better satisfy their wants by satisfying more of them.

    Distorted Signals

    In a genuinely free market, the profitability of firms is a good reflection of their ability to better satisfy the wants of consumers. Our willingness to pay for their goods and services reflects the fact that we receive value from those products, so their profits are at least a general signal of having created that value and satisfied consumer wants.

    Trump’s policies may well enrich many firms, but they will impoverish the average American.

    In fact, consumers get much more value out of most innovations than is reflected in the profits of firms. A famous study by economist William Nordhaus estimated that profits made up only about 2.2% of the total benefits created by innovations. If you doubt this, ask yourself how much it would take for you to give up your smartphone and its connectivity. Then multiply that by all of the smartphone users in the world. Then compare that to the profits made off smartphones. The total value to consumers will dwarf the profits of smartphone producers.

    However, when markets aren’t free, profits do not necessarily reflect value creation. Firms who profit through privileges, protections, and subsidies from governments demonstrate that they are able to please political actors, not that they can deliver value to consumers by better satisfying their wants. The profits of cab companies with monopoly licenses reflect their ability to foreclose competition, not the quality of the services they provide.

    In a world of this sort of crony capitalism, profits are de-linked from a connection with consumers and we cannot say with confidence that any given firm’s profits reflect value creation.

    Notice though that such firms might still be profitable! In a world of cronyism, many firms will do very well, especially to the extent that they have connections with those in power, or are willing to do what they are told in order to curry such favor. To the extent that cronyism will make many firms profitable, that would be reflected in rising stock prices and stock indexes.

    That, I would argue, is precisely what we’re seeing today as Trump takes power.

    The Trump Effect

    Trump’s economic nationalism and cronyism will surely enrich a number of American firms. Tariffs on imported cars, for example, might well improve the profitability of US car manufacturers. The same would go for steel or agricultural products. Firms like Carrier that are willing to exercise political clout, or roll over in the face of demands or threats from various levels of government, could see their profits rise as a result of new government-granted privileges. The record-setting Dow Jones sure could be right that the profit stream for many US firms will increase under Trump.

    But don’t confuse that profitability with improved economic well-being. Trump’s policies may well enrich many firms, but they will impoverish the average American. We are not better off having to pay more for domestically produced goods thanks to a 35% tariff on imports. We are not better off when firms are given tax breaks or direct subsidies to keep their production in the US where labor or other inputs are more expensive, raising the costs of those goods and increasing our $20 trillion dollar national debt.

    Profits will be seen as the reward for knowing the right people, not innovation and efficiency.

    We are not better off when firms have to meet the conditions set by a strongman before he will “allow” them to operate in the US, which only serves to reorient the economy away from pleasing consumers to pleasing Trump.

    This sort of cronyism and discretionary use of power turns the positive sum social cooperation of the market into a negative sum battle among firms to curry favoritism and power from the state. Entrepreneurial energy that could have brought forth innovative technologies and cheaper, better goods and services is diverted to seeking profits through what Ayn Rand so memorably called the “aristocracy of pull.”

    This diversion of entrepreneurship will have profound long-term effects, as it severs the link between profit-seeking and satisfying consumer wants. Profits will be seen as the reward for knowing the right people and how best to curry favor from them, not from innovation and efficiency.

    And when profits become about favoritism not value-creation, the moral case for the market, or what’s left of it anyway, disappears as well. Profits can at least in principle be justified in terms of their link with consumer want satisfaction and the creation of value. As profits become increasingly arbitrary, even those firms who continue to create value will have a harder time justifying their profits. This loss of confidence in the ethical basis of the market will erode support for truly competitive markets even more, even as profits for many might increase.

    Don’t be fooled. The Trump rally is not a sign of economic health, but of what quite likely will be harm to all Americans through higher prices, fewer choices, and a reduction in entrepreneurial innovation.

    Profits and rising stock prices in truly free markets reflect real value creation and want satisfaction. Profits and rising stock prices in a system of economic nationalism and cronyism reflect the satisfaction of the desires of those with political power. Firms and political actors might win more power and influence, but average Americans, many of whom voted Trump and his crew into office, will be the big losers.

  • Record High Lease Returns Set To Wreak Havoc On Used Car Prices

    About a month ago we warned that declining used car prices could spell disaster for subprime auto securitizations (see “Slumping Used Car Prices Spell Disaster For Subprime Auto Securitizations“).  While it’s always difficult to predict the exact timing of when bubbles will burst, a combination of record-high lease returns in 2017 and 2018, combined with rising interest rates could imply that the auto bubble is on the precipice.

    As Bloomberg recently pointed out, strong used car pricing is a critical component required to prop up the overall auto market.  While American’s love their brand new cars, if used car prices become too soft then substitution can hurt new car sales.  Add to that the impact of falling residual values on the finance arms of the auto OEMs and you have all the ingredients required for an auto market meltdown.

    Thanks in part to low interest rates, leasing has become an increasingly popular way to drive away a new car. It accounts for almost a third of all new car transactions in the U.S. and it’s also huge in the U.K., as I explained here. For BMW and Mercedes-Benz in particular, it’s been a boon for sales.

     

    Typically a lease lasts about three years, after which the customer returns to the showroom for another vehicle — which is when things could get difficult for the industry.

     

    “There’s going to be a lot of units coming back over the next several years,” Ford Motor Co. warned last month. “They’re going to get to levels that we have never seen on an absolute basis in the industry before”.

     

    In 2017,  about one million more off-lease vehicles will be available in the U.S. compared with 2015. That additional volume will put downward pressure on used car prices.

     

    If cars depreciate too quickly, consumers will be unwilling to pay high prices for new vehicles. High residual values also help to keep monthly lease payments low. In other words, if used car prices fall, the whole system comes unstuck: automakers’ earnings will likely fall and car finance companies (often a subsidiary of the manufacturer) may have to book writedowns on the value of their leased assets.  

    As the following chart depicts, with nearly 1mm more cars coming off lease in 2017 than 2015, it’s difficult to envision a scenario where used car prices don’t come under tremendous pressure.

    Auto Leases

     

    Of course, how we got here is fairly obvious.  The majority of Americans buy cars based on one factor: monthly payment.  And when it comes to managing your monthly payment to the lowest level possible, leasing is the way to go.  Per the Bank Rate calculator below, buying a $30,000 car comes with a monthly payment of around $600 while leasing the same vehicle might only cost $420 per month. 

    Bankrate

     

    Of course, why buy a $30,000 Ford for a $600 monthly payment when you could lease a $40,000 BMW for $560?  You can afford it so long as you can cover the monthly payment, right?

    Bankrate

     

    Not surprisingly, these dynamics have caused lease share of U.S. vehicles to skyrocketed in the wake of the “great recession” as people seek to maintain their excessive lifestyles on smaller budgets.

    Auto Lease

     

    Of course, the problem is that leased vehicles get returned to their originating lenders every 3 years for brand new leases…we wouldn’t want anyone driving around in a 5-year-old clunker now would we?  But, as we all know, vehicles have useful lives of 15-20 years.  Therefore, it doesn’t take too many excessive lease cycles to flood the market with used supply and bring the whole ponzi crashing down. 

  • Joe Scarborough: ‘Hillary Clinton Cost Hillary Clinton the Election,’ Not Fake News

    Joe Scarborough dropped an epic dose of truth on Hillary and her disaffected, snowflake supporters this morning after Clinton herself took to the stage yesterday to blame “fake news” for her stunning loss.  Apparently not a buyer of the “fake news” excuse, Scarborough blasted Hillary, and democrats in general, saying that “Hillary Clinton cost Hillary Clinton the election.”

    “When you look at this ‘fake news,’ and you see what happened up at Harvard and you hear everybody writing articles saying millennials cost Hillary Clinton the election, and dogs with three legs cost Hillary Clinton the election, and comets passing in the night– Hillary Clinton cost Hillary Clinton the election.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff cost Hillary Clinton the election.”

     

    “Listen, if you care about Democrats digging out of the hole that they have put themselves in now, you’ve got to ask yourself; what have Democrats done to so offend Americans that they only have 11 governorships, they’ve lost control of the Senate, they’ve lost control of the House, they lost 900 legislative seats over the past six years?”

     

    “It wasn’t fake news.  It was something much, much bigger.”

    Meanwhile, Joe’s deflated co-host, Mika Brzezinski, could only muster this response: “Ugh, I don’t think people are ready to hear that, Joe.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 09

Today’s News 9th December 2016

  • Congressman Calls Fox's Tucker Carlson A Russian Agent On Prime Time Television

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    This is a remarkable, must watch interview between Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and California Congressman Adam Schiff.

    More than anything else, the primary takeaway is the completely clownish and pathetic manner in which Mr. Schiff represents himself and his office. The only reply he has to Carlson, which he uses on at least three occasions, is to blurt out “party of Reagan” in a childish attempt at guilting Tucker into a mutual embrace of neo-Cold War jingoism.

    "Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave… You're carrying water for the Kremlin… you're gonna have to move your show to Russian Television… you're an apologist for the Kremlin."

    Great job by Tucker Carlson getting Schiff to expose his true colors. This is exactly how journalists should treat all political figures whenever they mislead and deceive, which most of them do 24/7.

  • Understanding Evil: From Globalism To Pizzagate

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I have spent the better part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the human “soul” (yes, I’m using a spiritual term).

    My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the human element. That is to say, while economics is often treated as a mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology. To know the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.

    Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss. I have touched on the issue in various articles in the past including Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood, but with extreme tensions taking shape this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community investigation of “Pizzagate,” I am compelled to examine it once again.

    I will not be grappling with this issue from a particularly religious perspective. Evil applies to everyone regardless of their belief system, or even their lack of belief. Evil is secular in its influence.

    The first and most important thing to understand is this — evil is NOT simply a social or religious construct, it is an inherent element of the human psyche. Carl Gustav Jung was one of the few psychologists in history to dare write extensively on the issue of evil from a scientific perspective as well as a metaphysical perspective.  I highly recommend a book of his collected works on this subject titled 'Jung On Evil', edited by Murray Stein, for those who are interested in a deeper view.

    To summarize, Jung found that much of the foundations of human behavior are rooted in inborn psychological contents or “archetypes.”  Contrary to the position of Sigmund Freud, Jung argued that while our environment may affect our behavior to a certain extent, it does not make us who we are. Rather, we are born with our own individual personality and grow into our inherent characteristics over time. Jung also found that there are universally present elements of human psychology. That is to say, almost every human being on the planet shares certain truths and certain natural predilections.

    The concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, are present in us from birth and are mostly the same regardless of where we are born, what time in history we are born and to what culture we are born. Good and evil are shared subjective experiences.  It is this observable psychological fact (among others) that leads me to believe in the idea of a creative design — a god.  Again, though, elaborating on god is beyond the scope of this article.

    To me, this should be rather comforting to people, even atheists.  For if there is observable evidence of creative design, then it would follow that there may every well be a reason for all the trials and horrors that we experience as a species.  Our lives, our failures and our accomplishments are not random and meaningless.  We are striving toward something, whether we recognize it or not.  It may be beyond our comprehension at this time, but it is there.

    Evil does not exist in a vacuum; with evil there is always good, if one looks for it in the right places.

    Most people are readily equipped to recognize evil when they see it directly.  What they are not equipped for and must learn from environment is how to recognize evil disguised as righteousness.  The most heinous acts in history are almost always presented as a moral obligation — a path towards some “greater good.”  Inherent conscience, though, IS the greater good, and any ideology that steps away from the boundaries of conscience will inevitably lead to disaster.

    The concept of globalism is one of these ideologies that crosses the line of conscience and pontificates to us about a “superior method” of living.  It relies on taboo, rather than moral compass, and there is a big difference between the two.

    When we pursue a “greater good” as individuals or as a society, the means are just as vital as the ends.  The ends NEVER justify the means.  Never.  For if we abandon our core principles and commit atrocities in the name of “peace,” safety or survival, then we have forsaken the very things which make us worthy of peace and safety and survival.  A monster that devours in the name of peace is still a monster.

    Globalism tells us that the collective is more important than the individual, that the individual owes society a debt and that fealty to society in every respect is the payment for that debt.  But inherent archetypes and conscience tell us differently.  They tell us that society is only ever as healthy as the individuals within it, that society is only as free and vibrant as the participants.  As the individual is demeaned and enslaved, the collective crumbles into mediocrity.

    Globalism also tells us that humanity’s greatest potential cannot be reached without collectivism and centralization.  The assertion is that the more single-minded a society is in its pursuits the more likely it is to effectively achieve its goals.  To this end, globalism seeks to erase all sovereignty. For now its proponents claim they only wish to remove nations and borders from the social equation, but such collectivism never stops there.  Eventually, they will tell us that individualism represents another nefarious “border” that prevents the group from becoming fully realized.

    At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are “blank slates;” that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens.  The environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls the environment, by extension, becomes god.

    If the masses are convinced of this narrative then moral relativity is only a short step away. It is the abandonment of inborn conscience that ultimately results in evil. In my view, this is exactly why the so called “elites” are pressing for globalism in the first place. Their end game is not just centralization of all power into a one world edifice, but the suppression and eradication of conscience, and thus, all that is good.

    To see where this leads we must look at the behaviors of the elites themselves, which brings us to “Pizzagate.”

    The exposure by Wikileaks during the election cycle of what appear to be coded emails sent between John Podesta and friends has created a burning undercurrent in the alternative media. The emails consistently use odd and out of context “pizza” references, and independent investigations have discovered a wide array connections between political elites like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta to James Alefantis, the owner of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong. Alefantis, for reasons that make little sense to me, is listed as number 49 on GQ’s Most Powerful People In Washington list.

    The assertion according to circumstantial evidence including the disturbing child and cannibalism artwork collections of the Podestas has been that Comet Ping Pong is somehow at the center of a child pedophilia network serving the politically connected. Both Comet Ping Pong and a pizza establishment two doors down called Besta Pizza use symbols in their logos and menus that are listed on the FBI’s unclassified documentation on pedophilia symbolism, which does not help matters.

    Some of the best documentation of the Pizzagate scandal that I have seen so far has been done by David Seaman, a former mainstream journalist gone rogue. Here is his YouTube page.

    I do recommend everyone at least look at the evidence he and others present. I went into the issue rather skeptical, but was surprised by the sheer amount of weirdness and evidence regarding Comet Pizza.  There is a problem with Pizzagate that is difficult to overcome, however; namely the fact that to my knowledge no victims have come forward.  This is not to say there has been no crime, but anyone hoping to convince the general public of wrong-doing in this kind of scenario is going to have a very hard time without a victim to reference.

    The problem is doubly difficult now that an armed man was arrested on the premises of Comet Ping Pong while "researching" the claims of child trafficking.  Undoubtedly, the mainstream media will declare the very investigation “dangerous conspiracy theory.”  Whether this will persuade the public to ignore it, or compel them to look into it, remains to be seen.

    I fully realize the amount of confusion surrounding Pizzagate and the assertions by some that it is a "pysop" designed to undermine the alternative media.  This is a foolish notion, in my view.  The mainstream media is dying, this is unavoidable.  The alternative media is a network of sources based on the power of choice and cemented in the concept of investigative research.  The reader participates in the alternative media by learning all available information and positions and deciding for himself what is the most valid conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be had.  The mainstream media simply tells its readers what to think and feel based on cherry picked data.

    The elites will never be able to deconstruct that kind of movement with something like a faked "pizzagate"; rather, they would be more inclined to try to co-opt and direct the alternative media as they do most institutions.  And, if elitists are using Pizzagate as fodder to trick the alternative media into looking ridiculous, then why allow elitist run social media outlets like Facebook and Reddit to shut down discussion on the issue?

    The reason I am more convinced than skeptical at this stage is because this has happened before; and in past scandals of pedophilia in Washington and other political hotbeds, some victims DID come forward.

    I would first reference the events of the Franklin Scandal between 1988 and 1991. The Discovery Channel even produced a documentary on it complete with interviews of alleged child victims peddled to Washington elites for the purpose of favors and blackmail.  Meant to air in 1994, the documentary was quashed before it was ever shown to the public. The only reason it can now be found is because an original copy was released without permission by parties unknown.

    I would also reference the highly evidenced Westminster Pedophile Ring in the U.K., in which the U.K. government lost or destroyed at least 114 related files related to the investigation.

    Finally, it is disconcerting to me that the criminal enterprises of former Bear Sterns financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "Lolita Express" are mainstream knowledge, yet the public remains largely oblivious.  Bill Clinton is shown on flight logs to have flown on Epstein's private jet at least a 26 times; the same jet that he used to procure child victims as young as 12 to entertain celebrities and billionaires on his 72 acre island called "Little Saint James".  The fact that Donald Trump was also close friends with Epstein should raise some eyebrows – funny how the mainstream media attacked Trump on every cosmetic issue under the sun but for some reason backed away from pursuing the Epstein angle.

    Where is the vast federal investigation into the people who frequented Epstein's wretched parties?  There is none, and Epstein, though convicted of molesting a 14 year old girl and selling her into prostitution, was only slapped on the wrist with a 13 month sentence.

    Accusations of pedophilia seem to follow the globalists and elitist politicians wherever they go. This does not surprise me. They often exhibit characteristics of narcissism and psychopathy, but their ideology of moral relativity is what would lead to such horrible crimes.

    Evil often stems from people who are empty. When one abandons conscience, one also in many respects abandons empathy and love.  Without these elements of our psyche there is no happiness. Without them, there is nothing left but desire and gluttony.

    Narcissists in particular are prone to use other people as forms of entertainment and fulfillment without concern for their humanity.  They can be vicious in nature, and when taken to the level of psychopathy, they are prone to target and abuse the most helpless of victims in order to generate a feeling of personal power.

    Add in sexual addiction and aggression and narcissists become predatory in the extreme. Nothing ever truly satisfies them. When they grow tired of the normal, they quickly turn to the abnormal and eventually the criminal.  I would say that pedophilia is a natural progression of the elitist mindset; for children are the easiest and most innocent victim source, not to mention the most aberrant and forbidden, and thus the most desirable for a psychopathic deviant embracing evil impulses.

    Beyond this is the even more disturbing prospect of cultism. It is not that the globalists are simply evil as individuals; if that were the case then they would present far less of a threat. The greater terror is that they are also organized. When one confronts the problem of evil head on, one quickly realizes that evil is within us all. There will always be an internal battle in every individual. Organized evil, though, is in fact the ultimate danger, and it is organized evil that must be eradicated.

    For organized evil to be defeated, there must be organized good. I believe the liberty movement in particular is that good; existing in early stages, not yet complete, but good none the less.  Our championing of the non-aggression principle and individual liberty is conducive to respect for privacy, property and life.  Conscience is a core tenet of the liberty ideal, and the exact counter to organized elitism based on moral relativity.

    Recognize and take solace that though we live in dark times, and evil men roam free, we are also here. We are the proper response to evil, and we have been placed here at this time for a reason. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it coincidence, call it god, call it whatever you want, but the answer to evil is us.

  • PRoP Or NuTS?

    Screen Shot 2016-12-09 at 10.33.30 AM

    .

    .

     

    h/t Dana Kamide

  • The Obamacare 'Dilemma' In One Infographic

    The future of Obamacare is uncertain, to say the least.

    President-elect Donald Trump has consistently called to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act throughout his campaign, but, as Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, many pundits see this as being a catch-22 for the incoming administration.

    America’s healthcare system is already a global outlier (in a bad way), with disproportionate amounts of money being spent for very little return on life expectancy. For that reason, many people see the additional coverage of 20 million new people through Obamacare as a crucial step forward.

    However, this new coverage hasn’t come without major challenges. Obamacare is plagued by soaring premiums, insurers leaving the program, and coverage monopolies in certain states. This puts America’s healthcare at an inflection point, and no one really seems to know how to solve it.

    THE OBAMACARE DILEMMA

    The following infographic from Healthgrad sums up the most recent metrics on Obamacare, as well as showing the double and triple digit rises in premiums that some states are facing.

     

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

     

    As the infographic notes, the cost of healthcare has continued to escalate year after year, outpacing both inflation and wage growth. Obamacare has not been immune from this trend, and premiums are now being hiked because of low enrollment, mispriced plans, a dwindling pool of insurers, decreased competition in exchanges, and sicker patients than expected.

    Despite only 25% of Americans supporting the outright repeal of Obamacare, it’s looking more and more likely that the healthcare system of tomorrow won’t look quite like it does today.

    THE POST-OBAMACARE ERA

    Right now, nobody knows quite what the future holds for U.S. healthcare.

    Repealing or replacing Obamacare is fraught with at least six major issues, but perhaps the most significant one is a lack of decisiveness within the Republican party itself. What would Obamacare be replaced with, and how would that change be implemented?

    Interestingly, there are at least seven Republican plans that have been tabled to replace Obamacare. Within that group, two of the more prominent ones come from Georgia Rep. Tom Price and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

    Tom Price, who is Trump’s pick as the incoming secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has already published his consumer-driven healthcare model, and it already exists in legal language. In additional, Paul Ryan released his own proposal in the form of the A Better Way plan earlier this year, which also touches on other issues such as poverty, national security, and the economy.

    Despite the number of options, the problem is that no one can agree on a particular solution. The party is heavily divided, and Trump is already receiving heavy blowback from the Tea Party faction for telegraphing potential delays in repealing or replacing the act.

  • Trump's Biggest Test So Far

    Authored by Eric Zuesse,

    On December 7th, was posed the biggest test so far of the mettle of America’s President-Elect, Donald Trump.

    He had said several times during his campaign, that if elected as President, he would seek a new, less-hostile, relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Now the moment has come when he must either make his first move forward with that historic commitment, or else – by his own inaction when the circumstances (such as right now) demand immediate action on this very promise – set his future U.S. Presidential Administration onto exactly the opposite path: following through with and accepting the existing hostilities, even when they are the most blatantly irrational and counter-factual on their American basis (as now is the case).

    The precipitating event here is this: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on December 7th that they want to continue the existing hostilities against Russia: specifically the economic sanctions that U.S. President Barack Obama initiated against Russia after Russia had accepted the overwhelming (90%+) request of the residents in Crimea to restore Crimea’s pre-1954 status, of being for hundreds of years an integral part of Russia.

    The way Steinmeier phrased it was, “The necessary significant progress” by Russia in the implementation of the Minsk Peace Agreement for Ukraine, has not been achieved, and so the sanctions against Russia “will continue to exist.”

    By “the necessary significant progress” he was referring actually to the thing that has been blocking the carrying-out of the Minsk agreements: the Ukrainian Government’s refusal to adhere to provision #11 of the Minsk II Accords, the provision that says Ukraine will pass an amendment to its Constitution so as to provide “special administrative status” within Ukraine to the two breakaway regions, Donbass (where 90% of the residents had voted for the Ukrainian President whom U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration had overthrown in a bloody coup in February 2014, which coup sparked Donbass’s breakaway), and Crimea (where 75% had voted for that deposed President, whose bloody removal by Obama’s operation sparked Crimea’s breakaway on 16 March 2014, three weeks after that coup).

    What Stoltenberg and Steinmeier ought to be demanding, then, certainly is not continuation of sanctions against Russia for something that Russia isn’t responsible for and actually opposes (a breaking of that promise by the Ukainian Goverment), which is Ukraine’s refusal to comply with provision #11 of the Minsk II Accords, but, instead, sanctions against the Ukrainian Government itself, and perhaps also against the U.S. Government, for their opposing and blocking implementation of that key provision of the Accords (and, perhaps belatedly, also for that coup).

    However, since NATO and Germany are not (such as they’re claiming to be) demanding Ukraine’s compliance with the Minsk Accords, perhaps other nations should instead consider imposing economic sanctions against NATO and Germany, as a possible alternative way of achieving implementation of those Accords, by penalizing NATO and Germany for pushing forward with this lie and moving in the opposite direction — toward war — from the direction (ending the West’s confrontation with Russia) which the U.S. President-elect had said he wants. And, of course, economic sanctions against the United States Government, for its having illegally imposed a coup-government in Kiev, and so precipitated the entire confrontation, might also be considered. Those options could be rational, but what Steinmeier and Stoltenberg are demanding is certainly not.

    U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump can eliminate any such necessity, however, and also fulfill his basic campaign promise regarding U.S.-Russian relations, by informing both NATO and Germany that, unlike his immediate predecessor in the U.S. White House (Obama), a President Donald Trump will push for an immediate end to the Obama-sanctions against Russia.

    This move on Trump’s part needn’t necessarily be accompanied by any official repudiation of his predecessor’s actions regarding Ukraine and regarding Russia, but it would, in and of itself, establish a new and far more peaceful future course in international relations, in which all nations will be able to unify around the common goal for international security, of wiping out jihadists — no longer any trumped-up accusations and hostilities that extend and needlessly continue old-style big-power rivalries, which unnecessarily drain the world’s resources and kill thousands of people, for merely partisan, and clearly counter-productive and potentially catastrophic, purposes.

    If President-Elect Trump declines to take advantage of this “blatant” opportunity to change course in a constructive direction on U.S. foreign relations, then what realistic expectation can there be that he ever will do so? Can a more “blatant” instance to initiate his promised change-of-direction be even imagined?

    *  *  *

    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.

  • California State Senator Files Legislation To Create "Safe Zones" For Illegal Immigrants

    Only in California.  California State Senator Kevin de Leon has introduced a bill, SB-54 or the “California Values Act” (because if you disagree with this legislation then you’re obviously just an immoral, racist asshole), that explicitly prohibits “state and local law enforcement agencies” from investigating, detaining, detecting, reporting or arresting people for “immigration enforcement purposes.”  Moreover, the bill would force “public schools, hospitals, and courthouses” to establish “safe zones” that “limit immigration enforcement on their
    premises.”

    Per SB-54:

    This bill would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments from using resources to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, or to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin, as specified. The bill would require state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose, as specified. The bill would require public schools, hospitals, and courthouses to establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises and would require the Attorney General, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies for use by those entities for those purposes.

    Deleon

     

    In support of the legislation, De Leon notes that “immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community” and that attempts to enforce immigration laws simply create fear of the police among “immigrant community members” who then shy away from “approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes.”  Yes, by that logic we should probably stop enforcing all laws because we suspect that pretty much everyone that has broken a state or federal law is somewhat reluctant to approach the police…which is totally unfair!

    885.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:

     

    (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent.

     

    (b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local law enforcement agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California.

     

    (c) This trust is threatened when local law enforcement agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes.

     

    (d) This act seeks to protect the safety and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments.

    Meanwhile, per The Hill, De Leon has vowed that California will be the “wall of justice” for illegal immigrants “should the incoming administration adopt an inhumane and over-reaching mass-deportation policy.”

    The bill “will make it clear California public schools, hospitals, and courthouses will not be used by the Trump regime to deport our families, friends, neighbors, classmates and co-workers,” said Assemblyman Marc Levine (D), the bill’s chief sponsor in the lower chamber.

     

    The measure does not prohibit law enforcement agencies from transferring violent offenders into federal custody to be deported. But it does prohibit those agencies from acting as federal immigration officers and cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in order to deport other undocumented immigrants.

     

    “To the millions of undocumented residents pursuing and contributing to the California Dream, the state of California will be your wall of justice should the incoming administration adopt an inhumane and over-reaching mass-deportation policy,” de León said in a statement.

    Of course, all of this begs the question of why, if the State of California is allowed to pick and choose which federal laws it decides to enforce, would municipalities and local police departments have to enforce all state laws…perhaps we should take it one step further and just let each city police department pick which laws they want to enforce.

     

    Here is the full text of SB-54:

  • Carrier & The Broken Window Narrative

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

    “Trump saves jobs in Indiana before even being President. This is how you make ‘America Great Again.” 

    Between promises to cut corporate taxes from 35% to 15%, reduce regulatory burdens and penalize companies who leave the U.S., markets, economists and analysts are all trying to figure out what it means. As I noted on Tuesday, the always bullish analysts are already pushing up corporate earnings to record levels while the mainstream media is fostering the idea of an economic resurgence to levels last seen during the Reagan Administration. In turn, this will result in higher inflation, higher interest rates and an end to the stagflationary environment that has gripped the economy over the last 8-years.

    Well, that is what is hoped for.

    I thought it might be useful to take a look at the specifics of the deal struck with Carrier and the reality of the current economic backdrop as it relates to fostering future job growth, higher wages and the avoidance of a recessionary outcome.

     

    The Art Of The Deal

    Supporters of Donald Trump have praised the president-elect for working out a deal to keep jobs at a manufacturing plant in Indiana from being moved to Mexico.

    The deal with Carrier, which makes heating, air conditioning, and refrigerator parts, meant that roughly 1,000 workers will keep their jobs in Indiana. However, in exchange for keeping those jobs in Indiana, Carrier will receive $7 million in tax credits and other incentives which will ultimately be picked up by the taxpayers of Indiana. Carrier also said it will invest $16 million in its Indianapolis plant.

    According to Carrier, they would have saved $65 million a year by moving operations to Mexico which begs the question of how tax credits and a company investment of $16 million will equalize the disparity of costs.

    For that answer let’s go to Greg Hayes, the CEO of Carrier, who appeared on Monday’s edition of “Mad Money” with Jim Cramer. (Transcript courtesy of Business Insider)

    JIM CRAMER: What’s good about Mexico? What’s good about going there? And obviously what’s good about staying here?

     

    GREG HAYES: So what’s good about Mexico? We have a very talented workforce in Mexico. Wages are obviously significantly lower. About 80% lower on average. But absenteeism runs about 1%. Turnover runs about 2%. Very, very dedicated workforce.

    JIM CRAMER: Versus America?

     

    GREG HAYES: Much higher.

     

    JIM CRAMER: Much higher.

     

    GREG HAYES: Much higher. And I think that’s just part of these — the jobs, again, are not jobs on an assembly line that people really find all that attractive over the long term. Now I’ve got some very long service employees who do a wonderful job for us. And we like the fact that they’re dedicated to UTC, but I would tell you the key here, Jim, is not to be trained for the job today. Our focus is how do you train people for the jobs of tomorrow?

    As I have discussed on the “Lance Roberts Show” in the past, and this is important, while foreign countries have cheaper labor (not demanding $15/hr minimum wages to flip burgers) they also have a more dedicated workforce willing to work the kind of low-skilled jobs American’s do not find attractive. To wit:

    GREG HAYES: The assembly lines in Indiana — I mean, great people, great people. But the skill set to do those jobs is very different than what it takes to assemble a jet engine.

    So, why did Hayes actually decide to cancel the move to Mexico?

    GREG HAYES: So, there was a cost as we thought about keeping the Indiana plant open. At the same time, and I’ll tell you this because you and I, we know each other, but I was born at night but not last night. I also know that about 10% of our revenue comes from the US government. And I know that a better regulatory environment, a lower tax rate can eventually help UTC in the long run.

     

    Offsetting Higher Costs

    So, as I asked earlier, how to do you equalize the cost of saving $65 million annually by moving to Mexico in exchange for $7 million in one-time tax credit and incentives.

    That is where the $16 million investment comes in.

    In order to justify keeping the Indiana plant open, the company will inject $16 million to drive down the cost of production to reduce the operating gap between the US and Mexico.

    GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we’re going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with a lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we’ll make the capital investments there.

     

    JIM CRAMER: Right.

     

    GREG HAYES: But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.

    The deal may have saved 1,000 jobs in Indiana today, but that doesn’t solve the structural employment dynamics of a 21st-century economy.

     

    The Broken Window

    The interesting thing about the Carrier deal is it is the very essence of the “broken window” narrative of economic creation. A window is destroyed, therefore the window has to be replaced which leads to economic activity throughout the economy.

    However, the fallacy of the “broken window” narrative is that economic activity is only changed and not increased. The dollars used to pay for the window can no longer be used for their original intended purpose.

    With the Carrier deal, while jobs may be retained, the dollars that would have belonged to the taxpayers are now diverted from their original use into assisting Carrier to keep existing jobs.

    In reality, the effect of the Carrier deal is a net negative for Indiana as dollars are diverted from taxpayers which would have created activity elsewhere in the economy. The jobs are still going to be lost at some point as they are displaced by advances in productivity.

    The issues surrounding the “Carrier” deal are problematic going forward as well.

    On Wednesday, in an interview with Time magazine’s Michael Scherer after being named Time’s Person of the Year, Trump said he wants to speak with the CEO of any company considering shipping jobs overseas. Trump told Reince Priebus, the next White House chief of staff:

    “‘Hey, Reince, I want to get a list of companies that have announced they’re leaving,’ he called out. ‘I can call them myself. Five minutes apiece. They won’t be leaving. OK?'”

    What deals will have to cut in order to keep these companies from leaving or simply automating their workforces? Who is going to pay for those deals? What is the true economic cost and benefit?

    There is no free lunch.

     

    It’s Structural

    Yes, reducing taxes, easing regulations and repatriating dollars held offshore which will increase corporate profitability and liquidity. But, will such increase employment, expand production and raise wages?

    Let’s use a simple example.

    • Company A manufactures and sells a “widget.” 
    • They sell 10,000 units a year with a domestic manufacturing cost of $15/hr and a net profit of $5 per unit AFTER taxes.
    • Trump reduces taxes from $35 to $15 which increases the net profit per unit to $5.73 per unit.
    • Net profit for the company rises from $50,000 to $57,300 annually.
    • They able to repatriate $10,000 held in offshore facilities. 
    • A specific regulation is eliminated which now reduces operational costs by $5000 annually. 

    What does the company do with their new found sources of profits and liquidity?

    While the company owners will experience a greater income annually from the tax savings, reduced regulatory costs and repatriation of dollars, there was no increase in the annual demand for their widgets. Since the demand for widgets has not risen in our example, there is no need to expand the production of widgets or increase employment.

    Yes, the owners of the company may opt to keep their employees in the U.S. for now because of increased income currently, but eventually, those $15/hr wages will be reduced to $5/hr through outsourcing as competition reduces the profit margins on “widgets.”

    Since there was no increase in actual demand from consumers, the best use of capital will return back to shareholder benefits. As Goldman Sachs recently noted about the use of repatriated dollars:

    “Buybacks will rise by 30% as companies repatriate cash held overseas. Dividends will rise by 6% in 2017, above the 4% growth rate currently implied by the dividend swap market.”

    Last time I checked, stock buybacks do not create jobs.

    Without an increase in demand, there is little reason to invest dollars into capacity which has been evident over the last few years. As shown in the chart below, personal consumption expenditures during the Reagan administration were 300% higher than today.

    pce-fixedinvestment-120716-2

    Furthermore, consumer indebtedness was low and just beginning to rise allowing consumption to expand at faster rates versus the high levels of debt today.

    debt-gdp-incomes-120716-2

    It is an interesting conundrum since rising production (jobs) leads to higher levels of consumption. However, it is the demand, real or perceived, for a company’s products or services which drives the need for employment and increased production. With consumers effectively “running on empty,” the ability for a further ramp in consumption to create the needed demand is simply lacking. 

    While the Carrier deal did save jobs, for now, what was missed is the need to focus on the structural employment shifts that have occurred since the turn of the century and will continue to occur in the future.

    As noted by Scott Sumner:

    “The FRED series shows total manufacturing output rising from 69.789 in 1987 to 129.129 in the most recent quarter. That’s an 85% gain.

     

    At the same time, manufacturing employment has fallen, from 17.499 million to 12.275 million. This represents a decline from 17.3% of total employment to only 8.5% of total employment. That’s the figure that has people so upset. But the cause is not trade; it’s automation.”

    manufacturing-output-jobs-120816

    Think about all of the disruptive technologies currently in play from Amazon, to Uber, to robotics and more. Every industry, business, and employee is under attack from increases in productivity, the drive for lower costs and higher profit margins.

    “When people say they are upset about trade, I think that what really bothers them is that automation is allowing us to produce 85% more manufactured goods with far fewer workers. That transition has been painful for many workers, but it’s not about trade—except in one respect.

     

    Trade allows the US to concentrate in industries where we have a comparative advantage (aircraft, chemicals, agricultural products, high tech goods, movies, pharmaceuticals, coal, etc.) We then import cars, toys, sneakers, TVs, clothing, furniture and lots of other goods. It’s likely that our productivity is higher in the industries where we export as compared to the industries where we import. So in that sense, trade may be speeding up the pace by which automation costs jobs. But probably only slightly; in previous posts I’ve shown that even within a given industry, such as steel, the job loss is overwhelmingly about automation, not trade.“

    There are certain low-skilled jobs being lost to other countries which have lower labor costs. They are also being lost to technology due to the lack of specific skill sets and a work ethic. Technological developments are a bigger threat to American workers than trade which is the trend of the future and the crux of the structural employment change.

    As Greg Hayes noted in the interview with Jim Cramer, companies like United Technologies are focused on how to “train people for the jobs of tomorrow.” 

    The “Carrier” deal, and future deals like it, only succeed in temporarily keeping the jobs of yesterday with a cost to taxpayers today.

  • In Unprecedented Move, Dallas Pension System Suspends Withdrawals

    Two days after the Mayor of Dallas, Mike Rawlings, filed a lawsuit against the Dallas Police and Fire Pension system to block withdrawals, which he referred to as a “run on the bank” of an “insolvent” pension system in “financial crisis, the Pension’s board has finally taken steps to halt further withdrawals.  Of course, this delayed action has come only after $500 million in deposits have been withdrawn since just August. 

    According to the Dallas Daily News, an incremental $154mm in withdrawal requests were pending at the time the decision was made earlier today.

    The Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s Board of Trustees suspended lump-sum withdrawals from the pension fund Thursday, staving off a possible restraining order and stopping $154 million in withdrawal requests.

     

    The system was set to pay out the weekly requests Friday. Pension officials said allowing the withdrawals would leave them without the liquid reserves required to sustain $2.1 billion fund.

     

    “Our situation is currently critical, and we took action,” Board chairman Sam Friar said.

    Rawlings

    While Dallas citizens cheered the decision, even opponents of the Mayor’s admitted that the redemptions had to be halted if the city had any chance of saving the pension system from insolvency.

    Rawlings on Thursday afternoon told a crowd gathered at a Dallas Regional Chamber that “the bleeding has stopped. We can turn this ship around.”

     

    The crowd responded with cheers after the mayor’s announcement of the board’s decision.

     

    At the pension board meeting, the mood was more somber.

     

    Council member Scott Griggs said he couldn’t let the $154 million “go out the door” on Friday.

     

    His council colleague, Philip Kingston, a board trustee, said the mayor “unquestionably” forced the pension board’s hand. He said Thursday was “the worst day I’ve had in public office.”

     

    “Unfortunately, financially, this had to happen,” he said.

     

    The fund has about $729 million in liquid assets. It needs to keep about $600 million on hand, meaning the restrictions could have been coming at some point even without the mayor’s actions. The withdrawal requests this week alone would have meant the fund would dip below that level.

    Rawlings

    Of course, not everyone was happy with the decision as at least one retired police officer threatened a lawsuit to force the fund to honor redemption requests while another declared that Mayor Rawlings had “successfully screwed over the retirees, the firefighters and the police officers.”

    One retired police sergeant, Pete Bailey, suggested a lawsuit could be in the offing if the system didn’t pay out the requests that were made Tuesday. Friar understood that they might deal with more litigation.

     

    “We may just have to deal with that, but that’s what the board decides,” Friar said. “We acted in the best interest of the pension fund today.”

     

    Retired Dallas police officer Jerry Rhodes, a pension meeting fixture, said he believed the board did what it had to do. Then he sarcastically lauded Rawlings.

     

    “Merry Christmas, mayor,” he said. “Hopefully you have a good Christmas because you have successfully screwed over the retirees, the firefighters and the police officers.”

    Perhaps future ponzi schemes pension systems will take note of Dallas’ current situation prior to guaranteeing 8% returns on retirees’ pension balances.  Who could have ever guessed that a decision like that could have backfired so badly?

     

    * * *

    For those who missed it, here is what we recently posted after Mayor Rawlings sued to halt pension withdrawals.

    Last week, Dallas Mayor Michael Rawlings sent a scathing letter to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension (DPFP) Board demanded that withdrawals be halted immediately until the “solvency and actuarial soundness of the Pension System is restored.”  That said, the Mayor’s request was seemingly ignored as he has now filed a lawsuit with the Dallas District Court to force the pension board to halt withdrawals amid a “run on the bank.”

    Within the suit, Rawlings notes that $500 million in lump-sum withdrawals have been made from the DPFP since August 2016 with $80 million of that amount being withdrawn in the first 2 weeks of November alone.  The suit continues on to allege that “this mass exodus of DROP funds amounts to a “run on the bank” and is exacerbating the financial peril of the Pension System as a whole.”

    In performing these ministerial duties, the Board has a duty to ensure that programs, such as the Pension System’s optional Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”), which is not a constitutionally protected benefit (or “benefit” at all), do not impair or reduce the Pension System’s core constitutionally protected benefits, e.g., service retirement benefits. The Board is willfully failing to perform these ministerial duties.

     

    The Pension System, which the Board oversees, is in the midst of a financial crisis. In early 2016, the Board was warned by its own actuary that absent radical change,the Pension System would become insolvent within 15 years—irrevocably eradicating the constitutionally protected service retirement benefits (and other constitutionally protected benefits) of police and firefighter personnel of the City and their beneficiaries.

     

    Critically, this 15-year projection of insolvency was based upon two overly optimistic assumptions that the Board has now known to be incorrect for several months. First, the actuary assumed that the Pension System’s $2.7 billion in assets would remain stable, even though approximately 56% of these assets were composed of optional DROP funds, which have historically been permitted to be withdrawn in lump-sums upon demand (even though this option was used infrequently before this year). Second, the actuary assumed that the Pension System would achieve its targeted 7.25% return or more on itsinvestments for the next 15 years.

     

    Publication of this looming insolvency scenario prompted some DROP Participants to withdraw their DROP funds in lump-sum, which created a “snowball”effect, leading a staggering number of other DROP Participants to withdraw nearly $500 million in optional lump-sum DROP funds from the Pension System from August 13, 2016 to present. Over $80 million of these lump-sum DROP withdrawals have occurred within the first two weeks of November 2016 alone. Over this three-month time period, the Board has knowingly allowed DROP funds to continue to be withdrawn at record levels even though it is aware that doing so is irreparably harming the Pension System’s solvency and liquidity.

     

    Lump-sum DROP withdrawals for 2016 are now on pace to be over 15 times higher than their historical average. This mass exodus of DROP funds amounts to a “run on the bank” and is exacerbating the financial peril of the Pension System as a whole.

     

    The DPFP contreversy comes as hundreds of police and firefighters have poured millions into “DROP” accounts in which they were guaranteed exorbitant returns of 8% while the pension board has proposed a $1 billion bailout from the city of Dallas. 

    The city estimates that, as of November, 517 police and firefighters have DROP accounts containing more than $1 million. One, belonging to an unnamed first responder, has $4.3 million in it, city figures show. On average, the city estimates that the average DROP account contains nearly $600,000.

     

    The controversy all comes at a time when the board has asked the cash-strapped city for a bailout over $1 billion. The board’s position is that they legally can’t stop the withdrawals, but the mayor disagrees.

    Of course, this all begs the question of whether the Dallas Police and Fire Pension will be the first pension ponzi to burst?

    Here is the full lawsuit filed by Dallas Mayor Michael Rawlings:

  • "Then We Will Fight In The Shade" – A Guide To Winning The Media Wars

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

    – Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    The ongoing battle between independent, alternative media and legacy corporate-government sponsored propaganda media is in full swing following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. While I’m no big fan of Trump, his win has so emotionally damaged the U.S. status quo they have begun to lash out in a hysterical and careless manner against those they feel prevented Her Highness, Hillary Clinton, from ascending to the throne.

    The escalation of this fight, which I have referred to as “The Media Wars” since the summer, was easy to foresee. As I noted in the post, Questioning Hillary’s Health is Not Conspiracy Theory:

    As I look at the landscape in 2016 to-date, I observe emergent signs that alternative media is finally beginning to take over from the legacy mainstream media when it comes to impact and influence. The mainstream media (unlike with John McCain in 2008), had decided that Hillary Clinton’s health was not an issue and chose not to pursue it. Many in the alternative media world took a different position, and due to mainstream media’s failure to inform the American public for decades, the alternative media drove that issue to the top of the news cycle.

     

    That’s power.

     

    This is an incredibly big deal, and the mainstream media intuitively knows what it means. It means a total loss of legitimately, prestige and power. All of which is well deserved of course.

     

    So here’s the bottom line. 2016 represents the true beginning of what I would call the Media Wars. Alternative media is now capable of driving the news cycle. Mainstream media now has no choice but to fight back, and fight back it will. It will fight back dirty. This is going to get very ugly, but by the time the dust has settled, I think much of the mainstream media will be left as a shell of its former self.

    2016 was the year when alternative, independent media went from being merely influential, to affecting the outcome of a Presidential election. As was widely reported, basically every single newspaper in the nation endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. The fact she lost anyway represented the greatest middle finger to the media (and the status quo generally) doled out by the American public in at least a generation.

    While genuinely fake Macedonia-based news sites certainly garnered a lot of clicks (and revenue) by inventing ridiculous stories, anyone who really thinks this is what led to Hillary’s defeat is simply in denial. We all know that independent websites taking Hillary to task on her very real and very deplorable track record of being a compulsive liar is what was truly decisive. The mainstream media knows this, which is why they haven’t actually been focusing on censoring provably fake news sites, but rather have been promoting an agenda to lump any non-establishment perspectives within the umbrella of “fake news” in order to destroy their competition and regain an upper hand in the national narrative. If those of us who value independent media want to thwart this nefarious plan, we need to fully understand what these cretins are up to.

    To that end, I want to turn your attention to one of the best articles I’ve read on the topic. Published at Counterpunch and titled, Manufacturing Normality, here are a few excerpts (definitely make sure to read the entire thing):

    Sometime circa mid-November, in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat (i.e., the beginning of the end of democracy), the self-appointed Guardians of Reality, better known as the corporate media, launched a worldwide marketing campaign against the evil and perfidious scourge of “fake news.” This campaign is now at a fever pitch. Media outlets throughout the empire are pumping out daily dire warnings of the imminent, existential threat to our freedom posed by the “fake news” menace. This isn’t the just the dissemination of disinformation, propaganda, and so on, that’s been going on for thousands of years … Truth itself is under attack. The very foundations of Reality are shaking.

     

    Who’s behind this “fake news” menace? Well, Putin, naturally, but not just Putin. It appears to be the work of a vast conspiracy of virulent anti-establishment types, ultra-alt-rightists, ultra-leftists, libertarian retirees, armchair socialists, Sandernistas, Corbynistas, ontological terrorists, fascism normalizers, poorly educated anti-Globalism freaks, and just garden variety Clinton-haters.

     

    As I suggested in these pages previously, what we are experiencing is the pathologization (or the “abnormalization”) of political dissent, i.e., the systematic stigmatization of any and all forms of non-compliance with neoliberal consensus reality. Political distinctions like “left” and “right” are disappearing, and are being replaced by imponderable distinctions like “normal” and “abnormal,” “true” and “false,” and “real” and “fake.” Such distinctions do not lend themselves to argument. They are proffered to us as axiomatic truths, empirical facts which no normal person would ever dream of contradicting.

     

    In place of competing political philosophies, the neoliberal intelligentsia is substituting a simpler choice, “normality” or “abnormality.” The nature of the “abnormality” varies according to what is being stigmatized. Today it’s “Corbyn the anti-Semite,” tomorrow it’s “Sanders the racist crackpot,” or “Trump the Manchurian candidate,” or whatever. That the smears themselves are indiscriminate (and, in many instances, totally ridiculous) belies the effectiveness of the broader strategy, which is simply to abnormalize the target and whatever he or she represents. It makes no difference whether one is smeared as a racist, as Sanders was during the primaries, or as an anti-Semite, as Corbyn has been, or a fascist, as Trump has relentlessly been, or peddlers of Russian propaganda, as Truthout, CounterPunch, Naked Capitalism, and a number of other publications have been … the message is, they are somehow “not normal.”

     

    Why is this any different from the shameless smear jobs the press has been doing on people since the invention of the press and shameless smear jobs? Well, hold on, because I’m about to tell you. Mostly it has to do with words, especially binary oppositions like “real” and “fake,” and “normal” and “abnormal,” which are, of course, essentially meaningless … their value being purely tactical. Which is to say they denote nothing. They are weapons deployed by a dominant group to enforce conformity to its consensus reality. This is how they’re being used at the moment.

     

    The meaningless binary oppositions that the neoliberal intelligentsia and the corporate media are supplanting traditional opposing political philosophies with (i.e., normal/abnormal, real/fake), in addition to stigmatizing a diversity of sources of non-conforming information and ideas, are also restructuring our consensus reality as a conceptual territory in which anyone thinking, writing, or speaking outside the mainstream is deemed some kind of “deviant,” or “extremist,” or some other form of social pariah. Again, it doesn’t matter what kind, as “deviance” in itself is the point.

     

    Actually, the opposite of deviance is the point. Because this is how “normality” is manufactured. And how consensus reality as a whole is manufactured … and how the manufacturing process is concealed.

    The above hits the nails entirely on the head. It also explains why it took the Washington Post two weeks to even address the fact that it published a fake news article about “fake news.” Here’s how The Washington Post is “taking responsibility.”

    screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-10-30-16-am

    While absolutely pathetic, the editor’s note is equally telling in its sloppiness and arrogance. For instance, the article was a such a gross piece of journalistic malpractice, the only honest, professional move by the paper would be to fully retract the story and apologize; yet The Washington Post didn’t do that. Why?

    The reason is because the paper and its editors knew exactly what they was doing with the publication and promotion of this nonsensical fake news hit-piece. Sure, they’re now a bit embarrassed because they were called out by pretty much everybody, but the intent all along was to tie independent media sites with absolutely no connection to Russia, to Russia, in a desperate attempt to recapture the public narrative via blacklists and tech company censorship.

    As an aside, for specifics on how the status quo is attempting to use developers and social media companies to censor alternative opinion under the guise of fighting “fake news,” read this excellent article published at Naked Capitalism: Witch Hunt: “Fake News” Software Touted by CBS Smears Naked Capitalism, ShadowProof, TruthDig, Others; Creator Admits He Made Up Who Went on Hit List.

    Now that we know what they are up to, how worried should we be? Although I’m extremely optimistic about the future of decentralized, independent media, and the proliferation of individual voices generally, it’s quite obvious legacy media gatekeepers will not go down without a fight. The good news is they are the ones who are on the defensive, not us. They are the ones who are battling on our terms, not the other way around. A great example of this can be seen in how the “fake news” meme has been turned around against the mainstream media to great effect. As I tweeted earlier today:

    It is when you get desperate, scared and panicky that you make the biggest mistakes, and the legacy media is currently desperate, scared and panicky.  As Napoleon Bonaparte allegedly said:

    “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

    Whether or not he actually said them, those words still ring true. We mustn’t get in the way of the legacy media’s inevitable self-destruction. Part of this means that we do not self-destruct in the process. We need to recognize that there’s a reason independent, alternative media is winning the battle of ideas in the first place. For all the warts, mistakes and bad actors, the emergence of the internet is indeed the historical equivalent of the invention of the printing press on steroids.

    Only a clueless self-important elitist actually believes that the smartest, most informed people in America are the pundits on tv and the journalists employed by the mainstream media. With a handful of companies and a few oligarchs in charge, you’d have to be the most naive fool on earth to not understand that legacy media is driven by well defined narratives, and that these narratives are not in your best interest. The rest of us understand that the Internet has served as a much needed countervailing force, and has been an incredible blessing to human knowledge, connectivity and the marketplace of ideas. Just because some people can’t distinguish truth from fiction, doesn’t negate the incredible progress that decentralized information dissemination provides. It is only those who do not wish to engage in public debate on the issues themselves who want to censor stuff. The rest of us are more than happy to have an open discussion.

    Many of us have spent years, if not decades, building up our online reputations and we should be careful not to squander all we have gained. There will be attempts at co-option, explicitly and otherwise. Be on guard. There will be hit-pieces and smear attempts. Stay cool and fight back from a position of strength and calm. However, I believe the greatest threat comes from the ever present danger of self-inflicted error. Part of the reason independent, alternative media has been so successful is legacy media has made it easy to look good by being so obviously captured, puerile and propagandistic. We must continue to be better than they are. As such, we must be more honest in our actions, less hypocritical in our analysis of events, and just more ethical overall. Given the competition, this shouldn’t be difficult.

    Another way the status quo will fight back is by attacking our means of surviving financially, which means readers must be prepared to donate to your favorite sites more than ever before (you can support Liberty Blitzkrieg here). The other way will be to prevent our content from appearing on social media sites or search engines, or when it does appear, it will come with a warning. If this is the tactic they choose, it’ll be relatively easy to fight back.

    Ten years ago it would’ve been hard to counter such a strategy, but not today. The cat is simply too far out of the bag. Too many of us reach too many people, and many of the people we reach are smart and influential. We have already sufficiently infiltrated and influenced the public discourse, so denying us a voice is no longer an option. If Facebook or Google start presenting Liberty Blitzkrieg, Zerohedge, or Naked Capitalism with warning labels, the intelligent amongst us with see right through this tactic and become disgusted.

    So let me end this with a warning to Facebook, Google, and all the other tech behemoths. You start this fight at your own risk. Any disingenuous attempt to smear genuine, independent media websites via blacklists and censorship will ultimately harm you more than it harms us. In a misguided attempt to destroy us, you will destroy yourselves. Tread carefully and be on the right side of history.

    To everyone else, stay strong. My writing would be irrelevant without you. It is not alternative media writers who will inflict the final blow against legacy media, it will be you, the readers. We are in this together and dependent on each other. Together we will win.

    For related articles, see:

    Obama Enters the Media Wars – Why His Recent Attack on Free Speech is So Dangerous and Radical

    Hillary Clinton Enters the Media Wars

    The Death of Mainstream Media

    Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of “Russian Propaganda” Websites

    Additional Thoughts on “Fake News,” The Washington Post, and the Absence of Real Journalism

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 08

Today’s News 8th December 2016

  • The Collapse Of 'Real' Media Credibility (In 3 Simple Images)

    Two words – “nailed it”

    What a difference 4 months makes… From Meltdown to Total Meltdown to Man Of The Year…

    h/t @insidegame

    As FoxNews notes however, while President-elect Donald Trump was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year on Wednesday, the honor basically ended there.

    While describing Trump as the real change-maker of 2016, the magazine also ragged on the Republican president-elect as a “huckster” and “demagogue” while reserving its most glowing praise for runner-up Hillary Clinton — whom the edition breathlessly described as “an American Moses.”

     

    In describing Trump, Time’s article almost exclusively used backhanded compliments. For instance, while the piece said he “did what no American politician had attempted in a generation,” it added that he “magnified the divisions of the present, inspiring new levels of anger and fear within his country.”

     

    …

     

    The article on Hillary Clinton is much different. Subtitled “The winner of the popular vote leaves a complicated legacy,” the tone is worlds away from the fulminating darkness that permeates the Trump piece.

     

    The opening paragraph reads more like the prologue of St. John’s Gospel than an essay on a presidential runner-up, saying of Clinton: “she became a symbol in a fight that was about much more than symbolism.”

     

    “She’s the woman who was almost President, she is what might have been and what will yet be.”

     

    “Like an American Moses, she was an imperfect prophet, leading women to the edge of the Promised Land. Now it’s up to another woman to enter it.”

    The big question is, will TIME name Putin ‘Man of the Year’ in 2017? 

  • Yuan Strengthens After Rebound In China Exports, Trade Balance Disappoints

    It appears that devaluing your currency against by over 10% in a year against your major trading partners does have some affect (albeit delayed). China Exports (in Yuan terms) grew at 5.9% in November (the fastest growth since March) (well ahead of the expected 1% decline). Imports, however, also soared (by 13%) in Yuan terms. However, in USD terms, Imports rose by the most since Sept 2014 (and exports managed a small rise) as China's trade surplus slipped and missed expectations. Offshore Yuan is strengthening modestly on the print.

    A 10%-plus devaluation…

    And in Yuan terms, China Exports are surging…

     

    And in USD terms, Exports also managed a small improvement (as imports soared)…

     

    Big jumps in exports to US (+6.9% YoY), Taiwan (+6.5%), and Germany (+5.1% YoY) but exports to Russia soared 26.1% and Brazil by 36.9%.

    China import growth was centered on Japan (+17.2%) and Australia (+13.7%), but UK's massive 37.6% surge was the standout.

    As Bloomberg notes, Exports stabilizing suggests demand remains intact for now as the world’s largest exporter faces potential headwinds and policy uncertainty as Donald Trump prepares to take office Jan 20.

    Exports are getting a lift from "likely improvement in global demand," Song Yu, the Beijing-based chief China economist at Beijing Gao Hua Securities Co., the mainland joint-venture partner of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., wrote in a recent note.

    China's trade balance continues to trend lower however…

    And the immediate reaction is a modest strengthening in offshore Yuan…

  • Rise Of The Machines: Millions Of American Jobs Will Be Wiped Out In The Next Five Years

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    There is a paradigm shift coming and it is about to rewrite everything we know about economics, human labor, and government dependence.

    Earlier this week Amazon launched its first Amazon Go store, which allows a customer to walk in, grab the items they want, and simply walk out. Everything is tracked utilizing RFID chips, so the second you step out of the store Amazon knows exactly what you’ve purchased and automatically charges your account:

    Amazon Go is a system that marries physical stores with advanced algorithms and sensors to eliminate the need for a typical store checkout. Instead of packing all the things you need into a basket or cart and then dragged it through a tedious checkout process, you just grab whatever you need and walk out of the store.

     

    It sounds like a shaky concept at first, but only until you see just how advanced the technology really is. When you first walk into the store, you use your smartphone to open you virtual shopping cart. As you make your way around the store, a vast system of sensor tracks where you are, what you pick up, and what you take with you. The system even knows if you pick something up and then put it back, and will only charge you for things you actually intended to buy.

    Amazon’s latest move is simply the next evolution designed to make human labor obsolete.

    As Mike Shedlock recently pointed out at Mish Talk, the transition to automated systems like Amazon Go, as well as technologies like self-driving cars and long-haul trucks, has been fast tracked.

    We’re no longer talking decades, but rather, a few years before we start to see the direct effects on the labor market:

    Once again competition is the driving force that will guarantee success no later than a 2022-2024 time frame. By the end of that period, if not much sooner, long-haul truck jobs will vanish.

     

    …

     

    Perhaps drivers will be needed for final delivery in cities and remote locations, but the need for long-haul interstate and major state highway drivers will vanish.

     

    …

     

    My statement that “millions of long haul truck driving jobs will vanish in the 2022-2024 time frame” is likely way off on the low side if one counts Uber, taxi, and chauffeur driven vehicles.

     

    Take a look at Uber’s goal once again: “replace Uber’s more than 1?million human drivers with robot drivers—as quickly as possible.”

     

    That’s just Uber. And those jobs will vanish. All of them. What about Lyft? Taxis?

    We’re talking tens of millions of jobs. And they’ll be gone within half a decade’s time.

    The immediate response to such revelations is that there will be widespread societal upheaval.

    How will displaced human workers feed their families or keep roofs over their heads?

    The answer, according to Silicon Valley, which is driving the new paradigm full force, is quite simple and has been detailed in the highly rated documentary Obsolete from Aaron and Melissa Dykes (available free for Amazon Prime subscribers).

    It’s called “universal basic income,” or UBI, and essentially means that every member of society will be given a paycheck to meet their most basic needs.

    Aaron Dykes of TruthStream Media explains what’s coming in Obsolete:

    Basically, a general idleness, an aimlessness of people who could become revolutionary, who could be subjected to civil unrest… who will probably be on social welfare and benefits for the rest of their lives and have nothing else to look forward to.

    That’s the direction that the people in this country are actually headed towards.

     

    …

     

    Just a week and a half after Bilderberg’s June 2016 meeting it was reported that [Silicon Valley tech startup incubator] Y-Combinator was running a basic income experiment.

     

    Billed as the “Social Vaccine of the 21st Century,” in Oakland, California where some 100 families were chosen to receive $1000 or $2000 a month in order to collect valuable date in the pilot on how to implement, manage and scale further UBI incentives.

    Obsolete Documentary Trailer:

    The trend should be clear. Bilderberg members from around the world are preparing their governments and citizens for the inevitable.

    Robotics and artificial intelligence technology are advancing at a pace that will soon replace tens of millions of jobs in key economic sectors that include food service, grocery, transportation and customer service.

    What the end result will be is anyone’s guess, but we suspect the transition could destabilize the global economic system, complete with violence and revolution.

  • Chinese Driven Vancouver Housing Bubble Moves To Seattle – "This Is Vancouver 2.0"

    Back in August we noted that the Vancouver housing market was doomed after the implementation of a 15% property tax on foreign buyers targeting the massive influx of Chinese money driving real estate prices to astronomical levels.  Sure enough, within a matter of weeks home prices had plunged and so had the volume of residential real estate transactions (see “As The Vancouver Housing Market Implodes, The “Smart Money” Is Rushing To Get Out Now“).

    Three weeks after we suggested that the Vancouver housing bubble had popped in the aftermath of the implementation of the July 25 15% property tax in British Columbia targeting the Chinese free for all in Vancouver real estate, we got confirmation of that last week when we reported that only one word could describe what has happened to Vancouver housing in the past month: implosion.

     

    Zolo, a Canadian real estate brokerage, which keeps track of MLS home sales in real-time and reports prices as an average rather than the “benchmark price”, showed as of last week a major correction underway in most Metro Vancouver markets. According to the website, the City of Vancouver currently has an average home price of $1.1 million, down 20.7% over the last 28 days and down 24.5% over the last three months. The average detached home is $2.6 million, down 7% compared to three months ago. 

    The number of transactions has likewise slammed shut: while August is typically one of the slowest months for real estate transactions, MLS sales data from the first two weeks of the month shows what many have been hoping for during the last few years of escalating prices. According to MLS listing data, there were only three home sales in West Vancouver between Aug. 1 and 14 this year, compared to 52 during the same period last year. That’s a decrease of 94%.

    But, of course, all that laundered Chinese money has to go somewhere…and preferably somewhere without a 15% penalty tax on foreign buyers.  So, at just a hop, skip and a jump across the border, wealthy Chinese citizens looking to move hot cash offshore have set their sites on Seattle.  According to Bloomberg, within days of the implementation of the new Vancouver tax, real estate brokers in Seattle saw a noticeable increase in inquiries from Chinese buyers.

    Just a few days after Vancouver announced a tax on foreign property investors, Seattle real estate broker Lili Shang received a WeChat message from a wealthy Chinese businessman who wanted to sell a home in Canada and buy in her area.

     

    After a week of showings, he purchased a $1 million property in Bellevue, across Lake Washington from Seattle. He soon returned to buy two more, including a $2.2 million house in Clyde Hill paid for with a single cashier’s check.

     

    Shang says she’s been inundated with similar requests from China and Hong Kong after Vancouver’s provincial government enacted a 15 percent tax on foreign homebuyers in August to help cool soaring real estate values. With Chinese investors — the largest pool of foreign capital — looking for a place to put their cash, the unintended consequence of the fee has been to push demand to cities such as Seattle and Toronto.

     

    “The tax was the trigger of this new wave of investment now coming to Seattle,” Shang said. “Why pay more for the same thing?”

     

    “Chinese money isn’t going to sit and wait,” said David Ley, a Vancouver-based professor at the University of British Columbia’s Department of Geography, who focuses on housing. “Investors are going to find another city,” and Toronto and Seattle are the top two contenders, he said.

    Home-purchase inquiries from China have jumped materially in Seattle and Toronto since the Vancouver tax was announced, according to Juwai.com, the country’s largest overseas property website.

    Vancouver

     

    Just like Vancouver, the biggest impact from the influx of foreign capital is on the higher end properties in Seattle with one broker pointing out that the share of homes selling for over $1mm has doubled year-over-year.  And, in case there was any doubt about who was driving those high-end real estate prices higher, Sotheby’s notes that 50% of the houses it sells in the Seattle suburbs are now going to Chinese buyers, up from roughly 30% last year.

    While there are no figures specifically showing purchases made by offshore buyers, brokers say demand in Seattle and Toronto has been robust, particularly for the high-end properties Chinese investors tend to favor. In Seattle, about 12 percent of all homes this year sold for at least $1 million, double the share over the last decade, according to brokerage Windermere Real Estate. Single-family home prices in King County, where the city is located, jumped almost 15 percent in October from a year earlier, data from the local Realtors association show.

     

    The average price of a Greater Toronto home rose 23 percent in November from a year earlier to C$776,684 ($586,530), while sales soared almost 17 percent, the local real estate board reported Dec. 2. In Vancouver, meanwhile, sales have plunged since July and were down 37 percent last month compared with the prior year.

     

    Dean Jones, chief executive officer of Realogics Sotheby’s International Realty, which specializes in high-end properties and has a unit that caters to Asian buyers, estimates that about half of the homes his firm sells in Seattle’s suburbs are going to Chinese purchasers, with many of the transactions requiring the use of interpreters, international banks and multiple escrow deposits. That’s up from about 30 percent last year, he said.

     

    “This is Vancouver 2.0,” said Jones, who lived in the Canadian city about two decades ago, when the capital flow from Asia started to accelerate. “A lot of the same motivations and goals are being replicated in Seattle.”

    Well it should be fun to track exactly how many quarters it takes for Seattle’s high-end real estate prices to bubble over and crash…any guesses?

  • Trump Is Correct – Boeing Is Gouging The Taxpayer On The New Air Force One

    Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

    air-force-one-in-flight

    The designation/callsign “Air Force One” has been around since around the time of WWII, with FDR being the first president to fly while in office.  Since 1943, with only a couple exceptions, the Air Force has been flying custom versions of Boeing commercial airliners for the presidential flight mission.  Most recently replaced in 1990, the president currently flies in a modified 747 with the military designation “VC-25”; two copies were produced for a cost of $325 million apiece, and the callsign “Air Force One” is only used when the president is onboard.

    Even though it is still extremely advanced, Air Force One is due for a replacement.  Currently, the operating cost for each VC-25 is $210,877 per hour; an extremely high figure, likely because of the dated nature and high maintenance costs of both the airframe and the avionics suite.

    However, with a total program cost estimated to be around $4 billion dollars, Boeing is clearly gouging the taxpayer.  The newest derivative of Air Force One will end up being over six times as expensive as the last one, which was built on the same airframe.  I guess Boeing just thought the higher price tag was going to slip through the cracks of a bloated DoD budget?

    The older 747-200 the current VC-25s were derived from has been out of production since 1991, with the 747-8 being the current variant under production.  Boeing has considered ending production of the 747 altogether, once its current backlog of 21 aircraft orders (including the VC-25 replacements) is fulfilled.

    The relative inefficiency of the 747 is the top reason for its decline.  It has lost the highest trafficked overseas routes to the Airbus A380, which the 747 once dominated.  Also, commercial and cargo airlines have largely switched to more efficient Boeing 777s and 787s, as well as the Airbus A340 and A350, with twin engines and newer, more efficient designs cutting their costs far below that of the 747.  While it could be argued that the Air Force should modify a twin-engine Boeing jet such as the 777 or 787 instead, their desire for a larger four-engine jet to transport our nation’s leader is understandable, given the dangers the jet could face.

    Two VC-25s

    Which one of the two pictured is “Air Force One”?

    Critics have come out in force to justify the ridiculous cost of the Air Force One program, though they seem more interested in criticizing the president-elect than they do in explaining the aircraft’s price tag.  In a USA Today article detailing Trump’s attack on the cost of the AF1 program, aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia didn’t provide any evidence to support an increased cost for the jets, instead choosing to criticize the president-elect for daring to mention that the aircraft is grossly overpriced. 

    Richard Aboulafia, aviation analyst at the Teal Group, said the current Air Force One planes were made in the 1980s and have become obsolete. The planes are equipped with state-of-the-art communications technology and defense mechanisms to survive nuclear war or terrorist attacks, he said.

     

    Anything in the $3 billion to $4 billion range would be reasonable, and a belief otherwise is “completely ignorant,” he said.

     

    “This is the wrong place to talk about cost control,” Aboulafia said. “People aren’t upset in Washington about a relatively small program being canceled. They’re upset we have a president who doesn’t understand what is needed to be president.”

    Aboulafia wants you to believe that not only has the cost of replacing Air Force One gone up so drastically due to inflation, higher materials costs, redevelopment of an existing airframe, or whatever ridiculous expenditure he didn’t cite, he seems to be implying that the current VC-25s don’t already have similar EMP and nuclear/biological/chemical protections built into them already.  Of course, AF1 has all of that and more, and it is by far the most sophisticated VVIP transport plane in the world, even at 25+ years old.  Even the aircraft’s maintenance crews know that despite its age, it is anything but obsolete.

    There was no mention from USA Today that even the original contract estimation of $1.65 billion dollars for the pair of VC-25s was already a significant markup upon an airframe that had been previously modified by the Air Force for the AF1 role, and should not have been nearly that expensive to do again in the first place.  Bear in mind, as USA Today stated, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reappraised the program’s cost to the $4 billion dollar figure, noting it would be “including $2 billion for research and development”.  How exactly is this price tag considered “reasonable”?

    For reference, the other “most expensive” airplane in the Air Force’s inventory, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, is estimated to cost about the same $2 billion per copy as the new VC-25s.  However, the high per-unit cost of the B-2 is due to the buy being cut from 132 to 21, after the end of the cold war, averaging a high R&D cost across a much smaller number of aircraft.  Had the Air Force bought even another 20 of the planned units, they could have been purchased for $566 million each.  Coincidentally, the Air Force’s new stealth bomber, the B-21, is estimated to cost about $511 million a copy (before the appropriate cost overruns, of course).

    So the MSM, and our government for that matter, is OK with a replacement Air Force One being six times as expensive as its predecessor, and about as costly as four new copies of already ridiculously overpriced stealth bombers.  And the MSM is also somehow critical of the president-elect for bring this to light.  Is it any wonder they feel the need to defend their bias by calling alternative coverage “fake”?

    Trump is correct to call out Boeing for this injustice they are doing to the taxpayer.  Not only is he calling attention to another runaway military expenditure, he is putting all government contractors on notice.  Whether the MSM believes the president should be focusing his attention elsewhere or not, he is demonstrating that he is not afraid to call out any contract size or any contractor for gouging the taxpayer.

    Hopefully, Trump’s conduct will keep government contractors’ heads on swivels, and wary of the repercussions of overbilling on government contracts for as long as he is president.  Still, our government spends close to $4 trillion annually, and Trump cannot be everywhere at once.  Don’t be surprised when reports of more over-budget, behind schedule government programs appear during his presidency.

  • Judge Dismisses Jill Stein's "Speculative Claims", Orders End To Michigan Recount

    The federal judge who ordered Michigan to begin its recount on Monday effectively ended it this evening, extinguishing his earlier order, ruling that Green Party candidate Jill Stein "speculative claims" had no legal standing to request another look at ballots.

    After chaos earlier in the week amid lawsuits flying back and forth in Michigan, as AP reports, the ruling tonight seals Republican Donald Trump's narrow electoral victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in Michigan.

    U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith agreed with Republicans who argued that the three-day recount must end a day after the state appeals court dealt a blow to the effort. Stein, who finished fourth in Michigan on Nov. 8, didn't have a chance of winning even after a recount and therefore isn't an "aggrieved" candidate, the appeals court said.

     

    "Because there is no basis for this court to ignore the Michigan court's ruling and make an independent judgment regarding what the Michigan Legislature intended by the term 'aggrieved,' plaintiffs have not shown an entitlement to a recount," Goldsmith said of Stein and allies.

    It was Goldsmith's midnight ruling Monday that started the recount in Michigan. But his order dealt with timing – not whether a recount was appropriate. More than 20 counties so far are recounting ballots, and some are finished.

    Earlier Wednesday, the Michigan elections board said the recount would end if Goldsmith extinguished his earlier order.

     

    Stein got about 1 percent of the vote in three states where she's pushed for recounts — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump narrowly won all three.

     

    Stein insists she's more concerned about the accuracy of the election. She alleges, without evidence, that the elections may have been susceptible to hacking.

     

    "They present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery — but not actual injury," Goldsmith said.

    Clinton needed all three states to flip in order to take enough electoral votes to win the election.

     So Michigan is over.

     

    A court hearing will be held Friday on a possible recount in Pennsylvania.

     

    Wisconsin's recount, which started last week, has increased Trump's margin of victory over Clinton thus far.

    As a reminder, Trump has 306 electoral votes to Clinton's 232 (270 are needed to win). Michigan has 16 electoral votes, Pennsylvania has 20 and Wisconsin has 10.

    Perhaps most important/entertaining from here is that 'Electors' will convene December 19th across the country to vote for president, and then we will see just what happens when the so-called "Hamilton Electors" are called to task.

  • The Ultimate "Fake News" List

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones, originally posted at InfoWars.com,

    Isn’t it ironic how the mainstream media has the nerve to lecture everyone else about “fake news” when they are the primary source of fake news on a consistent basis stretching back years?

    Fake news stories and fake narratives put out by the mainstream media have resulted in deaths, destruction and people’s lives being ruined.

    The most harmful fake news is routinely published by the mainstream media. They are the main progenitors of fake news.

    – The fake news that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was involved in 9/11, dutifully regurgitated without question by the mainstream media, resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of dead and injured U.S. troops, and the destabilization of an entire continent.

    – The fake news that the rebels in Syria were “moderates” who did not have jihadist sympathies and should be supported led to the destruction of Syria, Libya and the rise of ISIS.

    – The fake news narrative that the media was balanced in its coverage of the presidential election was completely obliterated when Wikileaks emails revealed that countless mainstream media reporters were in bed with the Clinton campaign, feeding them debate questions beforehand and conspiring with Hillary’s staff to portray her in a positive light.

    – The fake news that George Zimmerman was obsessed with Trayvon Martin’s race before the altercation that led to Martin’s death was accomplished by means of NBC deceptively editing an audio tape. This incident stoked racial tensions across the country and laid the groundwork for the violent ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement that was to follow.

    – The fake news that produced the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative, which was proven to be completely fraudulent, led to riots, violent attacks and looting in Ferguson, Missouri, as well as numerous other U.S. cities. Even after the rioting began, the mainstream media continued to legitimize the unrest. Fake news outlets continued to parrot the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative even after it was proven false.

    – The fake news that saw innumerable people accused of rape at college campuses across America, claims that were proven wrong, ruined people’s lives and perpetuated the myth (fake news) that one in five women are raped on college campuses.

    – The fake news that George W. Bush served dishonorably during his time in the Air National Guard was broadcast by CBS News with the aid of fake documents. In circulating this fake news, CBS tried to influence the 2004 presidential election but only ended up crucifying their own credibility, leading to Dan Rather’s resignation six months later.

    – The fake news that NBC anchor Brian Williams faced enemy fire while helicoptering into Iraq in 2003 was exposed when soldiers who were aboard the helicopter blew the whistle on his lies. Despite admittedly putting out fake news, Williams still has a career in broadcast journalism.

    – The fake news narrative that Donald Trump somehow represents the next coming of Hitler has provoked a hysterical anti-Trump hate crime wave across America, with people and property being attacked on a routine basis. The same hysterical fake news narrative was also responsible for violence and riots at Trump events throughout the campaign cycle, as well as assassination attempts on Trump’s life.

    – The fake news that Donald Trump had no chance whatsoever of winning the presidential election was proudly pushed by countless mainstream media outlets, with the Huffington Post even predicting that Hillary Clinton had a 98% chance of winning the presidency. When this fake news narrative was completely demolished on November 8, it swept away trust in political polling and the mainstream media to an even greater degree, prompting the backlash that you now see with the corporate press calling everyone else “fake news” when they are the real fake news.

    FULL LIST OF FAKE NEWS OUTLETS

    – The New York Times
    – The Washington Post
    – CNN
    – NBC News
    – MSNBC
    – CBS News
    – ABC News
    – Salon.com
    – The Huffington Post
    – Rolling Stone
    – BBC News
    – Sky News
    – Financial Times
    – Politico
    – New York Daily News
    – L.A. Times
    – USA Today
    – US News & World Report
    – CBC
    – Gawker
    – Newsweek
    – Time
    – Business Insider
    – Daily Beast
    – VICE
    – Yahoo News
    – Daily Kos
    – Young Turks
    – Slate
    – NPR
    – PBS
    – Raw Story
    – New Yorker
    – Buzzfeed
    – MoveOn
    – Think Progress
    – Media Matters
    – Wonkette
    – Center for American Progress
    – Little Green Footballs
    – The Economist

    Below is a list of fake news reporters who colluded with the Clinton campaign to promote fake news.

    This list is by no means exhaustive, and there are many reporters within these organizations who do not peddle fake news and have spoken out against the mainstream media’s effort to brand dissenting opinion as “fake news”.

    For example, Matt Taibbi (no fan of Infowars), has called the Washington Post’s fake news blacklist “disgusting” and “shameful”.

    Glenn Greenwald, who has worked with several of the organizations on this list in the past, also completely eviscerated the credibility of the “fake news list” being used by the Washington Post.

    The entire “fake news” narrative being pushed by the mainstream media has nothing whatsoever to do with concerns over people being misled.

    If that were the case, the mainstream media itself would stop habitually lying to the American people and it’s trustworthiness wouldn’t be in the toilet.

    The whole “fake news” narrative is clearly part of a dirty tricks campaign to pressure governments, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other tech giants to censor information that is inconvenient to the establishment, for which the mainstream media serves as a mouthpiece.

    We are competing with the mainstream media and they’re not happy about dissident voices challenging their monopoly on reality. That’s why they’re forced to resort to underhanded and deceptive means through which to silence their ideological opposition.

    By circulating this article and this fake news list, we are not calling for these outlets to be censored, we are simply drawing attention to the fact that the very same entities who cry “fake news” are the primary sources for the most damaging, harmful and woefully inaccurate fake news stories in the history of modern journalism.

  • ECB Preview: The Market's All-In But "There's A Significant Chance Draghi Disappoints"

    Blackrock's chief multi-asset strategist summed up tomorrow's anxiously awaited ECB meeting best by noting that "what’s priced into markets is a fully fledged extension of the [bond-buying] program," but warns that, thanks to a muted reaction to the Italy vote and recent encouraging data, "there’s a significant chance the ECB disappoints markets." As bond traders bet on a six-month QE extension, Citi warns, anything less will be seen as hawkish and send EUR surging.

    The ECB has a recent history of disappointing investors expecting more stimulus, and as The Wall Street Journal reports, with the bond-buying program scheduled to end in March, the ECB is running out of time to inform investors of its plans.

    Just last week, Bunds had a mini taper tantrum when rumors spread…

     

    And, even as investors expect more stimulus on Thursday, the debate with some analysts is moving to whether the ECB could start tapering its stimulus program in March.

    Like other investors, Edward Farley, head of European corporate debt at PGIM Fixed Income, expects a six-month extension to the ECB’s asset purchases. Still, he says he has been avoiding securities like southern European corporate bonds that look most vulnerable “if there is any accident with central bank policy.”

     

    There is little sign investors expect that on Thursday. Peripheral government bonds and corporate debt has rallied this week despite the “no” vote in Italy’s referendum which outgoing Prime Minister Matteo Renzi had presented as a way to revitalize Italy’s stuttering economy.

     

    Investors seemed unfazed by Mr. Renzi’s resignation after the vote even though it could bolster the fortunes of the populist 5-Star Movement which has called for a non-binding referendum on Italy’s membership of the euro.

     

    The gap between 10-year Italian and German bond yields has narrowed by around 0.1 percentage point this week to around 1.54 percentage points. Media reports that the Italian government was ready to take a controlling stake in troubled lender Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena seemed also to fuel the rally.

     

    The spread to Germany, the bloc’s largest economy, also narrowed for Portuguese, Spanish and French bonds.

     

    As far as the actual policy decision goes, the biggest problem for the central bank remains, as Bloomberg points out, that underlying inflationary pressure is too weak and shows no signs of picking up. Headline inflation accelerated a little in November, broadly in-line with the ECB’s forecast of 0.5% for 4Q, but it looks to have done so thanks to movements in food prices. Core and services price inflation are stuck at 0.8% and 1.1%, respectively. And even though unemployment continues to fall, the wages data bring little cause for optimism. There’s unlikely to be much movement in the core inflation forecasts, but revisions downward are more likely than upward. It will also be the first time forecasts for 2019 will be published — how the ECB marks its own homework may help with understanding risks to the policy outlook.

    There remains no sign of underlying cost pressure building. Until there is, further easing looks inevitable. The Governing Council has faith in its tools — it thinks inflation would have been lower if they had not been deployed — and there is reason to keep using them. BI Economics therefore expects an extension to the program of asset purchases.

    Economists seem to be split between those expecting the ECB to announce an extension by three or six months.

    And with doves outnumbering hawks still on The ECB, it seems six months is more likely…

    Economists highlight good reasons for the ECB to keep buying bonds. The central bank has an inflation target of close to 2% but consumer prices in the Eurozone were only 0.6% higher in November than the same month last year.

    Others argue further stimulus isn’t warranted. The eurozone’s economic picture is brighter, with business activity growing at its fastest pace this year in November, according to a survey of manufacturers and service providers.

    As Citi strategist Steven Englander notes, nearly half of survey respondents expect ECB to extend QE by 6 months at current EU80b purchasing pace, writing that anything less than that outcome likely to be seen as hawkish and drive an “immediate EUR buying outcome."

    • 20% expect ECB to engage in “serious but limited” tapering
    • Two-thirds of respondents see ECB as being unaffected by Italian referendum

    Which confirms Bloomberg's consensus…

    • An announcement that asset purchases will continue until June 2017, or beyond if necessary, at the present pace of 80 billion euros a month (risk: tilted to longer)
    • An increase to the issue limit to address bond scarcity (risk: balanced)
    • No commitment to taper asset purchases (risk: balanced).

    And beyond December…

    • A further three-month extension of the asset purchase program to be announced in March 2017 (risk: tilted to longer)
    • Tapering of asset purchases to begin from September 2017 and for the program to end in March 2018 (risk: tilted to longer).

    However, the market’s subdued reaction to the Italian referendum may show that investors have become too reliant on the central bank to smooth over the eurozone’s probelms, a factor that may concern some ECB officials.

    “I don’t think that [argument] will win the day, but it’s a risk,” said Stefan Isaacs, deputy head of retail fixed income at M&G Investments. It would be “dangerous” for the ECB to pull back before it has succeeded in boosting inflation, Mr. Isaacs said.

    As a reminder, last December, the euro jumped more than four cents against the dollar, stocks tumbled and the price of riskier bonds fell after the bank delivered a smaller-than-expected package of stimulus measures.

    Finally, as we detailed previously, there is another problem: with the US tightening at a time when demand for US debt will have to stay constant or rise to fund Trump's fiscal stimulus, it would be up to Japan and Europe to provide the "helicopter money" to fund US economic growth as DB explained. Even a small hint that this is going away, and suddenly the Trump stimulus is looking very shaky.

    Sure enough, as Reuters admits, some proponents of the extension fear an ill-timed signal about reduced buying in future could heighten market volatility, potentially undoing some of the benefits of the scheme.

    To be sure, it is not a done deal yet:

    Extending the asset buys would require the ECB to ease some of its self-imposed restrictions, a sensitive debate as most options on the table raise legal or political concerns, facing varying degrees of opposition within the Governing Council.

     

    Still, ECB President Mario Draghi seemed to dismiss those concerns this week, arguing that the program was sufficiently flexible, suggesting that parameter changes would not stand in the way if policymakers opted for the extension.

    However, givem the current spate of economic and political events, it just may be that a tapering announcement by the ECB is the catalyst that finally blows over the house of cards market that has soared since November 8 on nothing but hope and lack of concrete news.

  • Washington Post Appends "Russian Propaganda Fake News" Story, Admits It May Be Fake

    In the latest example why the “mainstream media” is facing a historic crisis of confidence among its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say“, on Wednesday a lengthy editor’s note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the “experts” quoted in the original article whose “work” served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not “vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s finding regarding any individual media outlet”, in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll “fake news” and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites – Zero Hedge included – with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

    It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

    The apended note in question:

    Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

    As The Washingtonian notes, the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was “rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations,” Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg’s piece, “anonymous cowards.” One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

    The piece’s description of some sharers of bogus news as “useful idiots” could “theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline,” Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

    But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker, its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda – ostensibly with Ukrainian origins – and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”

    Criticism culminated this week when the “Naked capitalism” blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction. 

    Now, at least, the “national newspaper” has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted “work” smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the “fake news” it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 07

Today’s News 7th December 2016

  • Power To The People: John Lennon's Legacy Lives On

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,

    “You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

    Militant nonviolent resistance works.

    Peaceful, prolonged protests work.

    Mass movements with huge numbers of participants work.

    Yes, America, it is possible to use occupations and civil disobedience to oppose government policies, counter injustice and bring about change outside the confines of the ballot box.

    It has been done before. It is being done now. It can be done again.

    For example, in May of 1932, more than 43,000 people, dubbed the Bonus Army—World War I veterans and their families—marched on Washington, set up tent cities in the nation's capital, and refused to leave until the government agreed to pay the bonuses they had been promised as a reward for their services. Eventually their efforts not only succeeded in securing payment of the bonuses but contributed to the passage of the G.I. Bill of Rights.

    Similarly, the Civil Rights Movement mobilized hundreds of thousands of people to strike at the core of an unjust and discriminatory society. Likewise, while the 1960s anti-war movement began with a few thousand perceived radicals, it ended with hundreds of thousands of protesters, spanning all walks of life, demanding the end of American military aggression abroad.

    Most recently, after months of protests over the construction of a pipeline that members of the Sioux tribe insisted would harm their water supply, the Army Corp of Engineers has agreed to look for an alternate route for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota.

    This kind of “power to the people” activism—grassroots, populist and potent—is exactly the brand of civic engagement John Lennon advocated throughout his career as a musician and anti-war activist.

    It’s been 36 years since Lennon was gunned down by an assassin’s bullet on December 8, 1980, but his legacy and the lessons he imparted in his music and his activism have not diminished over the years.

    All of the many complaints we have about government today – surveillance, militarism, corruption, harassment, SWAT team raids, political persecution, spying, overcriminalization, etc. – were present in Lennon’s day and formed the basis of his call for social justice, peace and a populist revolution.

    Little wonder, then, that the U.S. government saw him as enemy number one.

    Because he never refrained from speaking truth to power, Lennon became a prime example of the lengths to which the U.S. government will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority.

    Lennon was the subject of a four-year campaign of surveillance and harassment by the U.S. government (spearheaded by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover), an attempt by President Richard Nixon to have him “neutralized” and deported. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times points out, “The F.B.I.’s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics.”

    Years after Lennon’s assassination, it would be revealed that the FBI had collected 281 pages of surveillance files on him. As the New York Times notes, “Critics of today’s domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ‘The U.S. vs. John Lennon’ … is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.”

    Such government-directed harassment was nothing new.

    The FBI has had a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures, most notably among the latter such celebrated names as folk singer Pete Seeger, painter Pablo Picasso, comic actor and filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, comedian Lenny Bruce and poet Allen Ginsberg. Among those most closely watched by the FBI was Martin Luther King Jr., a man labeled by the FBI as “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.”

    In Lennon’s case, the ex-Beatle had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, Lennon saw that his music could mobilize the public and help to bring about change. However, while Lennon believed in the power of the people, he also understood the danger of a power-hungry government. “The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people,” observed Lennon. “It controls them.”

    Unfortunately, Lennon’s time as a troublemaker was short-lived.

    Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows on Dec. 8, 1980, just as Lennon was returning to his New York apartment building.

    As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman called out, “Mr. Lennon!” Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four hollow-point bullets into his back and left arm.

    John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

    Much like Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and others who have died attempting to challenge the powers-that-be, Lennon had finally been “neutralized.”   

    Still, you can’t murder a movement with a bullet and a madman: Lennon’s legacy lives on in his words, his music and his efforts to speak truth to power.

    Unfortunately, Lennon’s work to change the world for the better is far from done.

    Peace remains out of reach. Activism and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives.

    For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state. And as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, those who do dare to speak up are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship or, worse, involuntary detention.

    As Lennon shared in a 1968 interview:

    I think all our society is run by insane people for insane objectives… I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal means. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government and the Russian… Chinese… what they are actually trying to do, and what they think they’re doing, I’d be very pleased to know what they think they’re doing. I think they’re all insane. But I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

    So what’s the answer?

    Lennon had a multitude of suggestions.

    “If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

    “Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

    And my favorite advice of all: “All you need is love. Love is all you need.”

  • Milo Yiannopoulos Told Not to Speak of “Pizzagate” During Miami University Lecture

    Submitted by Joseph Jankowski of PlanetFreeWill.com

    During the introduction to his lecture at Miami University on Monday, Breitbart News journalist and technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos informed the crowd that he was unable to address the highly controversial topic of “Pizzagate” because he had received phone calls from Washington D.C. that told him “not yet.”

    “We are going to talk this evening about a few things that are close to my heart,” Milo told his audience. “Although, I have one announcement to make which is that sadly when I announced I was going to be speaking about Pizzagate this evening, I got a number of phone calls with Washington D.C. area codes saying ‘not yet.’”

    For those unfamiliar, Pizzagate is a wildly-popular conspiracy theory that centers around leaked emails from former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that some believe contain pedophilic lingo.

    “Pizzagate subreddit was started by a group of Trump-supporting internet sleuths who were attempting to use WikiLeaks’ leaked Podesta emails to connect the Clintons and John Podesta to the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein,” Zero Hedge wrote of Pizzagate. “That said, when the Podesta emails failed to reveal a “smoking gun” linkage, the sleuths instead turned their focus to mulitple “pizza” references in Podesta’s emails which then led to the speculation that those “pizza” references must be code for something far more sinister.”

    The Washington Post says the “Pizzagate” sleuths are convinced that the “secret headquarters of a child sex-trafficking ring run by Hillary Clinton and members of her inner circle” is located in the basement of a Washington D.C. pizza shop called Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria.

    Yiannopoulos put out a flyer for his Miami speech on Monday afternoon which advertised that he would be addressing the conspiracy theory.

    “I can tell you with no ego, this will be my finest show,” Milo wrote on his Facebook page.

    It is currently unknown who called Milo and told him not to discuss the Pizzagate controversy but it might have something to do with the incident that occurred on Sunday when a man walked into Comet Ping Pong with a gun.

    The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” the “Pizzagate” conspiracy.

    Reports claim that Comet Ping Pong’s owner, James Alefantis, and his employees have been victims of continuous harassment from those exploring the theory that connects the pizza shop to child sex-trafficking.

    Surrounding businesses have also said that they have been targeted by believers in the conspiracy theory.

    While many of the sleuths say that their research as led them to believe that “Pizzagate” is real and not just some wild theory, there are some people who believe it has gone too far and now has become dangerous.

  • Google Searches For "Conservative Outreach Manager" After Failing To Elect Hillary

    After failing miserably in their effort to elect Hillary on November 8th, Google has decided it’s time to hire a “Conservative Outreach Manager.”  You know your bias is deeply ingrained when you have to create a brand new “outreach” position just to figure out how to speak to people on the other side of the aisle.

    Google

     

    Per the job listing posted to the Google Careers website, the new “Conservative Outreach Manager” would act as a “liaison to conservative, libertarian and
    free market groups.”

    As a member of Google’s Public Policy team, you help shape various product and issue agendas with policy makers inside and outside government. In addition, you will help advise our internal teams on the public policy implications of their products, working with a closely coordinated and cross-functional global team. The role requires significant experience either working with or in government, politics or a regulatory agency as well as an ability to grasp complex technical and policy issues.

     

    As a member of Google’s Public Policy outreach team, you will act as Google’s liaison to conservative, libertarian and free market groups. You are part organizer, part advocate and part policy wonk as you understand the world of third-party non-governmental advocacy organizations. You are eager to represent Google among those organizations. You can work a room, tell Google’s story in an elevator or from a podium and work with partner organizations on shared projects to advance Google’s public policy goals.

    Of course, it’s not terribly surprising that Google was ill-prepared to work with a Trump administration since WikiLeaks revealed the company was all-in with the Hillary campaign…a revelation which was subsequently confirmed when Google Chairman, Eric Schmidt, was spotted at Hillary’s Election Night “party” wearing a staff badge.

    Eric

     

    Somehow we suspect the “Conservative Outreach Manager” won’t be as effective at pushing Google’s policies with the Trump administration as Schmidt would have been with Hillary…Oh well, time to start building a relationship with Joe Biden.

    * * *

    For those who missed it, here is what we previously wrote about Schmidt’s “secret strategic plan” to get Hillary elected.

    Among the latest set of Podesta releases, was the following email sent on April 15, 2014 by Google’s Eric Schmidt titled “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign” in which the Google/Alphabet Chairman tells Cheryl Mills that “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better.  This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all.“

     

    While there are numerous curious nuances in the plan, presented below in its entirety, the one section that caught our – and Wikileaks’ attention – is the following which implicitly suggests Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones:

    Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.  In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.  A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.)

    As a reminder, two days ago it was revealed that just days prior to the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt had sent another email in which he expressed his eagerness to “fund” the campaign efforts and wants to be a “head outside advisor.” In the email from John Podesta to Robby Mook we learned that:

    I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on t

    Another email from February 2015 suggested that the Google Chairman remained active in its collaboration with the Clinton campaign: John Podesta wrote that Eric Schmidt met with HR “about the business he proposes to do with the campaign. He says he’s met with HRC” and adds that “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip”

    The remainder of Schmidt’s proposed plan, presented in its entirety below, is just as troubling.

    Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign
    Eric Schmidt
    April 2014

    DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

    Here are some comments and observations based on what we saw in the 2012 campaign.  If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016.

    1. Size, Structure and Timing

    Lets assume a total budget of about $1.5Billion, with more than 5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers.  The entire startup ceases operation four days after November 8, 2016.  The structure includes a Chairman or Chairwoman who is the external face of the campaign and a President who is the executive in charge of objectives, measurements, systems and building and managing the organization.

    Every day matters as our end date does not change.  An official campaign right after midterm elections and a preparatory team assembled now is best.

    2. Location

    The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hardworking and enthusiastic.  Its important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low paid permanent employees.  DC is a poor choice as its full of distractions and interruptions.  Moving the location from DC elsewhere guarantees visitors have taken the time to travel and to help.

    The key is a large population of talented people who are dying to work for you.  Any outer borough of NYC, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston are all good examples of a large, blue state city to base in.

    Employees will relocate to participate in the campaign, and will find low cost temporary housing or live with campaign supporters on a donated basis.  This worked well in Chicago and can work elsewhere.

    The computers will be in the cloud and most likely on Amazon Web services (AWS).  All the campaign needs are portable computers, tablets and smart phones along with credit card readers.

    3. The pieces of a Campaign

    a) The Field

    Its important to have strong field leadership, with autonomy and empowerment.  Operations talent needs to build the offices, set up the systems, hire the people, and administer what is about 5000 people.  Initial modeling will show heavy hiring in the key battleground states.  There is plenty of time to set these functions up and build the human systems.  The field is about organizing people, voter contact, and get out the vote programs.

    For organizing tools, build a simple way to link people and activities as a workflow and let the field manage the system, all cloud based.  Build a simple organizing tool with a functioning back-end.  Avoid deep integration as the benefits are not worth it.  Build on the cloud.  Organizing is really about sharing and linking people, and this tool would measure and track all of it.

    There are many other crucial early investments needed in the field: determining the precise list of battleground states, doing early polling to confirm initial biases, and maintaining and extending voter protection programs at the state level.

    b) The Voter

    Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.  In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.  A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.)

    The scenario includes a volunteer on a walk list, encountering a potential voter, updating the records real time and deepening contact with the voter and the information we have to offer.

    c) Digital

    A large group of campaign employees will use digital marketing methods to connect to voters, to offer information, to use social networks to spread good news, and to raise money.  Partners like Blue State Digital will do much of the fund raising.  A key point is to convert BSD and other partners to pure cloud service offerings to handle the expected crush and load.

    d) Media (paid), (earned) and (social), and polling

    New tools should be developed to measure reach and impact of paid, earned and social media.  The impact of press coverage should be measurable in reach and impact, and TV effectiveness measured by attention and other surveys. 

    Build tools that measure the rate and spread of stories and rumors, and model how it works and who has the biggest impact.  Tools can tell us about the origin of stories and the impact of any venue, person or theme.  Connect polling into this in some way. 

    Find a way to do polling online and not on phones.

    e) Analytics and data science and modeling, polling and resource optimization tools

    For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote.  Analytics can model demographics, social factors and many other attributes of the needed voters.  Modeling will tell us what who we need to turn out and why, and studies of effectiveness will let us know what approaches work well.    Machine intelligence across the data should identify the most important factors for turnout, and preference.

    It should be possible to link the voter records in Van with upcoming databases from companies like Comcast and others for media measurement purposes.

    The analytics tools can be built in house or partnered with a set of vendors.

    f) Core engineering, voter database and contact with voters online

    The database of voters (NGP Van) is a fine starting point for voter records and is maintained by the vendor (and needs to be converted to the cloud).  The code developed for 2012 (Narwahl etc.) is unlikely to be used, and replaced by a model where the vendor data is kept in the Van database and intermediate databases are arranged with additional information for a voter.

    Quite a bit of software is to be developed to match digital identities with the actual voter file with high confidence.  The key unit of the campaign is a “voter”, and each and every record is viewable and updatable by volunteers in search of more accurate information.

    In the case where we can’t identify the specific human, we can still have a partial digital voter id, for a person or “probable-person” with attributes that we can identify and use to target.  As they respond we can eventually match to a registered voter in the main file.  This digital key is eventually matched to a real person.

    The Rules

    Its important that all the player in the campaign work at cost and there be no special interests in the financing structure.  This means that all vendors work at cost and there is a separate auditing function to ensure no one is profiting unfairly from the campaign.  All investments and conflicts of interest would have to be publicly disclosed.  The rules of the audit should include caps on individual salaries and no investor profits from the campaign function.  (For example, this rule would apply to me.)

    The KEY things

    a) early build of an integrated development team and recognition that this is an entire system that has to be managed as such
    b) decisions to exclusively use cloud solutions for scalability, and choice of vendors and any software from 2012 that will be reused.
    c) the role of the smart phone in the hands of a volunteer.  The smart phone manages the process, updates the database, informs the citizen, and allows fundraising and recruitment of volunteers (on android and iphone).
    d) early and continued focus of qualifying fundraising dollars to build the field, and build all the tools.  Outside money will be plentiful and perfect for TV use.  A smart media mix tool tells all we need to know about media placement, TV versus other media and digital media.

  • The Biggest Gold Heist Of All Time

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    In 524 BC, a group of pirates set sail for Sifnos, an ancient Greek island famed for its vast gold and silver mines.

    The mines of Sifnos were unparalleled in the ancient world.

    They produced so much gold and silver that the local government at Sifnos could erect countless monuments, invest in new public works, and still easily have a substantial balance remaining at the end of each year to distribute to the citizens.

    When the pirates arrived, they robbed the island of 100 talents of gold, an unfathomable sum at the time.

    In the ancient world, a talent was a unit of weight equivalent to 26 kilograms, or about 836 troy ounces.

    So 100 talents of gold would be worth just shy of $100 million today, ranking that ancient robbery as one of the biggest heists in history.

    It’s amazing that thousands of years have passed, and yet that very same gold could still be traded in modern financial markets.

    There are few other assets on the planet that have had such a long history of value, durability, and marketability.

    Gold very clearly holds its value over time, whether over decades or millennia.

    Now, in fairness, it’s not like any of us is going to live for 2500+ years, so realistically it shouldn’t matter if our money will maintain its value until the year 4500.

    But gold has plenty of other benefits. For example, it’s also a type of insurance.

    If there’s ever a major problem with your home country’s currency or monetary system (which we’ve seen over the last several years from India to Iceland, Argentina to Zimbabwe) gold will maintain its value and survive the currency crisis.

    Owning some physical gold will ensure that you still have something of value in your pocket.

    This is an insurance policy that you hope you’ll never need. But if you ever do, you’ll be damn glad you have it.

    Another type of insurance policy we’ve discussed in this letter is physical cash.

    Most people keep the vast majority of their savings in a bank, and in normal times we can access this savings online, at ATMs, and in the checkout line with our debit cards.

    We view physical cash and bank balances as the same thing, i.e. $1 in a savings account is the same thing as a one-dollar bill with George Washington’s face on it.

    They’re not the same thing. These are actually two distinct forms of money, they just happen to have a 1:1 exchange rate right now.

    Your bank balance is nothing more than an accounting entry on a bank’s ledger.

    It’s a technically a claim– an amount that the bank owes you, one of its millions of unsecured creditors.

    And if there are ever any major problems at the bank, you’ll quickly see how worthless this claim can be.

    Think about what happened in Cyprus back in 2013. An entire nation woke up one morning and found out that the government had frozen every account at every bank in Cyprus.

    It turned out that the entire Cypriot financial system was near collapse, and the government cut people off from their funds in order to protect the banks.

    At that point, bank balances were fundamentally worthless. It didn’t matter how much money you had in the bank… you couldn’t do anything with it.

    But anyone who was holding physical cash could still buy food, fuel, and other necessities until the crisis subsided.

    The 1:1 exchange rate between cash and bank balances broke down, literally overnight.

    One day everything was normal. The next day, cash was far more valuable than anyone’s bank balance.

    This is why it makes sense to hold both– gold AND physical cash.

    It’s perfectly fine to stay optimistic and hope for the best. And there’s plenty to be optimistic about.

    But with bank insolvencies rising (especially in Europe) and a US debt level closing in on $20 trillion, does it make sense to bet everything you’ve ever worked for on hope and optimism?

    We insure ourselves against all sorts of risks.

    We have fire insurance in case our houses burn down. We have life insurance in case we have an early departure.

    Those risks may be extremely low. But they’re important enough that we spend money to protect ourselves against them.

    The systemic risks we’re talking about may also be low. (Though I would suggest the risks are much higher than anyone realizes…)

    But their impacts are extraordinary.

    Yet unlike conventional insurance, these policies, i.e. cash and gold, don’t really cost anything.

    Gold prices may fluctuate from day to day, but over the long-term, the metal holds its value. And it’s an asset that you’ll be able to sell, worldwide, in an instant.

    It’s the same with cash.

    With interest rates at historic lows and a checking account yielding 0.1%, there’s virtually no opportunity cost in holding some physical cash versus keeping all of your savings at the bank.

    These are no-brainer solutions with minimal (nearly zero) cost that provide time-tested insurance against some obvious risks.

  • Italian Government Prepares To Nationalize Monte Paschi

    The wait is almost over.

    After two previous taxpayer funded bailouts, and nearly five months of foreplay since the third largest Italian bank failed the latest European stress test at the end of July, in which the Italian government in September vow that “bailout for Italian banks has been ‘absolutely’ ruled out“, a third bailout, as we previewed earlier today, is now imminent.

    According to Reuters, which cites two sources, Italy is preparing to take a €2 billion controlling stake in Monte Paschi as the bank’s hopes of a private funding rescue have faded after a fruitless five month search to secure an anchor investor, following Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s decision to quit.

    The government, which is already the ailing bank’s single largest shareholder with a four percent share, is planning do a debt-for-equity swap, and buy junior bonds held by ordinary Italians to take the stake up to 40%, the sources said. The bonds would then be equitized, converting the government’s bond stake into pure equity ownership, a troubling approach as it would effectively wipe out the existing equity tranche and position the bank for a potential bankruptcy fight in court where the government faces off with the equity committee.

    This transaction would make the government by far the biggest shareholder, meaning the Treasury would be able to control Italy’s third biggest bank and its shareholder meetings, or in other words, the bank would be nationalized.

    The sources said a government decree authorizing the deal, which would see the state buy the subordinated bonds from retail investors and convert them into shares, could be rushed through as early as this weekend. Italy’s treasury would buy the bonds held by around 40,000 retail investors at face value, the sources said.

    It is unclear how the senior bondholders, who would not be made whole would feel about a government transaction which favors the juniors (who would get par) where the bulk of the retail investors are found, would feel about such a transaction which would bring memories of the US government’s “bailout” of GM which flipped the bankruptcy process on its head by prioritizing junior pensioners over senior creditors.

    That way the transaction is structure, the government would ensure retail investors do not suffer any losses in the bank’s bailout, making it politically more palatable and staving off the risk of a run on deposits that could trigger a wider banking crisis.

    The bank, which needs to raise €5 billion by the end of December or risk winding down, is set to raise 1 billion euros from a bond swap with institutional investors and Rome is hoping the 2 billion euros participation from the government could help persuade private investors to fill the 2 billion euros gap. Since any new equity investors would come in as the equivalent of post-petition equity, it would mean that existing equityholders, already a token amount, would be wiped out.

    “It’s a de-facto nationalization with a strong presence by the state that can attract other investors and allow the transaction to be completed,” said one of the sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    There is another problem: in the past both Merkel and Schauble, not to mention Djisselbloem, have made it expressly clear that a bail-in mechanism should be used to preserve insolvent banks, and a state-funded and taxpayer backed bailout/nationalization is no longer permitted. Allowing Italy to proceed with this transaction would make a mockery of Europe’s entire “bail-in” protocol, not to mention the European finance ministers’ resolve and ability to implement anything, which is why the European Commission would need to assess whether the government’s intervention is taking place at market prices or if it constitutes state aid, another source said.

    However, since an Italian contagion wave would inevitably slam Deutsche Bank and Germany’s various other banks, Europe will find the deal to be “whatever it needs it to be, to make it possible.

    Monte dei Paschi, rated the weakest lender in European stress tests this summer, had planned to arrange a private rescue, starting with a firm commitment from one or more anchor investors and then launching a share sale this week.

    There is still some hope for a private rescue without a government intervention, but that is evaporating by the hour.  According to Reuters, the chances of the privately backed deal going ahead as planned were now slim. A source close to Qatar’s cash-rich sovereign wealth fund said it could inject €1.4 billion in the bank but wanted to wait to see what kind of government would succeed Renzi. Other sources were more cautious on Qatar’s willingness to back the deal.

    Monte Paschi’s bank’s chief executive, Marco Morelli, held talks with European Central Bank officials in Frankfurt on Tuesday to review its options. A meeting of the bank’s board is likely to take place on Wednesday. At that point it is likely to greenlight the first major European bank bailout in a year in which the G-20 leader previously declared that the global economy is fixed and is now reflating itself back to growth.

  • Is Janet Yellen Sabotaging The Trump Administration?

    Submitted by Dennis E. Miller,

    Is Janet Yellen trying to screw Donald Trump?

    No, I’m not asking for possible titles to a porn movie (“Trump Gets Janet Yellin’” or “Trump Puts Down Ol’ Yellen”). But it really does seem like the Federal Reserve Chair(wo)man is out to get the Donald.

    Yellen recently told Congress’s Joint Economic Committee that an interest rate hike could be imminent if “incoming data provide some further evidence of continued progress toward the committee’s objectives.” Markets have already priced in a hike of a quarter to a half of a percentage point. For now, stocks continue to be reach historic highs and the dollar is strong, even as Yellen and her central banking cohorts begin to ease on the gas.

    But will Yellen’s gambit plunge us into a recession is the question. Just because Wall Street is gorging on high returns doesn’t mean the economy is sound. For eight years and running, the Fed has kept interest rates near zero percent in an attempt to spark investment and borrowing. Unemployment has gradually shrunk during the Obama years, yet the workforce participation rateremains low by modern standards. Prior to Election Day, two-thirds of Americans were anxious about their economic future.

    Stock traders are popping the bubbly while middle America drinks the warm beer of worry. If you’re still in the dark as to why Trump stole the Rust Belt from Hillary, you need not look further than that.

    Fear aside, Trump’s election has been an Advil to the ongoing economic headache felt by most Americans. Eight years of Obama’s big spending combined with ultra low interest rates has done precious little to shore up their optimism. Retirees on fixed income can’t get a yield on their savings. Millennials earning a salary for the first time in their life have little incentive to put money away.

    So you might think: Hey, maybe Yellen’s hinting about raising interest rates is a good thing! Sure, it might cause the S&P 500 to dip. But it’s about time Grandma got a return on her CDs.

    I’m very skeptical. Interest rates most definitely need to rise, but Yellen’s timing is suspicious. Trump, despite his admiration for low borrowing rates (and debt refinancing), has accused Yellen of keeping the lid on interest rates in order to boost Obama’s legacy. He told CNBC in September that rates were “staying at zero because [Yellen’s] obviously political and she's doing what Obama wants her to do.” In another interview with Reuters, Trump explained with perfect Trumpian simplicity, "They're keeping rates down because they don't want everything else to go down.”

    Yellen wasn’t happy about the charges. She fired back at a press conference, saying, "We do not discuss politics at our meetings, and we do not take politics into account in our decisions.”

    Uh huh. And I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Since the beginning, the Federal Reserve was designed to operate in secret, away from the prying eye of politics. A nation’s money supply is a fragile thing: If you have too much, you get hyperinflation that destroys the currency. If you have too little, deflation sets in, and people withhold from spending.

    (The last part of the logic is phooey, but that’s a topic for another article).

    What the Fed, serving as America’s central bank, does is balance the money supply to reflect market conditions. When the market is roaring, it’s time to cut off the money spigot so as to rein in inflation. When things are sluggish, pouring cash into the economy is supposed to gin up activity. There are all kinds of ins and outs and what-have-yous involved in the process, including convoluted accounting techniques. But long mythologized story short, the tinkers at the Fed are supposed to act on behalf of the economy, and not the elected shysters in Washington. Every macro-econ student learns that faux civics lesson the first week of class.

    And like almost everything taught at college these days, Fed independence is a load of garbage. From its inception, the central bank has been a political tool presidents have used to bolster their administration’s approval ratings. “[T]he Federal Reserve fundamentally shifted its monetary policy course in 1953, 1961, 1969, 1974, and 1977 — all years in which the presidency changed. Fed policy almost always changes to accommodate varying presidential preferences,” writes economist Thomas DiLorenzo.

    When presidents want tighter money—like Ike and Reagan did during their respective terms—the Fed obliges. When presidents demand loose monetary policy—such as LBJ and Nixon—the money magicians at the Fed make it so.

    Ultimately, the Federal Reserve is a creature of Congress, and much of its leadership is staffed by presidential appointment. Should the president be unpleased by the Fed’s performance, there are consequences. G. William Miller’s short and disastrous 18-month-term under Jimmy Carter demonstrated as much.

    So where does that leave Yellen? Trump threatened to oust the troll-looking monetary maiden on the campaign trail. It’s not within the president’s power to announce “You’re fired!” to a sitting Fed chairman. Pushing her out will take some cajoling. Somehow, though, I don’t think Mrs. Yellen wants to take orders from a President Trump.

    And what would be a better going-away present for a new but critical administration than crippling the economy?

    If it is indeed Yellen’s plan to tank the Trump presidency on her way out by raising interest rates, the Donald should fight back. He should take to his best medium, the TV, and begin making the public aware of the sabotage going on. When Yellen abandons her throne, Trump should appoint someone who is concerned about the dollar’s long-term stability. A few choices off the top of my head: finance writer and all-around mensch Jim Grant, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget David Stockman, commodity guru Jim Rogers, or former congressional representative and arch-Fed-critic Ron Paul.

    Either would do nicely in turning the Fed from a politically-driven economy-destroying machine into something far less dangerous. And each could do their part in making King Dollar great again.

  • New Poll Reveals Carrier Deal Wildly Popular With Voters – "Rarely Do We See Numbers That High"

    As the talking heads of the mainstream media endlessly cogitate over the propriety of Trump negotiating one-off deals with companies like Carrier, the voters have seemingly made up their mind and are overwhelmingly supportive.  Per a new Politico poll, 60% of the overall electorate is supportive of the Carrier deal that saved 1,000 jobs from moving to Mexico in return for tax savings.

    While some conservatives and conservative groups — including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board and former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin — have decried the Carrier deal as “crony capitalism,” the Politico/Morning Consult poll shows it’s a political winner for Trump. Sixty percent of voters say Carrier’s decision to keep some manufacturing jobs in Indiana, where Pence is still serving as governor, gives them a more favorable view of Trump. That includes not only 87 percent of self-identified Republicans, but also 54 percent of independents and 40 percent of Democrats.

     

    “The Carrier announcement was big for Trump,” said Kyle Dropp, Morning Consult co-founder and chief research officer. “Rarely do we see numbers that high when looking at how specific messages and events shape public opinion.”

    Carrier Poll

     

    Meanwhile, despite Sarah Palin blasting the Carrier deal as “crony capitalism” and “corporate welfare”, voters also seem to be overwhelmingly supportive of launching direct negotiations with private companies and/or offering tax breaks in return for keeping jobs in the United States.

    Similarly, Republican voters say they are more likely to support one-off interventions with private companies like the Carrier deal than are Democratic voters. Asked whether it is acceptable for the president and vice president to negotiate directly with private businesses, a 51 percent majority of voters say that is appropriate, including 69 percent of Republicans. Just 27 percent say it is unacceptable, including 41 percent of Democrats.

     

    A larger, 62 percent majority — 78 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents — say it is acceptable for the president and vice president to offer tax breaks or incentives to individual companies to keep jobs in the U.S., while only 2 in 10 voters say it’s inappropriate.

     

    And 56 percent of voters say it’s acceptable for the president and vice president to “negotiate with individual private companies on a case-by-case basis,” including three-quarters of Republicans.

    Carrier Poll

     

    But the poll wasn’t all positive for Trump as 56% of respondents said the President-elect uses Twitter too much while nearly 80% of Hillary supporters admitted to being “triggered” by his tweets.  

    Carrier Poll

    Carrier Poll

  • Dallas Mayor Files Lawsuit To Block Withdrawals From "Insolvent" Police Pension After "Run On The Bank"

    Last week, Dallas Mayor Michael Rawlings sent a scathing letter to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension (DPFP) Board demanded that withdrawals be halted immediately until the “solvency and actuarial soundness of the Pension System is restored.”  That said, the Mayor’s request was seemingly ignored as he has now filed a lawsuit with the Dallas District Court to force the pension board to halt withdrawals amid a “run on the bank.”

    Within the suit, Rawlings notes that $500 million in lump-sum withdrawals have been made from the DPFP since August 2016 with $80 million of that amount being withdrawn in the first 2 weeks of November alone.  The suit continues on to allege that “this mass exodus of DROP funds amounts to a “run on the bank” and is exacerbating the financial peril of the Pension System as a whole.”

    In performing these ministerial duties, the Board has a duty to ensure that programs, such as the Pension System’s optional Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”), which is not a constitutionally protected benefit (or “benefit” at all), do not impair or reduce the Pension System’s core constitutionally protected benefits, e.g., service retirement benefits. The Board is willfully failing to perform these ministerial duties.

     

    The Pension System, which the Board oversees, is in the midst of a financial crisis. In early 2016, the Board was warned by its own actuary that absent radical change,the Pension System would become insolvent within 15 years—irrevocably eradicating the constitutionally protected service retirement benefits (and other constitutionally protected benefits) of police and firefighter personnel of the City and their beneficiaries.

     

    Critically, this 15-year projection of insolvency was based upon two overly optimistic assumptions that the Board has now known to be incorrect for several months. First, the actuary assumed that the Pension System’s $2.7 billion in assets would remain stable, even though approximately 56% of these assets were composed of optional DROP funds, which have historically been permitted to be withdrawn in lump-sums upon demand (even though this option was used infrequently before this year). Second, the actuary assumed that the Pension System would achieve its targeted 7.25% return or more on itsinvestments for the next 15 years.

     

    Publication of this looming insolvency scenario prompted some DROP Participants to withdraw their DROP funds in lump-sum, which created a “snowball”effect, leading a staggering number of other DROP Participants to withdraw nearly $500 million in optional lump-sum DROP funds from the Pension System from August 13, 2016 to present. Over $80 million of these lump-sum DROP withdrawals have occurred within the first two weeks of November 2016 alone. Over this three-month time period, the Board has knowingly allowed DROP funds to continue to be withdrawn at record levels even though it is aware that doing so is irreparably harming the Pension System’s solvency and liquidity.

     

    Lump-sum DROP withdrawals for 2016 are now on pace to be over 15 times higher than their historical average. This mass exodus of DROP funds amounts to a “run on the bank” and is exacerbating the financial peril of the Pension System as a whole.

     

    The DPFP contreversy comes as hundreds of police and firefighters have poured millions into “DROP” accounts in which they were guaranteed exorbitant returns of 8% while the pension board has proposed a $1 billion bailout from the city of Dallas. 

    The city estimates that, as of November, 517 police and firefighters have DROP accounts containing more than $1 million. One, belonging to an unnamed first responder, has $4.3 million in it, city figures show. On average, the city estimates that the average DROP account contains nearly $600,000.

     

    The controversy all comes at a time when the board has asked the cash-strapped city for a bailout over $1 billion. The board’s position is that they legally can’t stop the withdrawals, but the mayor disagrees.

    Of course, this all begs the question of whether the Dallas Police and Fire Pension will be the first pension ponzi to burst?

    Here is the full lawsuit filed by Dallas Mayor Michael Rawlings:

  • Virginia Tech Snowflakes Unveil Definitive List Of Top 50 Microaggressions That Offend Them

    Submitted by William Nardi via TheCollegeFix.com,

    Be careful what you say at Virginia Tech. Chances are, it could be a microaggression.

    Multiple groups at Virginia Tech have collaborated to collect “microaggression testimonials” from students, who came up with roughly 50 different expressions that offend them. The examples are currently displayed on the “Microaggressions: #hokiesspeakup” Facebook page.

    While the campaign lasted through the Spring semester, several posters reminding student to watch what they say still pepper the campus today.

    The grievances were collected at a series of weekly meetings hosted by the NAACP, the Muslim Student Association and Jewish Student Union. They can be categorized into several identity politics genres, including: disability, race, religion and sexual orientation.

    micro2

    Among the posters still hanging, at least three remain up in McBryde, an academic hall, telling students not to say “All Jews are rich,” refer to other students as “spicy latinas” for giving opinions, and not to shout “run n*gger run” at black joggers while passing them on the street.

    “It should have been a campaign to promote common decency, but beneath the surface, it plays into their own scornful agendas,” Virginia Tech senior Nicholas Korpics told The College Fix.

     

    “The minority groups on campus, especially within the leftist-queer community, have little to no intentions of reconciling with their ‘oppressors.’ They just want to isolate themselves and then say nasty things about people who oppress them.”

    This is not the first time Virginia Tech has put up controversial posters. Earlier this year they came under fire after displaying messages that asked Christian students to check their “religious privilege.”

    As for the 50 microaggressions collected at Virginia Tech, they include:

    Disability

    • “Coworkers at another institution frequently tried to ‘diagnose’ people behind their back, and repeatedly described people with specific disabilities (that I share) as scary, dangerous, awkward, creepy, weird, ect.”
    • “Don’t call yourself that,” where that refers to me calling myself disabled.
    • “She’s so bipolar.” Disabilities are not insults.
    • “You have so much to be thankful for, you have no reason to be depressed.”
    • “You just need a positive mental attitude!” being told to people with mental illness or other disabilities.
    • A disabled person being told “You’re so inspirational” for doing an everyday task.
    • A non-disabled classmate viewing the R-word as just another swear word and including it in a poem.
    • Going to other campus social justice or diversity events, and them not being accessible [for disabled people].
    • Having to take a longer, less obvious route to get into buildings on campus.

    micro3

    Religion

    • “All Jews are rich.” I’m working to pay myself through college.
    • “Jew are just white people”… explain these communities who have existed for centuries.
    • There are many holidays to be observant of, and I may have to miss class. Please respect my religion.
    • When someone finds out that I’m Jewish and then asks if I was born that way.

    LGBTQ

    • “I don’t understand why you can’t just be happy with your body.”
    • “Since you’re transitioning, does that make you [insert sexuality here]?”
    • “What’s your real name/gender?”—One’s identity and/or gender are what they say it is.
    • “Why can’t boys just dress like boys and girls just dress like girls?”
    • “Why can’t you just be gay?”—Gender identity and sexuality are not the same.
    • But gender is socially constructed, you don’t need to physically transition”—accept, don’t invalidate trans people’s experiences and wants for their body.
    • People correcting others for not using certain terms to describe me (e.g. “No, that’s a dudette”)—let trans people describe their own identities.

    Race and Ethnicity

    • “When you underestimate my mental capacity based on my proficiency speaking English.”
    • Arriving at a house party and hearing, “Party’s over, too many n*ggers here, time to leave.”
    • Being asked if “there were pinatas” at my friend’s party.
    • Being asked to present the black perspective in a predominantly white class.
    • Being called an “angry black woman” when speaking in a stern voice or standing up for yourself.
    • Being in a room full of fellow academics and being told that you speak “very intelligently.”
    • Being the only person questioned at a party after the DJ’s IPod goes missing.
    • Being told that I am “so well spoken…for a Latino.”
    • Being told that I am a “Spicy Latina,” anytime that I give my opinion.
    • Jogging down the street and hearing “Run N*gger Run,” shouted from cars passing by.
    • Professors making condescending remarks about your undergrad because it was an HBCU.
    • Treating my hair as your own private petting zoo.
    • Virginia Tech students asking me what I plan to do with my degree “back home.”
    • When fellow Hokies tell me, “I thought all of YOU PEOPLE were good at basketball.”
    • When I tell someone about my origins and they reply with “Wait, you’re all not Mexican!”
    • When meeting someone for the first time, and the first thing they ask is if “English is my second language.”
    • When my white professors say “n*gger” thoughtlessly in class.
    • When people tell you you’re only at Virginia Tech because of affirmative action.
    • When school official state that, “people like you should stay home and not waste taxpayers dollars…despite scoring in the 90th percentile in nationwide exams.”
    • When white people claim to be “blacker than you” for knowing the words to a rap song.
    • When you tell people where you’re from and they automatically assume you’re from the “bad part” of that area.
    • When you think it’s humorous to ask me, “how do you say taco in Spanish.”

    *  *  *

    So probably better just to stay at home.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 06

Today’s News 6th December 2016

  • How U.S. Colleges Sell Enrollment to the Highest Bidders

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    This past Friday, Reuters published one of the most important articles I’ve read in a while relative to the attention being paid to the issue. It details a streamlined practice through which Chinese “education” companies essentially bribe college admissions officers at top U.S. universities to accept tuition paying Chinese students. It’d be bad enough if these students were actually qualified, but in many cases these companies complete the entirety of the applications for the students, including writing their essays. It’s not uncommon for these student-clients to never see their own applications.

    Naturally, these companies couldn’t pull off their sleazy scam without willing American partners. Enter Thomas Benson and Stephen Gessner, two eager-beaver members of our nation’s celebrated — earn as much money as possible however possible without regard to the negative consequences to your fellow Americans — class. The entire story will make you sick, and it’s just further proof of how cronyism, bribery and a complete lack of ethics has fully penetrated into virtually every single facet of American life. It’s symptomatic of the debased, crooked Banana Republic economy we have become.

    Without further ado, here are some excerpts from the must read article, How Top U.S. Colleges Hooked Up With Controversial Chinese Companies:

    SHANGHAI/SHELTER ISLAND, New York – Thomas Benson once ran a small liberal arts college in Vermont. Stephen Gessner served as president of the school board for New York’s Shelter Island.

     

    More recently, they’ve been opening doors for Chinese education companies seeking a competitive edge: getting their students direct access to admissions officers at top U.S. universities. 

     

    Over the past seven years, Benson and Gessner have worked as consultants for three major Chinese companies. They recruited dozens of U.S. admissions officers to fly to China and meet in person with the companies’ student clients, with the companies picking up most of the travel expenses. Among the schools that participated: Cornell University, the University of Chicago, Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.

     

    Two companies Benson and Gessner have represented – New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc and Dipont Education Management Group – offer services to students that go far beyond meet-and-greets with admissions officers.

     

    Eight former and current New Oriental employees and 17 former Dipont employees told Reuters the firms have engaged in college application fraud, including writing application essays and teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts.

     

    The New Oriental employees said most clients lacked the language skills to write their own essays or personal statements, so counselors wrote them; only the top students did original work. New Oriental and Dipont deny condoning or wittingly engaging in application fraud.

     

    Building on a model they pioneered for Dipont, Benson and Gessner helped New Oriental introduce its clients to U.S. admissions officers, linchpin players in the fast-growing business of supplying Chinese students a prestigious American education.

     

    Beijing-based New Oriental is a behemoth. Founded in 1993, the company is China’s largest provider of private education services, serving more than two million Chinese students a year. Its shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange. The company generates about $1.5 billion in annual net revenue from programs that include test preparation and English language classes. This year, about 10,000 of its clients were enrolled in American colleges and graduate schools.

     

    A New Oriental student contract reviewed by Reuters states that its services include “writing or polishing” parts of college applications. The contract says New Oriental will set up an email account on behalf of the client for communicating with colleges, keeping sole control of the password. Several former employees said some students never even saw their applications: The company controlled the entire process, including submitting the application to colleges.

     

    The new insight into the business practices of Chinese education companies comes at a time when American colleges are relying more heavily on Chinese undergraduates, who tend to pay full tuition. Their numbers grew 9 percent to 135,629 students in the 2015-2016 school year, representing nearly a third of all international undergraduates, according to the Institute of International Education.

     

    Helping Chinese kids get into U.S. schools has become a significant industry, with hundreds of companies having sprung up in China to cash in. These businesses often charge large sums for services that sometimes include helping students cheat on standardized tests and falsifying their college applications.

     

    Ghost-writing applications for students is so common in China that some who do it speak openly about the practice.

     

    “I wrote essays and recommendation letters for students when I worked at New Oriental, which I still do right now for my own consultancy,” former New Oriental employee David Shi told Reuters. “I know there is an ethical dilemma but it’s the nature of the industry.”

     

    Beginning in 2009, Gessner and Benson launched tours and summer camps for U.S. admissions officers to meet Dipont students in China and advise them on applying to colleges. Benson said he and Gessner recruited the universities through contacts in secondary and higher education.

     

    To establish credibility with the colleges, they said, they set up a New York-based non-profit called the Council for American Culture and Education Inc, or CACE.

     

    “It was a more respectable way to work as consultants. It helped us to recruit colleges,” said Gessner.

     

    The strategy worked. The early participants included admissions officers from such prestigious institutions as Cornell, Stanford, Swarthmore College, Emory University and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

     

    Reuters reported in October that the New York Attorney General’s office planned to review the charity, which had failed to disclose its ties to Dipont in U.S. and New York State tax filings. The review could lead to a formal investigation if authorities find evidence that CACE violated New York law.

     

    Reuters also reported that eight former Dipont employees had described how the company had engaged in application fraud, including writing essays for students and altering recommendation letters. Since the story, Reuters has interviewed nine additional former Dipont employees who gave similar accounts.

     

    To get the colleges to participate in the New Oriental trips, Benson and Gessner used the playbook they perfected at Dipont. Both Chinese companies paid airfare, hotel and other travel expenses for each of the admissions officers whom Benson and Gessner brought to China between 2009 and last year. “They wouldn’t go otherwise,” Benson said.

     

    The ethics code for college admissions officers doesn’t address the propriety of such arrangements. Cigus Vanni, a retired high school counselor from Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, said it was “absolutely” unethical for colleges to accept the money. He likened it to a “pay-for-play” scheme in which prospective Chinese students get special treatment. Many American applicants to elite U.S. colleges – which can receive five to 20 applications for each available slot – don’t get to directly interact with admissions officers.

     

    “You’re giving these people direct access to college admissions officers that no one else has,” said Vanni, who serves on the admissions practices committee of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. “And there’s something expected in return for that.”

    Corrupt, crony, parasitic economic practices have now infected every single aspect of American life.

    New Oriental touts the benefits of this access to prospective clients. In promotional material on its website, the company described how, during the 2014 tour, it arranged for one of its students “to have opportunities to have close contact with a Carleton admissions officer.”

     

    The testimonial ends with the young woman receiving an acceptance letter from Carleton College.

     

    Olivia Qiu said she used New Oriental to apply to eight U.S. colleges in 2010. After completing a questionnaire, the counselors took over. “I didn’t write anything. They wrote everything for me,” she said.

     

    Qiu ultimately didn’t attend any of those eight colleges. Before university, she took a job at New Oriental in Tianjin and said she wrote essays for students. Other employees, she said, wrote personal statements, supplemental essays and recommendation letters. “Sometimes, the student didn’t even see (the application) before they submitted it” to colleges, she said.

     

    She said she quit over ethical concerns. “I just thought that’s not right, that’s not how you help students,” she said.

     

    A current New Oriental employee said he once falsified an entire high school transcript for a student. A former employee who worked in 2014 and 2015 compared New Oriental’s college application process to an assembly line: One person was in charge of signing a service contract with parents, another compiling a college list, a third completing the application, and a fourth submitting it to universities.

     

    By early this year, Benson and Gessner had stopped working for New Oriental and were focusing on new markets, including India, Sri Lanka and Africa.

     

    But the duo hasn’t abandoned China. In June, CICE organized a tour for admissions officers from seven U.S. colleges on behalf of another Chinese company, EIC Group.

    Class act these guys.

    EIC Group paid CICE $35,000, according to Benson, and promoted the tour with an advertisement on its website. “By ‘schmoozing and exchanging ideas’ with admissions officers, you are halfway to a successful application to a famous school,” said the Chinese-language ad. The ad disappeared after Reuters questioned the company about it.

    Let’s put the obvious ethical grotesqueness of it all aside for a moment and think about some of the real-world impacts of this pay-to-play pupil pipeline. With an ever growing supply of full tuition paying Chinese students waiting in the wings, what incentives do U.S. colleges have to keep tuition increases under control? Who cares if impoverished American debt slaves can afford an education or not? Like everything else in this sick society, it’s all about the money.

    The Wall Street Journal published a related article earlier this year titled: Heavy Recruitment of Chinese Students Sows Discord on U.S. Campuses, where we learned that the education english speaking students receive often suffers due to the need to accommodate the surge in poorly prepared Chinese students. For example:

    Students such as Mr. Shao are finding themselves separated from their American peers, sometimes through choice. Many are having a tough time fitting in and keeping up with classes. School administrators and teachers bluntly say a significant portion of international students are ill prepared for an American college education, and resent having to amend their lectures as a result.

     

    Rebecca Karl, a professor of Chinese history at New York University, puts it more starkly: She says Chinese students can pose a “burden” on her lectures, which she needs to modify for their benefit.

    Practices like these are able to sustain themselves due to public ignorance. It is imperative that we become far more informed as citizens, and far more outraged. Educate your friends and family by sharing this article.

  • Bernie Camp Threatens To Sue Project Veritas After Video Revealed "Egregious Violation Of Campaign Finance Law"

    The former deputy campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, Richard Pelletier, has sent a letter to Project Veritas threatening a lawsuit over his recording of a phone call, which Pelletier claims violated Nevada wiretapping laws.  The phone call was related to the following undercover video published by Project Veritas back in February, potentially revealing that the Bernie campaign violated campaign finance laws by funding members of the Australian Labor Party to “deface and/or destroy campaign materials and signs of Sanders’ opponents — on both sides of the political aisle.”  

    In response to the lawsuit threat, Project Veritas Assistant Communications Director, Luara Loomer, told Sputnik News simply that they too would be “pursuing justice” after “The Bernie Sanders campaign committed an egregious violation of campaign finance law.”

     

    Of course, the undercover video, published back in February, potentially reveals the violation of several federal laws including enlisting the help of a foreign national with a federal election and tampering with “political advertising which is placed on or affixed to public property or any private property.”

    Federal election law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly contributing money or any other thing of value to a Federal, state, or local election. This includes the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee without charge for any purpose.

     

    “The payment for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose, except for legal and accounting services… is a contribution,: 52 U.S.C. 30101(8)(A) explains.

     

    The volunteers were allegedly used to deface and/or destroy campaign materials and signs of Sanders’ opponents — on both sides of the political aisle.

     

    Stealing or vandalizing political advertisement is illegal, the law states “no person shall remove, deface,or knowingly destroy any political advertising which is placed on or affixed to public property or any private property.”

     

    In the video released by Project Veritas, the Australian nationals are seen stealing Trump signs. The footage also features a recording of Australian citizen Rebecca Doyle stating “they [the ALP] pay for our flights, they pay for the cost of accommodation, which is just the staff house, and then we get $60 stipend per day.”

    So while the Washington Post and other mainstream media outlets continue to blast alleged election tampering by “Russian” agents, we expect their advice would be that you promptly ignore this documented evidence of actual election tampering by full-time employees of Australia’s Labor Party.

     

    Here is the full letter sent to Project Veritas by Pelletier’s Attorney:

  • Students Demand "Sanctuary" From Immigration Laws, Student Loan Debt, And Finals

    Submitted by Amber Athey ad Cabot Phillips via CampusReform.org,

    • Students at George Washington University, site of a recent walkout to demand a "sanctuary campus" to protect illegal immigrant students, say they favor defiance of other federal laws, too.
    • Several students said they would like to make the campus a "sanctuary" from student loan debt, while others favored exemptions from underage drinking laws.
    • Some students even felt they should be given a pass on final exams due to the stress of the election, explaining that "it’s really hard to focus on your studies when there’s so much else going on.”

    Students across the country are asking for their schools to be “sanctuary campuses” for undocumented students, meaning university administrators would ignore federal immigration law and refuse to share information about undocumented students with immigration officials.

    Several schools have already declared themselves sanctuary campuses, including Portland State University, Reed College, and Columbia University.

    To find out more about what motivates students to support the sanctuary campus movement, Campus Reform visited George Washington University, where many students participated in a pro-sanctuary walk-out several weeks ago.

    The students interviewed were overwhelmingly in favor of GW becoming a sanctuary campus, calling it a “great thing,” and claiming that undocumented students “have a right to be going to this school” because “it’s really important for students to feel safe while they’re going to school.”

    Since the GW students were asking their administration to ignore federal law, Campus Reform asked if they wanted the campus to be a “sanctuary” from other laws, as well.

    “What about a sanctuary campus where student loan laws don’t affect you here?” Campus Reform asked.

    “Oh, absolutely,” responded one student, while another agreed, saying, “Yes, that’d be cool.”

    Students were also on board with making GW a sanctuary campus from underage drinking laws, because students “would feel safer” if they could drink and go to parties without breaking the law.

    “I do agree with that one,” declared one student.

    “Yeah, I think it [campus] should be a safe space for everybody,” replied another, explaining, “I don’t think anybody should be judged.”

    Some students even went so far as to say that campus should be a safe space from final exams, given recent stress from the 2016 election.

    “School’s been really stressful especially after the Trump election,” one student vented. “Like, it’s really hard to focus on your studies when there’s so much else going on.”

    Throughout the day, Campus Reform spoke with just one student who refused to support the idea of ignoring federal laws on campus.

    “I don’t believe in harboring criminals,” the student, who said he voted for Donald Trump, told Campus Reform. “I think, it’s against the law, we have to enforce federal law where it stands.”

  • Amazon Goes Offline With Bricks-And-Mortar Grocery Chain; Envisions Opening 2,000 Stores

    After launching Amazon Fresh, an online food delivery service, in numerous cities just a few years ago, Amazon has now decided it has to go “offline” to capture incremental share of the grocery market.  As such, the company today revealed its first brick-and-mortar small-format grocery store, Amazon Go, one of at least three formats the online retail giant is exploring as it makes a play for a higher share of grocery spending.  With in-store technology designed to track customers’ every step, the Amazon Go concept promises “No Lines” and “No Checkout.”

     

    The first Amazon Go concept store is roughly the size of a convenience store, though according to the Wall Street Journal the company is also testing a drive-thru concept as well as a traditional 30-to-40,000 square foot grocery store that would combine in-store shopping and curbside pickup. 

    The Amazon Go store, at roughly 1,800 square feet in downtown Seattle, resembles a convenience store-format in a video Amazon released Monday. It features artificial intelligence-powered technology that eliminates checkouts, cash registers and lines. Instead, customers scan their phone on a kiosk as they walk in, and Amazon automatically determines what items customers take from the shelves. After leaving the store, Amazon charges their account for the items and sends a receipt.

     

    Meanwhile, in the suburban Seattle neighborhood of Ballard, a handful of workers on Monday were finishing up one of Amazon’s two drive-through prototypes in the area, which according to the people close to the situation are slated to open in the next few weeks. The wood-paneled building with green trim and an overhang appeared to have at least three covered bays for cars to pull up and pick up orders, with a paved driveway in front.

     

    The third concept, the newly approved multi-format store, combines in-store shopping with curbside pickups, according to the people. It will likely adopt a 30,000- to 40,000-square-foot floor plans and spartan stocking style like European discount grocery chains Aldi or Lidl, offering a limited fresh selection in store and more via touch-screen orders for delivery later. Stores in this format, which are smaller than traditional U.S. grocery stores, could start appearing late next year.

    While the store formats are still in the concept stage, Amazon ultimately envisions opening up to 2,000 brick-and-mortar locations.

    Amazon envisions opening more than 2,000 brick-and-mortar grocery stores under its name, depending on the success of the new test locations, according to the people. By comparison, Kroger Co. operates about 2,800 locations across 35 states.

     

    Adding grocery pickups will be “part of their secret sauce in terms of all of the different ways in which they can engage the customer in bringing the product to them,” says Bill Bishop, chief architect at grocery and retail consultancy Brick Meets Click. “Everyone is looking at grocery because of frequency. Frequency guarantees that you have density.”

    Amazon GO

     

    Of course, Amazon isn’t the first to test drive-thru and curbside grocery as Target and Wal-Mart both plan to launch curbside pickup in 1,000 stores by the end of next year.

    Meanwhile, with nearly 40,000 grocery stores in the U.S. employing roughly 3.5mm people, most of whom work at or near minimum wage, Bernie’s “Fight for $15” agitators may want to take note of this development.

  • Auditor Deloitte Fined A Record $8 Million For Massive Fraud

    Remember when auditors were, by their very definition, supposed to be the embodiment of credibility, trustworthiness and moral fiber? The Brazilian arm of Big Four auditing giant, Deloitte, forgot these  simple prerequisites and as a result the US auditing watchdog fined the firm a record $8 million for what amounts to massive fraud: falsifying audit reports, altering documents and providing false testimony during an investigation that unearthed what it described as its “most serious” finding of misconduct.

    The US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, also penalized or barred 12 former partners, including a national practice director, and auditors of the Brazil-based Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes.

    The Deloitte Brazil case is the first time the PCAOB has “charged a member of the Big Four auditing firms with fraud and for failing to co-operate with an investigation” according to the FT. Worse, unlike banks which resolve similar cases without admitting or denying guilt, in settling, Deloitte Brazil admitted it had violated quality control standards and failed to co-operate with the auditing board’s inspection and subsequent investigation.

    “This is the most serious misconduct we’ve uncovered. It’s cover-up after cover-up after cover-up,” Claudius Modesti, director of enforcement at the PCAOB, said. “As an investor you’re expecting that the audit was done properly and sufficiently and that wasn’t the case here.”

    Not only was that not the case, but the details read like straight out of a fictional account of third-world crime.

    As the FT details, the PCAOB alleges Deloitte knew that its client, low-cost airline Gol Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes, did not have enough evidence to support “a potentially material amount of the maintenance deposits” that it was reporting. Deloitte’s senior auditors also knew the books were being reviewed for potential material misstatements when it released its audit report and signed off on the accuracy of the financial statements.

    In 2012, PCAOB inspectors looked at the Gol audits during their review of Deloitte Brazil. The engagement partner for the Gol account allegedly instructed his team to alter the work papers, according to the settlement. The partner also told his staff to alter the work papers for another client whose audit was also under review, the PCAOB alleged.

     

    The auditing watchdog later opened an investigation and alleges that this was further obstructed by the Deloitte auditors who provided the altered work papers to regulators. Senior Deloitte auditors falsely testified under oath that the altered work papers were the original documents, according to the settlement. 

     

    Investigators compared documents and realised something had changed. “The documentation that they had generated during the audit had changed so that our inspectors wouldn’t be able to identify, for example, the significance of these maintenance deposit deficiencies,” said Mr Modesti.

    After Deloitte conducted its own internal investigation when regulators brought concerns about altered documents, it found 70 altered work papers related to the Gol audits. PCAOB said senior leaders of the firm also obstructed investigators when they sought to look into the second client.

    In January, a senior manager who worked on the Gol audit gave PCAOB investigators recordings taken on his mobile phone of conversations he had had with a senior partner. In one of those recordings, made in 2014 amid the enforcement investigation, the senior partner told the manager, “any evidence that you have of this, remove it from your machine. Keep it in a — if you have that, keep it somewhere else, but not in your machine, not in the office. OK?”

    “Everything you told me, everything we discussed, never happened,” the senior partner added.

    In an attempt to save face after this “massive fraud” was uncovered, Deloitte tried to cast it off as a one-time event, the result of a few corrupt individuals, and said: “Integrity in delivering high-quality services is
    critical to our business, our clients and the public interest; it is
    non-negotiable.” It added that the actions of “a limited number” of
    individuals was “wholly unacceptable”. And yet, all but one of the former partners and auditors have been banned from working for companies and broker dealers that fall under the PCAOB’s oversight.

    In addition to the fine, which is the largest that the PCAOB has ever
    obtained, Deloitte agreed to an independent monitor and is banned from
    accepting new audit clients in Brazil until the firm meets remedial
    benchmarks. 

    One wonders if Deloitte was caught with one such brazenly egregious case, just what else is there that goes unreported, and undiscovered when it comes to corporate “books”, not only in Brazil but also in the US.

  • A Banana Republic In The Making – "The Glue Of Reason In India Is Flaking"

    Submitted by Jayant Bhandari via Acting-Man.com,

    A Brief Recap

    India’s Prime Minister announced on 8th November 2016 that Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 banknotes will no longer be legal tender. Linked are Part-I, Part-II, Part-III, and Part-IV , which provide updates on the rapidly encroaching police state

    Expect a continuation of new social engineering notifications, each sabotaging wealth-creation, confiscating people’s wealth, and tyrannizing those who refuse to be a part of the herd, in the process destroying the very backbone of the economy and civilization.

    There are clear signs that in a very convoluted way, possession of gold for investment purposes will be made illegal. Expect capital controls to follow.   Chaos from people’s inability to access the money in their bank accounts is now spreading to the people who have so far been unaffected: the middle class.

    This is a completely unnecessary man-made disaster, with the single aim of glorifying  Narendra Modi.

     

    modi

    Indian prime minister Narendra Modi

    Photo credit: Reuters

     

     

    Fracturing Institutions

    Several petitions in various courts across India were immediately filed against the central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), for repudiating its IOU obligation which the currency bills represent, after Modi’s announcement on 8th November.

    Several postponements later, the first hearing at the Supreme Court will likely take place on 5th December 2016, almost a month after the announcement of the ban. That does not mean that the court did not deliberate over “more important issues” affecting this wretched poor country.

    It inter alia heard a petition and passed a judgment that makes playing the national anthem compulsory at cinema halls before the start of every movie, to promote nationalism. It also decreed that people have to stand up while the anthem is played. Henceforth one can be charged with sedition for not actively showing proper respect to the flag and the anthem.

    Only someone very numb can avoid being horrified by this.

    By law, the national anthem must henceforth be played in Indian cinemas before the start of a movie (as an aside, the anthem sounds actually interesting from a musical standpoint). Per the court’s order, everyone present must stand up while it is playing, so as to show proper respect. A failure to stand up can lead to an indictment for sedition, and sometimes it leads to offenders being berated and getting beaten up on the spot by irate nationalists. Happily, it is not yet mandatory to shout “Sieg Heil”. [PT]

     

    Salaried middle class Indians — lacking moral instincts and incapable of imagining the concept of individual liberty in this extremely irrational society — are happy with the court’s decision. Insecure in their own skin, they prefer the comfort of the collective. They are the true source of this collectivist poison.

    Indian courts are often referred to as “honorable court” and they very actively taking steps against anyone who shows the slightest of disrespect or challenges their judgments. So any direct challenge to their “authority” would be unwise.

    Indian institutions have continued to deteriorate and mutate since the British left India. They are now merely hollowed out structures, devoid of any meaning or essence. We are in the final phase in which these institutions are crumbling, but in the meantime pomp and show are amped up to fool the gullible.

    Indian culture in its immense irrationality does not provide the glue to even maintain these institutions, let alone improve on them. That glue could only have come from reason and moral instincts.

    Anyone with a sense of history also realizes that India produced its finest leaders while it was still under the control of the British. It was during British rule that a cultural renaissance was happening in India, which ended with the emergence of the politicized, so-called independence movement.

    Britain had set up institutions that allowed the ablest and the best to rise up. Not only is this no longer happening, but Indian institutions today actively suppress the ablest and the finest, as the recent judgment of the Supreme Court on the anthem exemplifies. This happens because most Indians euphorically support suppression of the individual both in theory and practice.

    Institutions of liberty have mutated into institutions of slavery.  It is this inversion that is hastening the rapid decay of Indian society. India must eventually end up with institutions that reflect its underlying culture: a hugely fractured, tribal set-up, and very likely a disintegrated India.

     

    ruins

    Without reason, institutions are destroyed by entropy

    Photo via indiaspend.com

     

    The Forgotten Ones

    Modi’s policies on demonetization are changing on a daily basis, sometimes more than once a day. This had to happen, for once you take up a mindless social engineering project of this enormity — killing 88% of monetary value in circulation overnight in a country where most people depend on cash — massive patch-up jobs have to be undertaken for the foreseeable future, helping India to degrade and sprint toward becoming a police state.

    Alas, there are simply not enough patches available. India’s economy and society will are facing massive problems.  So far, it has been the poorest citizens who have suffered the most.

    The horrendous struggles of more than 50% of the population, whose situation is worse than that of the average African on virtually every metric – who have no toilets, no electricity, no water supply, no access to even primary health care or basic education – will go unrecorded.

    These poorest of India’s people are seen as nobodies. International organizations only have an interest in them in terms of aggregate headline figures — Gini coefficient, poverty level, population growth, etc. India’s middle class, while it might claim to be against the caste system, does not really see these people or account for them, as they are widely perceived as mere servants.

    The western media, the IMF and many international economists — if they are paying attention to the current demonetization at all — are siding with the Indian government. It is as if the forces in favor of one-world government and their craving to control people’s cash and private lives have become their sole aim in life.

    Obsessed with Keynesian economics, they think that all one has to do to increase wealth is to finely adjust the currency-printing machine. Most of these people have never studied philosophy, watched or understood human psychology, investigated society in its complexity outside of econometrics and statistics, or participated in running a business.

    In their eyes, India is on the path of progress and institutional reform. From their perspective — colored by a rather simplistic, socialistic indoctrination — they are completely failing to see the situation in its entirety, particularly the massive suffering the ban on currency has inflicted on society and the inevitable systemic risks it has imposed on India’s future.

     

    Residents of Sanjay Colony, a residential neighbourhood, crowd around a water tanker provided by the state-run Delhi Jal (water) Board to fill their containers in New Delhi June 30, 2009. Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit has given directives to tackle the burgeoning water crisis caused by uneven distribution of water in the city according to local media. The board is responsible for supplying water in the capital

    This is the water supply for the lucky ones. Many do not have even this.

    Photo credit: Adnan Abidi / Reuters

     

    A Banana Republic in the Making

    Our interest here is in exploring deeper undercurrents and what they mean for the future of India. Every single indication is that India is on an inevitable path to becoming a full-scale police state.  But the Indian police state will not be a Nazi-kind of system.

    Being inherently disorganized, undisciplined and lacking the capacity to plan and having no commitment to values, India will go the way of autocracies in Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Bangladesh. With GDP per capita of USD 1,604, India is already drenched in poverty, and wallowing in suffering and disease.

    In India, suffering and violence — not reason or moral instincts — bring stability. The concept of reason is conspicuous by its absence in Indian society. Such societies — as in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere in the backward part of the world — tend to go through a phase of violence before stability arises. If they could reason, they would be able to bypass the phase of violence.

    The last thing anyone should do is to transplant such people into a different setting or to change the structure of their societies, as Modi has tried with the demonetization edict. People with tribal mindsets do not flourish, assimilate or evolve when transplanted or destabilized.

    This has been the consistent experience from trying to enforce institutional changes in these countries through top-down mechanisms. In what way have Iraq or Libya become any better after their ruthless rulers were forcibly removed?

    Societies lacking in reason also lack moral instincts. They are mostly oblivious to the pain of other people. In India, those from the lower castes — even though the formal caste system is crumbling  — do not register as human beings in the minds of members of the richer classes.

    Scores of people have died because of lack of treatment, having to queue for too long in their old age, etc., but in the imagination of the salaried middle class they are mere numbers, all somehow contributing to the greater good.

     

    Throngs of desperate people are storming a bank. How can such scenes possibly strike anyone as symptomatic of “good economic policy”? [PT]

     

    But now, with the month of November having ended, salaried people are starting to get hit as well. The money that they thought was safe in the banks is no longer available. It is now their turn to join the queues and return home empty-handed, as the banks have mostly run out of cash.

     

    banks-atms-crowd-pti_650x400_51478859671

    The middle class is now starting to suffer as well, as cash in the banking system has been depleted

    Photo credit: PTI

     

    inside-the-banks

    Pensioners and salary earners will likely change their view about the demonetization policy as they increasingly realize that their pensions and salaries are now stuck in the banks

     

    Gold Bullion Is Now Effectively Illegal

    Assaults on people’s private property and the integrity of their homes through tax-raids continue.  In a recent notification, government has made it clear that any ownership of jewelry above 500 grams of gold per married woman will be put under the microscopic scrutiny of tax authorities.

    Steep taxes and penalties will be imposed on those who cannot prove the source of their gold. In India’s Orwellian new-speak this means that because bullion has not been explicitly mentioned, its ownership will be deemed to be illegal. Courts will do what Modi wants. Huge bribes will have to be paid.

    Sane people are of course cleaning up their bank lockers. The secondary consequence of this will be a steep increase in unreported crimes, for people will be afraid of going to the police after a theft, fearing that the tax authorities will then ask questions. At the same time, the gold market has mostly gone underground, and apparently the volume of gold buying has gone up.

    The salaried middle class is the consumption class, often heavily indebted. Poor people have limited amounts of gold. The government is merely doing what pleases the majority and their sense of envy, to the detriment of small businesses and savers. Now, the middle class is starting to face problems as well. This will worsen once the the impact of the destruction of small businesses becomes obvious.

    India has always had a negative-yielding economy. It has suddenly become even more negative-yielding. Business risk has gone through the roof. Savers will be victimized. It is because of negative yields that Indian savers buy gold. They will buy more going forward.

    Sane Indians should stay a step ahead of their rapacious government and the evolving totalitarian society, which are less and less inhibited by any institutions or values in support of liberty.

     

    Conclusion

    India will become a police state, likely with the full support of most Indians. Nationalism will be the thread that weaves them together. But it is a fake thread, devoid of any value. Eventually, there will be far too many stresses in the system, whose institutions are already in an advance stage of decay.

    India as it exists today is a British creation. With the British now gone for 69 years, it is an entity has less and less reason to exist in its current form. The glue of reason that the British have applied is flaking, and it is doing so rapidly under the catalyst by name of Narendra Modi.

  • The "Pizzagate" Arrest: Police Release Criminal Complaint Against Comet Restaurant Shooter

    As we reported last night, the “Pizzagate” scandal took a turn for the bizarre, when a man with an assault rifle walked into the Comet Ping Pong restaurant on Sunday afternoon to “self-investigate” the popular Washington pizza parlor owned by James Alefantis that has been accused of being an international child sex ring run by prominent Democrats, following the release of Podesta emails. 28-year-old Edgar Maddison Welch, of Salisbury, N.C., fired the rifle at least once inside the restaurant but no one was injured, before he turned himself in.

    On Monday, the police released the criminal complaint against Welch, in which he admitted that he was motivated by the numerous online reports about a suspected child trafficking ring allegedly operating out of the restaurant and run by top Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

    Welch said in an arraignment released on Monday that he had read online that the Comet Ping Pong restaurant in Northwest Washington was “harboring child sex slaves, and he wanted to see for himself if they were there,” according to court documents. He said he was armed to help rescue children but surrendered peacefully “when he found no evidence that underage children were being harbored in the restaurant.”

    Welch was charged with four counts, including felony assault with a deadly weapon and carrying a gun without a license outside a home or business. Wearing a white jumpsuit and shackles, Welch told the judge his name and stood silently as he was advised of his rights. The judge ordered him to remain in custody.

    Welch, 28, of Salisbury, N.C., fired from an assault-like AR-15 rifle. The police had found two weapons in the restaurant, and one in the suspect’s car. No one was hurt.

    Will this arrest mute the relentless online allegations of a pedophile ring run out of the pizza store, and which allegedly implicates some of the top democrats in the country? Somehow we doubt it.

    Full police report below:

  • Did The US-Led Coalition Give The Coordinates Of A Russian Aleppo Hospital To Al-Qaeda For A Missile Attack

    Submitted by Alex Christoforou of The Duran

    This is becoming a familiar pattern. Every time Lavrov and Kerry appear to be making some sort of progress on ending hostilities in Syria, an unwarranted, and oddly timed attack on forces sided with the Syrian government occur.

    On September 9th, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary John Kerry agreed to a cessation of hostilities in Syria, amid an ultimatum for the US to finally separate the “moderate rebels” from the Al Qaeda-Al Nusra jihadi fighters.

    As pressure mounted to have the full text of the Lavrov – Kerry agreement published for the international community to understand the exact conditions outlined (something the US was admittedly opposed to), the American air force “accidentally” attacked the Syrian Arab Army positions at Deir Ezzor, which resulted in the death of 80 soldiers who were making strong gains against ISIS.

    The Duran’s Adam Garrie noted…

    –the timing of the event, the political response, the way in which the US has disregarded the UN as a serious forum, and the uncertainty over whether the crime was an intentional or unintentional blunder, cannot be ignored.

     

    The Russian Foreign Ministry have said quite frankly that the US airstrike has been an aid to ISIS. This is material fact and will be recorded in the annals of military history.

    This morning, The Duran’s Alexander Mercouris reported that the Syrian army is rapidly moving closer to taking back Aleppo from US-Saudi backed Al Qaeda jihadists…some predict the end game is days away, the Syrian army predicts final defeat of Jihadis “within weeks”.

    Lavrov and Kerry are once again discussing a diplomatic end to hostilities in and around Aleppo. The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the EU, are anxious to save whatever remains of their Al Qaeda regime change investment.

    The Duran’s Alexander Mercouris reported that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has spelled out clearly the terms Russia is giving to the US and to the Jihadis in eastern Aleppo: “they must all leave the city by a fixed date or be treated as terrorists.” 

    As diplomatic talks between Lavrov and Kerry intensify, to bring an end to fighting, the pattern of oddly timed attacks on forces sided with the Syrian government once again hit the news wires. This time the victim is not the Syrian army, but Russian doctors.

    RT reported today that Russian doctors were killed in rebel shelling of a hospital in Aleppo…

    A female Russian medical specialist has been killed and two more medics have been injured in a militant shelling of a mobile military hospital in Aleppo, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

     

    Some local residents attending medical appointments were also injured during the shelling that targeted one of the field hospitals set up in the government held part of the city, the ministry added.

     

    Russian military medics have begun to consult the residents of Syrian Aleppo’s eastern districts liberated from militants. They opened a clinic, a medical ward for children, a surgery department, an intensive care department, a laboratory and an x-ray room.

    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov issued a statement on the sudden attack that may ensure a decisive end to any sort of diplomacy that remains between Kerry and Lavrov.

    The statement not only condemns the attack, but clearly places the blame on “terrorists’ patrons from the US, UK, France and their sympathizers” who, according to Konashenkov “provided the militants with information on the Russian hospital and its exact coordinates.” 

    “Today, between 12:21 and 12:30pm [local time], a medical center of the Russian Defense Ministry’s mobile hospital in Aleppo was shelled by the militants during the reception time.”

    “As a result of the direct hit of the reception ward, one female Russian military medic was killed [and] two medical specialists were severely injured.” 

     

    “We know who provided the militants with information on the Russian hospital and its exact coordinates. Therefore it’s not only the actual perpetrators who are responsible for murdering and wounding our medics who were administering aid to Aleppo children.” 

     

    “The hands of those who instigated this murder are also coated with the blood of our servicemen. Those who created, fed and armed those beats in human disguise, naming them ‘opposition’ for justification before their own conscience and voters. Yes, [this blood is on your hands], terrorists’ patrons from the US, UK, France and their sympathizers.”

    The Russian Defense Ministry is calling on the international community to condemn the attack. We will wait and see if the establishment mainstream media even mentions the story within their news cycle.

    We may also expect a western inspired false flag attack on, “say a UN convoy“, so as to divert attention away from this crime and thrust some good old “fake news” blame on Russian aggression.

    “We calls on the entire international community, as well as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and other international organizations to strongly condemn the murder of Russian doctors who carried out their duty by delivering medical assistance to the civilians in Aleppo. All perpetrators and all those who ordered the shelling of the Russian Defense Ministry’s hospital in Aleppo must be held accountable for their actions.”

  • "Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands Retraction

    As the “fake news” narrative grows, and The House quietly passes a bill to “counter Russian propoganda” websites, one alleged ‘fake’ news wesbite – as defined by the farcical PropOrNot organization – has struck back. Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith has threatened The Washington Post with a defamation suit and demanded a retraction.

    As the lawyers like to say, res ipsa loquitur. Please tweet and circulate this letter widely. You will notice that our attorney Jim Moody is a seasoned litigator who has won cases before the Supreme Court. He has considerable experience in First Amendment and defamation actions. Past high profile representations include Westomoreland v. CBS and defending Linda Tripp.

     

    I also hope, particularly for those of you who don’t regularly visit Naked Capitalism, that you’ll check out our related pieces that give more color to how the fact the Washington Post was taken for a ride by inept propagandists, particularly our introduction to our spoof PropOrNot.org site, which uses the PropOrNot project as an example of sorely deficient propaganda and shows where it went wrong, or the humor site itself. Be sure not to miss its FAQ.

     

    We have another post today that describes how the few things that are verifiable on the PropOrNot site don’t pan out, as in the organization is not simply a group of inept propagandists but also appears to deal solely in fabrications.

     

    If the site is flagrantly false with respect to things that can be checked, why pray tell did the Washington Post and its fellow useful idiots in the mainstream media validate and amplify its message? Strong claims demand strong proofs, yet the Post appeared content to give a megaphone to people who make stuff up with abandon. No wonder the members of PropOrNot hide as much as they can about what they are up to; more transparency would expose their work to be a tissue of lies.

    We fully endorse Yves Smith’s efforts.

    Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven’t followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 05

Today’s News 5th December 2016

  • Dang It Gold’s Supposed to Go Up! (Report 4 December, 2016)

    We’ve gone through a succession of events and processes that were supposed to make gold go up. The following list is by no means exhaustive:

    1. Quantitative Easing
    2. Bernanke’s Helicopter Drops
    3. Janet Yellen’s Keynesianism
    4. Obama’s Deficits (US government debt is now a hair away from $20,000,000,000—and that’s just the little part of it they put on their balance sheet)
    5. The election of Trump
    6. The Italian Referendum (current as we write this)

    Each has been good for a little blip that has been forgotten in the noise. We are seeing articles now that have moved on to the next old-new story. It seems that Trump is going to spend a lot on infrastructure. This will require massive deficits. But the market will distrust that the government can pay. So we will see a twin sell off of the US dollar in terms of other currencies, and Treasury bonds in terms of dollars. This will cause the mases to Discover Gold and the gold price is going to skyrocket. Click here to buy our fine gold, we have the very best gold.

    We get it. Everyone thinks that interest rates are going up because inflation because more spending. Actually not quite everyone—our view is that the drivers which have caused the interest rate to fall for 35 years are still in full, deadly effect. Nor the folks who are bidding on junk bonds, or stocks for that matter.

    But most everyone. Rates have to go up, because they’re lower than ever before history. Right?

    And if rates are going up, then so is gold, right?

    The Treasury bond is payabl only in US dollars. The US dollar, which is the liability of the Federal Reserve, is backed on by Treasurys. It’s a nice little check-kiting scheme. But besides that, the two instruments have the same risks. If you don’t like the bond, then you won’t like the dollar either. The day will come when en masse, the market decides it doesn’t like both of them, and gold will be the only acceptable money.

    With due respect to our old friend Aragorn, today is not that day!

    We believe interest rates are headed lower, not higher. But that said, we do not see any particular causal relationship between the interest rate and the price of gold. The former is the spread between the Fed’s undefined asset and its undefined liability. It is unhinged and while it could shoot the moon from Truman through Carter, it’s sailing in the other direction now. Down to Hell.

    The price of gold is the exchange rate between the Fed’s liability and metal. So long as people strive to get more dollars—most especially including those who bet on the price of gold, and those who write letters encouraging the bettors—there is no reason for this exchange rate to explode.

    Again, to plagiarize the Ranger from the North, the day will come when gold goes into permanent backwardation. But today is not that day!

    Today (Friday’s close), the price of gold is down seven Federal Reserve Notes from where it was a week ago.

    So where to from here? Are those dratted fundamentals moving?

    We will update those fundamentals below. But first, here’s the graph of the metals’ prices.

           The Prices of Gold and Silver
    prices

    Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It fell a bit more this week. 

    The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price
    ratio

    For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

    Here is the gold graph.

           The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    gold

    The price of gold fell (i.e. the price of the dollar rose, green line), and the basis (abundance) fell and cobasis (scarcity) rose just a bit.

    Our calculated fundamental price of gold fell about ten bucks, now about $1,200 even.

    Now let’s look at silver.

    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    silver

    In silver, we see a 14-cent rise in price but the cobasis is up.

    The fundamentals got ever-so-slightly tighter. And our calculated fundamental price moved up to just under $15.

    We note that speculators bid silver up this evening (Arizona time) in the wake of the Italian vote, some 30 cents to just under $17. But as of this publication, they couldn’t hold the line and the price fell back and is now a nickel below Friday’s close.

     

    © 2016 Monetary Metals

  • Here's My Shocked Face

    h/t National Bank Financial

    Why is America’s homeownership rate at an all-time low despite rising household formation, record full-time employment and low interest rates? Perhaps, the trauma of the last housing crash is still fresh in the minds of potential home buyers who end up opting for rentals instead ? the rental vacancy rate is at a 31-year low. And prospective buyers who succeed in getting over that psychological barrier are then confronted by other obstacles such as tighter lending standards which pose problems, particularly for first-time home buyers holding student debt. After being burnt by lax lending during the subprime crisis, banks have gone to the other extreme as evidenced by latest data from the New York Fed which shows 58% of new mortgage originations this year has gone to borrowers with credit scores 760 and above. As today’s Hot Charts show, that’s the tightest mortgage standards in over a decade.

  • Fake News Meme Going Viral

    You’ve gotta give them credit.  The plot, the plan, the conspiracy – it’s really well thought out, well funded – well executed.  Bravo!  It’s like a well planned ballet.  In ballet, to acheive excellence, complete cooperation and syncrhonicity is required.  Look what I found in my Twitter today from some Big Lebowski zombie:

     

     

    The ‘fake news’ in question was from a Zero Hedge article “Why the Elite Hate Russia” that was written by Global Intel Hub during the election, in order to counterbalance some of the “Russian Propaganda” coming from the CIA/Illuminati basement in rural Virginia (you know the location).  

    They are moving so quickly to put the genie back in the bottle it’s alarming.  The DOD originally created the internet initially for legitimate military purposes (secure communication) and as an aside wireless technology was developed during world war 2 and actively used in combat (field phones).  Anyway once the internet was ‘released’ it clearly was a mistake, but not something they could stop.  Even a Rockefeller himself admitted ‘it would be better if the internet didn’t exist:’ 

    First things first, read this article by a New Yorker reporter who seems to be a mainstream journalist that has actually investigated Russian Propaganda as it exists in the ‘real’ world, not as created by Rockefellers in USA in a Hollywood Studio:

    I can report that the spokesman was an American man, probably in his thirties or forties, who was well versed in Internet culture and swore enthusiastically. He said that the group numbered about forty people. “I can say we have people who work for major tech companies and people who have worked for the government in different regards, but we’re all acting in a private capacity,” he said. “One thing we’re all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool.” The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. “That was a big wake-up call to us. It’s like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground,” the spokesman said. “My God, if they can do that there, why can’t they do it here?” PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. PropOrNot has claimed total financial and editorial independence.

    Given PropOrNot’s shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the group’s claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden’s office. In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October. Two of the group’s members, an ex-State Department employee and an I.T. researcher, described their research. “It sounded interesting, and tracked with reporting on Russian propaganda efforts,” Chu wrote. After a few phone calls with the members, it became clear that Wyden’s office could not validate the group’s findings. Chu advised the group on press strategy and suggested some reporters that it might reach out to. “I told them that if they had findings, some kind of document that they could share with reporters, that would be helpful,” he told me. Chu said that Wyden’s office played no role in creating the report and didn’t endorse the findings. Nonetheless, he added, “There has been bipartisan interest in these kind of Russian efforts, including interference in elections, for some time now, including from Senator Wyden.” This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information “concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election.”

    The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump’s stunning election. The story combines two of the most popular technological villains of post-election analysis—fake news and Russian subterfuge—into a single tantalizing package. Like the most effective Russian propaganda, the report weaved together truth and misinformation.

    Bogus news stories, which overwhelmingly favored Trump, did flood social media throughout the campaign, and the hack of the Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s e-mail seems likely to have been the work of Russian intelligence services. But, as harmful as these phenomena might be, the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier. Vasily Gatov told me, “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putinistic.”

    This PropOrNot is clearly a Soros funded psy-op.  But it’s amateurish, it’s pathetic.  It’s amazing people really believe this stuff.  But this is coming from a group of people who previously, just believed everything they saw on TV.  Now that they are ‘surprised’ Trump was elected, they are searching the net for answers, looking at sites they didn’t look before (like Drudge, Zero Hedge, and many others).  They still doubt anything they see ‘online’ because clearly, TV is the only real authority for information, not ‘the internets’.  

    Facebook was their first attempt to seize control of the internet as a new social control mechanism, but that is largely failing.  Facebook does control a certain marginal percentage of the population but those with above room temperature IQ are not so susceptible for such easy manipulation.  So post-election they’re going into overdrive.  Fortunately, part of the dichotomy we witnessed during the election was also in parallel with the ‘digital divide’ with those more ‘technically savvy’ people being pro-Trump (although this is a reality the perception in the MSM is the opposite, as Silicon Valley backed Clinton, this was only the billionaire class and liberals, women, minorities, and others – the majority of tech savvy computer users backed Trump).  This means that the ‘establishment’ that Trump defeated, they’re not too technically savvy.  Sure, they can hire the best and the brightest with their money, but this too was a huge failure, as Clinton hired some unprofessional goons who allowed themselves to be taped in real time speaking about corruption and illegal activities for all to see.  So childish.  They can’t even decide who is a good subcontractor!  Fortunately, globalintelhub.com wasn’t listed on their list, but zerohedge.com is – and we are a major contributor.  Actually, ZeroHedge is the best ‘real news’ source of market info, maybe only in the same class as bloomberg (which is, a ‘real news’ agency although biased by a billionaire liberal owner).  

    In the recent vote about Russian Propaganda, only a small few in the house voted against it.

    On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news“, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017“, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”

    A quick skim of the bill reveals “Title V—Matters relating to foreign countries”,  whose Section 501 calls for the government to “counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in  coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly.”

    The section lists the following definitions of media manipulation:


    • Establishment or funding of a front group.
    • Covert broadcasting.
    • Media manipulation.
    • Disinformation and forgeries.
    • Funding agents of influence.
    • Incitement and offensive counterintelligence.
    • Assassinations.
    • Terrorist acts.

     

    As ActivistPost correctly notes, it is easy to see how this law, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, could be used to target, threaten, or eliminate so-called “fake news” websites, a list which has been used to arbitrarily define any website, or blog, that does not share the mainstream media’s proclivity to serve as the Public Relations arm of a given administration.

    Curiously, the bill which was passed on November 30, was introduced on November 22, two days before the Washington Post published its Nov. 24 article citing “experts” who claim Russian propaganda helped Donald Trump get elected.

    Anyone who is aware of how the world works (if you aren’t, you can read a list of books here to see how the world really works, or checkout Splitting Pennies) should be extremely ALARMED by this!  Everyone has probably heard of the term ‘wire fraud’ -this was a catch all crime used by the FBI for more than 50 years to ensnare virtually anyone they wanted to convict for any crime.  Wire fraud is “financial fraud involving the use of telecommunications or information technology.”

    Which is a pretty broad, general definition.  So many criminals who they couldn’t find evidence for their crimes, they would charge them with ‘wire fraud’ which was the bureaus goto law created for the purpose of convicting criminals without the need of ‘smoking gun’ evidence which was in many cases, like the JFK investigation, IMPOSSIBLE to find.  

    Fortunately, they aren’t so powerful – they are unpopular, and seem to be a dying breed.  But we should prepare – we shouldn’t hope!  We have to get on the offensive, this is what going viral is all about!

    Free HD Windows / Phone background by Vector Informatics

    Dum spiro spero  “While I breathe, I hope“

     

  • Is The US Government Behind The Fake News Media Attacks On President-Elect Trump?

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Eric Zuesse has brought to our attention that US intelligence officials have placed a story in Buzzfeed, “a Democratic party mouthpiece,” that the Russian government used fake news to get Donald Trump elected president.
    According to Buzzfeed:

    “US intelligence officials believe Russia helped disseminate fake and propagandized news as part of a broader effort to influence and undermine the presidential election, two US intelligence sources told BuzzFeed News.

     

    ‘They’re doing this continuously, that’s a known fact,’ one US intelligence official said, requesting anonymity to discuss the sensitive national security issue.

     

    ‘This is beyond propaganda, that’s my understanding,’ the second US intelligence official said. The official said they believed those efforts likely included the dissemination of completely fake news stories. …

     

    One intelligence official said, ‘In the context, did Russia attempt to influence the US elections; the aperture is as wide as it can possibly be.’” ‘The real unanswered question is, why did they do it?’ the second US intelligence official said. ‘Is it because they love Donald Trump? Because they hated Hillary Clinton? Or just because they like undermining Western democracies?’”

    Who are these US intelligence officials who are portraying the president-elect of the United States to be a “Putin stooge, a tool of Russia”? Once in office, Trump must investigate these hostile elements in US intelligence who are working to discredit the US president and the American people who voted him into office.

    As one reader pointed out, those who debunk “conspiracy theories,” that is, explanations that they do not like, now have a conspiracy theory of their own: Vladimir Putin used independent American websites to elect Trump with fake news. Only voters living in a few large coastal cities were immune to the fake news.

    In other words, the presstitute media has lost control over Americans’ minds to Putin.

    With an opponent this powerful, neoconservatives better think a dozen times before fomenting any more tension with the Kremlin.

    Open the link above to Zeusse’s column and look at the cover of Time magazine. This cover delegitimizes the presidential election. Which US intelligence agency planted this cover on Time? President Trump must have the Secret Service investigate this attack from inside the US government on the US President. Congress, both House and Senate, should immediately summon Time magazine to hearings under oath. This interference by US intelligence in American political life is illegal. Those responsible must be discovered, indicted, convicted, and sentenced. Otherwise fake news will displace facts as Americans are wrapped in a Matrix inside a Matrix.

    Three hundred and ninety opponents of the US Constitution, who sit in the US House of Representatives, just passed a bill that voids the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

    Title V of the bill establishes an interagency executive branch committee “to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence.” Russian manipulation of US media (a routine practice of the US government) to spread disinformation (fake news) is one of the “active measures by Russia” to be countered. In other words, websites that do not participate in the demonization of Russia and President Putin will be subjected to McCarthyite suspicions and accusations. Countering is an open-ended activity that easily extends to enforcement actions against suspected parties.

    If this bill becomes law, it can be used to discredit and destroy truthtellers as agents of foreign intelligence.

    In other words, the message is: if you dispute our lies you are a foreign agent and subject to arrest or elimination.

    This is the state of democracy in America today.

    More than any other country, the United States needs to be liberated. Can Trump do it?

  • EU Demands Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft Cede to Their Anti-Hate Speech Laws

    There’s so much hate out there. The EU has decided they’re going to do something about it, god damn it. All of the damned, fucking, voters running astray this year must have the autocrats going apeshit trying to figure out ways to suppress populism. As such, the EU is demanding that US tech giants comply with their demands to curtail ‘hate speech’ else be literally forced to do so — according to law. The laws are designed to protect migrants streaming into the EU, raping and pillaging along the way.

    Europeans, you must comply.

    source: Reuters

    The European Union (EU) executive’s warning comes six months after the companies signed up to a voluntary code of conduct to take action in Europe within 24 hours, following rising concerns triggered by the refugee crisis and terror attacks.
     
    This included removing or disabling access to the content if necessary, better cooperation with civil society organizations and the promotion of “counter-narratives” to hate speech.

     
    Such as propaganda, like the correct the record shills? Counter-narratives.
     

    The code of conduct is largely a continuation of efforts that the companies already take to counter hate speech on their websites, such as developing tools for people to report hateful content and training staff to handle such requests.

     
    The EU Justice Commission wants tech companies to censor speech at a much faster pace than the current 80% after 48 hours. Permitting 20% of speech that is deemed hateful to be disseminated after 48 hours is 20% too much, according to the Commissioner Vera Jourova.

    “If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months,” Jourova told the Financial Times.
     
    Jourova’s report showed an uneven pace across the 28-country bloc, with the removal rate of racist posts in Germany and France above 50 percent, but just 11 percent in Austria and 4 percent in Italy.

     
    Coincidentally, the Italians just told the EU to fuck off this evening, voting against the referendum. I suppose they’re all a bunch of racist bastards.

    EU justice ministers will meet in Brussels to discuss the report on Thursday. They are also expected to ask the companies to clarify issues including taking down “terrorist propaganda” and helping provide evidence to convict foreign fighters.

     
    How nice of them to also include the censorship of terrorists. Kiss your free speech goodbye Europe. The EU has gone full Soviet Union with the aim to suppress freedom of expression.

     

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • "Pizzagate" Explodes After Man Arrested In Comet Restaurant Shooting

    Pizzagate took a turn for the even more bizarre on Sunday, as a man with an assault rifle walked into Comet Ping Pong to "self-investigate" the Baltimore, Maryland, pizza parlor that internet conspiracy theorists say is at the center of an international child sex ring run by prominent Democrats. 28-year-old Edgar Maddison Welch, of Salisbury, N.C., reportedly fired the rifle at least once inside the restaurant but no one was injured.

    As HeatSt.com reports, Washington, D.C., police arrested the man Sunday afternoon, after restaurant employees saw a man, described as being in his early 20s and carrying an “assault rifle,” work his way through the dining room and then attempt to enter the staff work area at the back of the building.

    Restaurant workers acted quickly, getting staff and patrons—including a number of children—to safety and dialing 911. Authorities were quick to respond. They subdued and arrested the man and secured the restaurant. No one was injured.

     The Washington Post noted that the incident caused panic, with several businesses going into lockdown as police swarmed the neighborhood after receiving the call shortly before 3 p.m.

    Police said 28-year-old Edgar Maddison Welch, of Salisbury, N.C., walked in the front door of Comet Ping Pong and pointed a firearm in the direction of a restaurant employee. The employee was able to flee and notify police. Police said Welch proceeded to discharge the rifle inside the restaurant.

     

    The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” the election-related conspiracy theory.

     

    Police said in addition to the assault rifle, they also recovered two firearms inside the restaurant; an additional weapon was recovered in Welch’s car. Bomb-sniffing dogs and at least one armored vehicle were present at the scene.

     

    He has been charged with assault with a dangerous weapon.

    DC Police Press Release on the arrest…

    One can't help but wonder, as Congress considers a bill “to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence,” whether this is yet another false flag to raise awareness of what is a possible outcome of "fake news"?

     

  • Don't Want A Muslim Registry? Abolish The Census

    Submitted by Alice Salles via The Mises Institute,

    As President-elect Donald Trump met with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach — a potential pick for head of the Department of Homeland Security — the internet lit up with the leaked contents of their meeting, triggering another round of talks concerning a possible “national registry” of Americans or immigrants who subscribe to Islam.

    While Kobach’s plan involves the George W. Bush-era National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) — a system that remained in place under President Barack Obama until 2011 (only to be replaced with a more comprehensive program) — few caught up to the fact NSEERS only involves the collection and crosschecking of data pertaining to immigrants coming to the United States from Muslim-majority countries. But as news sources ran with the story that Trump could eventually turn this into a registry of American Muslims and immigrants already living in the country, the president-elect’s spokesman Jason Miller reassured the public that no, a registry system targeting Muslims was not in the cards for the Trump administration.

    Nevertheless, there is one event in our country’s history that serves as a precedent for a system that could effectively single out and help report on specific Americans and immigrants. But the US government would never be able to put it in place if it wasn’t for the presence of the Census Bureau, an agency that costs billions of taxpayer dollars yearly.

    In a recent piece for USA Today, James Bovard explained that the Census Bureau sends “its hefty American Community Survey to more than 3 million households a year,” collecting personal information regarding the resident’s religion, ethnic background, employment history, and even if the resident in question has “difficulty remembering, concentrating or making decisions.”

    While the agency threatens those taking the survey with a $5,000 fine for failing to comply with its demands, it never had to answer to its blatant disregard for the law in the 1940s, when the US government had access to information on Japanese Americans thanks to the data collected by Census workers. With detailed information in hand, the Army eventually rounded Japanese Americans up, throwing them in internment camps and making this period in the history of the country one of the most infamous legacies of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    In his piece, Bovard added that the detentions are now “widely recognized … as among the largest civil liberties violations in modern U.S. history,” prompting Congress to vote to compensate victims in 1988. But despite the shame often associated with this episode, it wasn’t until the early 2000s that research unveiled documents proving that the Census Bureau had been an important part in this charade, prompting the agency to admit culpability — but only to a certain extent.

    To this day, the Census Bureau claims it never provided names and addresses of all Japanese Americans. But despite the bureau’s claims, a study carried out by William Seltzer of Fordham University and Margo Anderson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee proved the Secret Service had access to, at least, all the names and addresses of individuals of Japanese ancestry in the Washington, D.C. area thanks to the bureau.

    So if you are concerned that the United States government could — under a Trump administration or a future administration — round up any group of Americans and immigrants based solely on their religion or another particular characteristic, tackling the power and inquisitiveness of the US Census Bureau would be a great first step, helping to trim the government’s power and ensure the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of all individuals are being properly protected.

  • And Then There Was One

    So much has changed in just the 8 months since April 25, 2016, when this “White House Photo” of the day was taken.

    As Will Jordan notes, the photo showed a meeting of the world’s top political leaders, President Barack Obama talking with European leaders before their meeting in Hannover, Germany.

    From left: British Prime Minister David Cameron, the President, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

    As of this evening, of the five, just one remains on the global political scene. The real question is for how much longer.

  • These Countries Have Nearly "Eliminated Cash From Circulation"

    The cashless society is catching up to all of us. As SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo notes,

    Most of Europe has shifted that way, and now India is forcing the issue. In the United States, people are being acclimated to it, and may soon find that no other option is practical in the highly-digitized online world.

     

    Once that takes hold, the banksters, bureaucrats and hackers will have total information on all your transactions, purchasing behavior, profiles about consumers, political and social background history and even predictive behavior, allowing them to control the population with ease.

     

    If/when a major crisis hits, nothing will work if the grid goes down; nothing will take place that isn’t strictly authorized – apart from a barter and precious metals exchange system that will be marginalized to the pre-digital ghetto.

    In fact, as The Daily Coin's Rory Hall explains 1 out of 3 people in the world never uses cash…

    We recently learned how serious these criminals are about stealing the sovereignty of every person on planet earth. Actually, most people are willingly handing over their sovereignty to the banks/government and have no idea what they are actually doing.

    When India banned (made illegal) the 500 and 1000 rupee banknote this move effected every 1 out of 7 people on planet earth. That means that every 7th person, anywhere and everywhere, you come in contact with may have been effected by this cash ban.

    Our individual sovereignty is tied directly to our ability to move freely about. When every step we make is tracked by the bank/government our sovereignty is gone forever. Freely trading commerce is one of the cornerstones of human sovereignty. Without the ability to conduct business with whom we wish, when we wish we are nothing more than cattle to the overlords of the land.

    An expat living in Thailand sent me an email last week, at the height of India blowing apart because the idiotic decision by Prime Minister Modi to eliminate the two most used bank notes in India. The email was to inform me that Thailand would be implementing a new policy in the early part of 2017 to completely eliminate coins from circulation. South Korea has already taken measures to eliminate coins from circulation.

    Here is a google translation from the Korean website wikitree.co.kr (once you arrive you will need to translate from Korean language)

    From next year, you can get the change of cash that you bought and paid at a convenience store on your transportation card.

     

    In the mid to long term, not only transportation cards but also remittance to credit cards and accounts will be promoted, and the industry will be expanded to retail sector such as marts and pharmacies.

     

    The Bank of Korea announced on the 21st [November] that it will provide a service to charge prepaid transportation cards at convenient stores from the first half of next year (2017) as the first stage of the demonstration project to realize “a society without coins”.

    What’s happening in Thailand? Well, the government doesn’t even bother with trying to cover up the “scheme” to move people onto the tax farm – currency enslavement awaits for all that enter the great Bangkok Baht giveaway!!!

    According to Bangkok.Coconuts.co (published in July 2016):

    “Want to win a million baht? Go for e-payment,” says Thailand’s junta, offering a lucky draw as an incentive to use the new online payment scheme “PromptPay.” The government wants to encourage citizens to use the service for business, in an effort to bring some of the massive informal Thai economy onto the books and boost tax revenues.

     

    As Southeast Asian economies struggle and tax income misses budget targets, Thailand’s finance minister is hopeful that a nationwide e-payment scheme can add tax revenue of THB100 billion a year to the coffers.

     

    Finance Minister Apisak Tantivorawong has estimated the move will save banks and businesses a combined THB75 billion a year, though other policymakers expect it could take some time for businesses to change their habits. Cash and checks now make up 80 percent of transactions.

     

    A coup in May 2014 ended months of political unrest, but the generals have struggled to revive Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy as exports and consumption remain weak.

    What about the most populace country on the planet: China? Well, they are, currently, in fourth place in use of digitized currency behind the U.S., Europe and Brazil. While none of these countries have eliminated cash from circulation, the banks/government make is sound “trendy”, convenient and oh so cool to never use cash. Why force a policy change when you can convince the people to hand over their freewill?

    Although China still has some way to go before it catches up with countries such as the US and Sweden, the speed at which China has made the shift from cash towards cashless has surprised many. Non-cash payments have been growing by around 40 per cent a year and last year China moved into 4th place in the world for non-cash payments after the US, Europe and Brazil.
     
    There are many reasons for China’s rapid transition away from cash. One is urbanisation, as non-cash payments are becoming both easy and popular. This is especially the case in top-tier cities such as Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing where it is both trendy and convenient to pay without using cash.
     
    There is a huge variety of choices when it comes to making cashless payments and China UnionPay has definitely helped to encourage this, particularly in the case of debit cards, which outnumber credit cards in China by 10 to one. China has more than 4 billion cards on issue – almost enough for each adult to have about three each.
     
    Mobile payments have also taken off in China – it has the largest proportion of people in the world using their mobile phones to make payments, online and physically. Source

    The purpose of going cashless is not for our “convenience”, it is specifically for the purpose of “saving the banks” and tax collections. Governments and banks could care-less about what is convenient for us. They are only concerned with how much of our wealth they can extract from every person who has any currency.

    The population of South Korea is 50.22 million people or said another way about 1/6th the size of the United States. India, on the other hand, is populated by 1.33 BILLION people while there are 7.4 BILLION populating the world. With Thailand making moves to remove cash/coins from the people we need to add their population to the mix as well. With more than 68.22 Million people this brings the number of people that are being forced by their government to use digital currency to a whopping 1.45 BILLION people. If you add 40% of China’s population of 1.35 BILLION that equates to approximately 540 million people the number of people currently living within a cashless society breaches 2 Billion people or said another way 1 out of every 3.5 people we come into contact with everyday. Every 4th person you greet has nothing to do with cash. This does not take in account the top 3 nations using digitized currency for their transactions. If the U.S., Europe and Brazil were calculated we would be well below 1 out of 3 people never using cash for any transaction.

    Some people that are reading this are telling themselves “so what?” those are distant far off lands that have nothing to do with the U.S. and this will never happen here. Well, not so fast.

    Larry Summers, who is like an embedded tick at the Treasury Department of the United States, has called for the elimination of the $100 bill. With the elimination of the largest denominated bank note from circulation this would effectively kill the use of cash. Why? Because it would eliminate most of the total cash value from circulation in one-fell-swoop.

    With $1.2 trillion in cash in circulation, as of July 2013 (now three year old information), not just in the United States but around the world, removing the $100 bill would deal a serious blow to the cash balance in circulation. Maybe not the amount of pieces of paper, but the cash value removed would be huge. Imagine going to a casino and hitting a blackjack table for $2,000 and the cashier hands you bundles of $50 bills (40) or worse, bundles of $20 bills (100)! $2,000 payout at a casino is not that a big deal. Having to handle the sheer volume of bank notes could potentially be a problem for the person receiving the windfall of paper.

    If you have any misguided notion that a cashless society is not coming, just keep telling yourself that every time you use a debit card, credit card or your phone for your next purchase. With the elimination of cash we effectively hand over our individual human sovereignty to the banks and the government.

    *  *  *

    Finally we leave you with Harvard's latest study on which nations would 'benefit' the most from going cashless…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 04

Today’s News 4th December 2016

  • Democrat Strategist on CNN Said ‘We Don’t Need White People Leading Democrats Now’

    When asked by two CNN shills who she thought should be the next Chair of the DNC, democrat statagist, and former Bernie Sanders spokeswoman, Symone Sanders said ‘we don’t need white people leading the democrats now.’ Instead, she felt someone of a darker persuasion should lead them, in order to best represent ‘diversity.’ Apparently, diversity doesn’t include all races — just the ones that aren’t white — according to Symone. If you recall, Symone mocked the Trump supporter that was viciously beaten by thugs — saying ‘oh my god poor white people,’ when asked about the harrowing event. The problem isn’t Symone. There are lots of racists pigs like her, traversing the globe spreading their demented version of hatred. The issue that I take with these comments is the platform from which she’s allotted to make them, the global network of CNN. Notice how the two cucks next to her didn’t even bother to call out her bullshit, with the flaccid male sitting there just nodding his head? The good news is, these people are weak. Their ideas and schemes crumble very easily; because at the heart of progressive ideologies is a sickness whose columns and tenets fall one by one after just a very small amount of inspection. Populism is on the rise and the culture wars will be won by people wholly interested in freedom — rejecting the superstate and all of its trimmings. The perversion and the lies will not last the test of time and history will remember them as fleeting symbols that result when corruption intermingles with zeal — the deadliest of concoctions, which stands at the precipice, right now, of erasing the democratic party from existence.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • Redneck Investin Part 4 – Free on the Fringe

    Seems yall didn’t quite get the gist of our series – and why it should even be bothered to appear.  Well, a few reasons.  One, not everyone has the means of investing in ‘decent’ strategies that may only be eligible for accredited investors or QEPs.  Two, those who don’t have the means to invest in $1 M minimum programs also don’t have the means of educating themselves to the level that they can do it themselves successfully.  Three, this analysis can shift your thinking and help improve your existing investing strategy.  Rednecks survive on inspiration as well as perspiration (although, most don’t shower daily).  

    Soros has backed the blacks; they now have a voice, and they have funding.  Who speaks for bubba?  Let’s Git-R-Dun!  WARNING- IF THESE SUGGESTIONS BORDER ON THE QUASI LEGAL, POTENTIALLY UNETHICAL- NOTE THAT THEY ARE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PUPOSES ONLY.  KIDS, DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME.  PARENTS, DON’T TRY THIS AT WORK!

    1) Free Money Claims

    The class action industry produces thousands of settlements each year.  Many of them are consumer settlements.  And many consumers don’t even know about claims they may be entitled to.  Every case is different, but in almost all cases only a small fraction of potential claimants register with the settlement administrator.  Legally, once a settlement is reached, funds must be distributed to injured consumers by a certain date.  If all claimants do not complete the paperwork by the deadline, funds will be distributed on a pro rata basis to the claimants that do.  Here’s one site that lists consumer claims: http://www.freemoneyclaims.com

    2) Give plasma, get paid

    This is a known goto when you need money for the hobo class and college students.  However, many think ‘giving blood’ makes you dizzy, and it’s possible to get diseases.  Well, now they need the ‘plasma’ from the blood, which is a little different – and well, what free stuff doesn’t involve a little risk?  No it’s probably completely safe, although check the clinic before you go!

    3) Start a charity

    In most states, 501(c)(3) corporations can be filed without fee, or for a nominal fee such as $25.  In many states, there are no annual filing fees, and no annual taxes!  Donations made to your charity are tax deductible.  Plus – you’re doing a good deed for your chosen cause.  Pick a good one, nothing dubious like ‘helping my neighbor’ that won’t fly.  Scientific and Technological development is always good.  Pay yourself a hefty administration salary (you’ll have to pay taxes on your income, for this) and the charity will have some reasonable expenses.  You can literally go door to door and raise money for your charity.  Special fundraising rules apply for example you CAN SPAM as long as you follow the CAN SPAM rules, and you can telemarket to people on the DNC (Do Not Call) list so long as you are raising money for your charity and not your business.  

    4) Go to food banks – get free food

    Food banks exist everywhere, at churches, schools, and privately funded too.  They’re all over America, and there’s no requirements to get food.  Just show up, and provide an ID.  If you don’t have ID, that’s ok.  They just don’t want people ‘abusing’ the system.  Beware that some of the dates of the food may be a little ‘over’ the due date.  Don’t let that scare you – it’s good for digestion.

    When all else fails – revert to the freeloader in you – checkout www.pleaseorderit.com/free

    With Trump in office being a Redneck can be FUN and PROFITABLE don’t let your preconceived notions or visions of trailer parks cloud your path toward Redneck Nirvana.

    “Everyone has a Redneck cousin” -Jimmy Buffet (redneck paraphrase “everybody has a cousin in Miami”)

  • Tomorrow's Vote In Italy Will Be A "Wide-Ranging F**k Off", And It's Just The Start…

    Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

    Tomorrow, December 4, Italy is holding a referendum that will determine the fate of the entire European Union.

    Donald Trump’s victory—which shocked Europe’s political and media elite—gives the populists backing the “No” side of Italy’s referendum the political rocket fuel they need for a virtually guaranteed win.

    That momentum will be all but impossible to reverse. Anti-elite sentiment is rising on both sides of the Atlantic. And I bet the global populist revolution will continue.

    If Italians buck the establishment—and it looks like they will—it will clear a path for a populist party to take power and for Italy to exit the euro.

    If that happens, the fallout will be catastrophic for global markets. The Financial Times recently put it this way:

    An Italian exit from the single currency would trigger the total collapse of the eurozone within a very short period.

    It would probably lead to the most violent economic shock in history, dwarfing the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 and the 1929 Wall Street crash.

    If the FT is even partially right, we’re looking at a possible stock market crash of historic proportions. This is why we’re watching the December 4 referendum so closely.

    The referendum is meant to concentrate more power in Italy’s central government. On that point alone, everyone should oppose it. The centralization of power never leads to good things.

    A “Yes” vote is effectively a vote of confidence in the current pro-EU Italian establishment. This is what the global elite wants.

    A “No” vote is how the average Italian can give the finger to the faceless EU bureaucrats in Brussels, whom many blame—quite correctly—for their problems.

    Trump’s win has been a double whammy for Italy’s pro-EU establishment.

    First, it emboldens the populist forces fighting the referendum.

    Second, it humiliates and politically castrates Matteo Renzi, the current Italian prime minister. Renzi took a rare step when he openly endorsed Hillary Clinton. He was the only European leader to do so.

    As one of Renzi’s rivals said after Trump’s victory, “Matteo Renzi is politically finished from today, he’s a dead man walking.”

    Other Italian politicians are furious that he weakened Italy’s standing with the new Trump administration.

    It’s hard to see how Renzi could get himself out of the hole he’s dug.

    It Started as a Joke

    In 2007, Beppe Grillo, an Italian actor and comedian, launched Vaffanculo Day. “Vaffanculo” is Italian for “f*** off.”

    Grillo and his followers used V-Day to bluntly express their displeasure with Italian establishment politicians, using imagery from the movie V for Vendetta.

    Now, what started out as a joke has become Italy’s most popular political party…

    V-Day helped organize Italians frustrated with their political system. It gave birth to the Five Star Movement, Italy’s new populist political party.

    Grillo’s Five Star Movement—or M5S, its Italian acronym—is anti-globalist, anti-euro, and anti-establishment. It doesn’t neatly fall into the left–right political paradigm.

    According to the latest polls, M5S is now the most popular party in Italy. It won mayoral elections in Rome and Turin earlier this year.

    M5S is riding a wave of populist anger at entrenched political elites over economic stagnation. Italy has had virtually no productive growth since joining the eurozone in 1999.

    M5S blames Italy’s chronic lack of growth on the euro. A large plurality of Italians agrees.

    M5S has promised to hold a vote to leave the euro and return to Italy’s old currency, the lira, as soon as it’s in power. Under the current circumstances, it would probably pass.

    After the Brexit vote and Trump’s win, M5S has joyfully predicted that Renzi will be the next casualty in the global populist revolution.

    Grillo recently wrote:

    It's crazy. This is the explosion of an era. It's the apocalypse of the media, TV, the big newspapers, the intellectuals, the journalists… This is a wide-ranging F*** off. Trump has pulled off an incredible V-Day… There are similarities between this American story and the Movement.

    A “No” vote in the December 4 referendum means M5S could come to power in a matter of months.

    Melting Like a Gelato in the August Sun

    A populist tsunami is about to wash through Europe. It will drastically change the Continent’s political landscape in a way not seen since before World War II.

    This wave will flush away traditional “mainstream” parties and usher in anti-establishment populists who want to leave the European Union.

    It’s already hit the UK in the form of Brexit, killing David Cameron’s pro-EU government in the process.

    Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, and Greece already have populist, Eurosceptic—or “non-mainstream”—parties in power.

    Italy is the next flashpoint.

    A “No” vote in Italy is virtually assured at this point.

    But it won’t be the end of the anti-elite surge. Voters in Europe’s biggest countries could soon throw out their “mainstream” parties in favor of populist and Eurosceptic alternatives.

    Here’s the rundown…

    Austria

    Austria is holding a presidential election, also on December 4. It’s actually a redo of an election held in May, where a populist candidate, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party, barely lost.

    Austrian courts found irregularities in the results and ordered a prompt new election. But when opinion polls showed the populist candidate in the lead, the government delayed the vote until December 4, giving a lame excuse about faulty adhesive on absentee ballots. Despite the foot-dragging, Mr. Hofer looks set to win the December 4 vote.

    France

    France has a presidential election next spring. There’s a chance that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Eurosceptic National Front party, will do better than many expect. After more than a decade of disappointment under presidents François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, French voters are clamoring for something different.

    Spain

    Spain recently re-elected incumbent Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. However, Spanish voters fled traditional political parties en masse for new populist upstarts Podemos and Ciudadanos. So Rajoy was unable to form a majority government.

    Rajoy now leads a severely weak minority government. The political power of the Spanish populist parties is only expected to grow.

    Germany

    Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, embodies the European establishment more than any other politician. Her party suffered a series of stinging defeats in regional elections this year, mostly because of her signature lax immigration policies, which have flooded Germany with migrants.

    Merkel’s troubles have only helped the Alternative for Germany, a new populist party surging in popularity. The party could pose a real problem for Merkel in the 2017 federal elections.

    The Netherlands

    As the Netherlands approaches elections in March, Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which advocates leaving the EU, is basically tied in opinion polls with the establishment parties.

    How to Profit from the Tsunami…

    As populist, Eurosceptic parties surge, the entire European Union is looking shakier by the day.

    One Italian politician correctly put it this way: “The euro is melting away like a gelato left out in the August sun.”

    Our thesis for the collapse of the EU not only stands… it’s getting stronger and stronger.

    There are potentially severe consequences in the currency and stock markets. We are approaching a global financial meltdown of historical proportions. It could strike America on December 4, 2016, as Italian voters decide the fate of the European Union itself.

    It could either wipe out a big part of your savings… or be the fortune-building opportunity of a lifetime.

    New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and I just released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it now.

  • A Very Concise Explanation Of Why The Democrats Lost (And Will Keep Losing)

    Via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,

    "This whole 'red scare' thing has become so thoroughly ridiculous, so blatantly propagandist and overblown, so pervasively passed around by mainstream media outlets without serious investigation, so obviously picked up off a shelf in ad hoc convenience, and so completely hypocritical by the professional elite, that I am tempted to write it off and forget about it. But I should probably be deeply troubled for other reasons.

     

    It is a sign of the establishment going further off the deep end, and further dropping its pretenses. It is a sign of a desperate elite that will say anything, do anything, and risk everything to control the narrative and protect itself.

     

    We are descending into farce. Deeply dangerous farce."

     

    Reader M. M.

    This is a short video from Thomas Frank.  (I have included two more short videos that are optional.)

    Every pundit who is grinding their axes about the various forces that unjustly took the election from Hillary needs to listen to this.

    Thomas Frank is absolutely right. Everyone who had their eyes open could see this loss by the Democrats coming, or at the least a much closer race than expected.   Donald Trump certainly saw it, and used it for his advantage.

    And even now, the core political and entertainment establishment clearly is not accepting this, does not care in their cozy complacency.

    A good part of this is because of the credibility trap, and their sense of entitled superiority.

    If you don't believe this, watch the Democratic establishment mouthpiece channels like MSNBC almost any evening.

    I hate to bother you with yet another posting on this subject, but the context of the situation shows that the message needs to be repeated, and driven home in order to penetrate the echo chamber of the Beltway Bubble.

    The widely accepted attitude of the Wall Street Democrats was that the working middle class had 'no where else to go,' and so their interests could be sacrificed, time and again. They chose consciously to spend their energy in the pursuit of specialized big money interests.

    And they were richly rewarded with huge sums of campaign donations, personal speaking 'repayments,' and sinecures during the out-of-office periods that the big money donors could provide.

    The courtiers in the media and big money donors around the world are very put out that their claim checks for the spoils of a Hillary victory were invalidated.  Their outrage and disappointment is remarkable, as if they have somehow been cheated of their due, their turn at the pig sty of public looting.

    They blame racism, the Russians, sexism, Bernie bros, hackers, the 'deplorables' in a bit of an ironic twist on the Romney moment, the electoral college, and even the roots of democratic process itself.

    They and their strategy failed. Spectacularly.

    But they cannot fail, because they are so exceptional. And there is the work to return to the real world for them, in overcoming themselves and their selfish disappointment and cognitive dissonance.

    I have been very clear that I was no supporter of Trump, and could not vote for him in good conscience under almost any circumstances I could imagine.

    But like so many others I could not in good conscience comfortably pick the 'lesser of two evils' in this case, especially after the serial betrayals of the reforms, the reforms he promised and for which he was elected, that we had at the hands of Obama and his party.   The nomination of Hillary was an 'in your face' gesture to the people by the worst of the embedded and outdated elements of a inwardly focused party in its decline.

    The same and worse could be said of the Republicans, but that is another story.  They just were not able to ruthlessly suppress their insurgents as had the DNC.  And if you do not realize that they did so, then you are blinded by your ambitions and should step aside.

    If anything, the antics of the DNC during these primaries showed that their callous disregard for the broader economic interests the people, and the hypocrisy which their self interests enabled, knew no bounds.

    Think of the arrogance of their mindset— vote for our candidate because she is not good, but less bad than the other fellow, and once again you really have no other choice.

    And they wonder why they were so soundly rejected.

    The final refuge of the exceptionally arrogant is to dismiss those who have rejected them, and expect them to come crawling back, asking for another chance.

    This is certainly preferable to admitting that they had the choice of the people and the winning candidate in their own ranks, and defeated him because they could, because it felt good to exercise power and influence once again, especially when it served their own selfish ambitions.

    And in doing so, they defeated themselves.

    But perhaps the people will not submit again, and choose whatever is offered, the less worse of a bad deal.

    Perhaps the political class will have to eventually let go of their delusory arrogance, and face the work, and the pain, of remaking themselves into what they and their party had once represented:  a real constructive and progressive choice, and not just another flavor of less abusive but equally audacious oligarchy.

    For in truth, it is still just another form of arrogant oligarchy that serves itself, albeit under the fig leaf of a rationale of 'public service' in constructing a false moral high ground, that is an inch above the swamp.

    And if they have the time for it, here are two more short videos that need to penetrate the collective consciousness of the party in order for meaningful progress to occur.

  • "Meanwhile In Europe…" – The Big Day Arrives

    Less than a month after the “shocking” election of Donald Trump as US president, the world prepares for another day of political shockwaves, this time out of Europe, when on Sunday all eyes will be on Italy and, to a slightly lesser extent, Austria.

    Or, as Bank of America puts it “Meanwhile in Europe…”

    As we have previewed on various occasions (most recently in Friday’s extensive “Everything You Need To Know About The Italian Referendum & Should Be Afraid To Ask“), in a few short hours, Italy will vote on a constitutional reform referendum. While we urge readers to skim the in depth “walk thru“, here is a simplified version of what happens after the likely “No” vote tomorrow.

    The main concern in the markets – which has manifested itself in both the European currency, its vol structure, as well as Italian bond yields – is that a strong “No” vote will cause Prime Minister Renzi to resign, leading to political instability in Italy. Furthermore, a “No” vote is expected to kill a long-running attempt to rescue Italy’s third largest and oldest bank, Monte dei Paschi, which has been desperate for a private sector bailout ever since it failed this summer’s ECB stress test to avoid broader banking sector contagion; a failure of Monte Paschi will likely spark a fresh eurozone banking crisis, and prompt the ECB to get involved again (as it warned it would do), in a redux of what happened after the Brexit vote.

    Also on Sunday, there is also a presidential election in Austria. A victory by the right-wing candidate, Norbert Hofer, would raise concerns about EU fragmentation because his party has advocated a referendum on EU membership. His victory would also raise concerns about a similar outcome in the French elections in May, and many other upcoming European elections as shown in the calendar at the bottom of this page:

    However, while the Austrian vote will again be down to the wire – and since this time there won’t be any Brussels-endorsed “widespread voting fraud“, Norbert Hofer is assured to win – the key event will be the Italian vote. Here is what to expect in terms of timing:

    • Provisional turnout results from 7pm GMT (2pm ET)
    • Exit polls then expected around 10pm GMT on Sunday night (5pm ET)
    • First projections by Italian pollsters based on counted votes at around 10.45pm GMT (5:45pm ET)
    • Final result will come in around 2am on Monday (9:00pm ET)

    In the highly improbably event the “Yes” vote wins, Deutsche Bank analysts write that a rebound in the Italian equity market should be largely restricted to financial stocks. Although the FTSE MIB is trading at a 15% discount relative to its 10-year average vs. Europe, valuations look substantially less attractive once banks are excluded from the index. The relative P/E of the FTSE MIB ex banks is trading in line with its long-term average vs. Europe ex banks. Several Italian sectors are even trading at a premium vs. their European peers, showing no signs yet of a spillover of banking sector risks.

    That may change in just a few hours.

    The biggest question from tomorrow’s vote, is what happens to Italian PM Renzi should he lose the vote, and as France 24 reports, if voters reject Renzi’s plan to streamline parliament, the centre-left leader has said he will step down.

    The self-styled outsider in a hurry to shake up Italy finds himself on the inside, a target for those who say he has not been quick enough in fixing long-standing problems. For those unfamiliar, here is a brief snapshot of Renzi’s approach, and political options:

    After rapid rise, Italy’s Renzi braced for fall

     

    Renzi was just 39 when he came to power via an internal party coup in February 2014. With his penchant for retro sunglasses, open-necked shirts and jeans, the former mayor of Florence was hailed at the time as a premier for the smartphone generation. But the breath of fresh air is now in danger of being blown away by rival young Turks from populist and far right opposition parties trying to force him out.

     

    After 1,000 days in office, Renzi, now 41, boasted last month of having steered the economy out of recession, got Italians spending again and improved public finances. He has also had significant political victories: a controversial Jobs Act passed, election rules rewritten and his candidate, Sergio Mattarella, installed as president.

     

    As his Twitter follower numbers rose, so too did his international profile. Renzi was feted for his reform efforts by US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “Matteo has the right approach and it is beginning to show results,” Obama said just before treating Renzi and his school teacher wife Agnese to the last official White House dinner of his administration in October.

    But many Italian voters do not share Obama’s optimism. As the recovery has struggled to gain traction — leaving unemployment stubbornly high, particularly among young people — Renzi’s ratings have slipped.

     

    The Jobs Act, which eased hiring and firing, made him business friends but alienated trade unions and the left. A bullish style that was once seen as energetic has come to be viewed by some as high-handed, including by some grandees of his own party. Former Prime Minister Massimo d’Alema, a fervent critic of Renzi’s constitutional proposals, described his successor to the New York Times as a Twitter-obsessed “oaf”. The decline in Renzi’s popularity is relative however. Polls suggest the Democratic Party, under his leadership, would top an election held tomorrow, albeit only just.

     

    Born on January 11, 1975 in Florence, Renzi studied law and took his first steps in politics as a teenage campaign volunteer for future prime minister and European Commission chief Romano Prodi. By 26 he was a full-time organiser for La Margherita (The Daisy), a short-lived centre-left party.

     

    He was only 29 when he became the leader of the province of Florence in 2004, establishing a power base that enabled him to go on to become mayor in 2009 and prime minister five years later. But for a brief spell in his early 20s working for the family advertising business, politics is all he has done and friends say he would be loath to give it up, despite his protestations to the contrary.

    Even if has to make way as premier, he is not expected to give up the party leadership.

    In short, Renzi is still very young, and a failure tomorrow followed by a resignation, means merely a detour for the career politican, not an end. The bigger question, however, is whether Italy is stable enough and its banks solid enough to survive a politidal vacuum wthout a “technocratic” government ready to step in and fill the void. The answer may be revealed as soon as Sunday night when the Euro opens for trading.

    * * *

    There is more to come.

    As Bank of America notes, the common thread in all of these stories is that politics is driving economic outcomes. This dynamic will not change anytime soon, and BofA notes that it is “particularly concerned about the  drift toward protectionism.” The bank notes that the number of trade restrictions globally has already picked up. Data from Global Trade Alert, a group of academic economists, shows an increase in the number of protectionist measures starting in 2012 and accelerating sharply in 2015. These include not just tariffs and quotas, but a range of policies that give  preference to domestic over foreign products.

    An Italian “No” vote simply accelerate the global backlash against globalization, and lead to even more trade protectionist measures. But what is the most likely outcome, is that when the “No” vote wins (despite the endorsement of The Economist, which has gotten the outcome of every major political event this year wrong), it will only push the case for the anti-establishment vote in more European countries, until eventually Europe’s populist forces stretch the European experiment so thin, that the Eurozone itself – an experiment which from day one catered to corporate interests and an established political oligarchy – will collapse under the weight of its own discontents.

    For now, we await the surge in volatility that will emerge tomorrow afternoon, only to mysteriously disappear as every central bank around the globe engages in another BTFD orgy, sending risk assets higher even as the rapidly “isolating” world teeters on the verge of globalized collapse.

  • Trump's Appointments – What Do They Mean?

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Before I give an explanation, let’s be sure we all know what an explanation is. An explanation is not a justification. The collapse of education in the US is so severe that many Americans, especially younger ones, cannot tell the difference between an explanation and a defense, justification, or apology for what they regard as a guilty person or party. If an explanation is not damning or sufficiently damning of what they want damned, the explanation is interpreted as an excuse for the object of their scorn. In America, reason and objective analysis have taken a backseat to emotion.

    We do not know what the appointments mean except, as Trump discovered once he confronted the task of forming a government, that there is no one but insiders to appoint. For the most part that is correct. Outsiders are a poor match for insiders who tend to eat them alive. Ronald Reagan’s California crew were a poor match for George H.W. Bush’s insiders. The Reagan part of the government had a hell of a time delivering results that Reagan wanted.

    Another limit on a president’s ability to form a government is Senate confirmation of presidential appointees. Whereas Congress is in Republican hands, Congress remains in the hands of special interests who will protect their agendas from hostile potential appointees. Therefore, although Trump does not face partisan opposition from Congress, he faces the power of special interests that fund congressional political campaigns.

    When the White House announced my appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Republican Senator Bob Dole put a hold on my appointment. Why? Dole had presidential ambitions, and he saw the rising star of Republican Representative Jack Kemp as a potential obstacle. As I had written the Kemp-Roth bill that had become Reagan’s economic policy, Dole regarded me in the Treasury as a one-up for Kemp. So, you see, all sorts of motives can plague a president’s ability to form a government.

    With Trump under heavy attack prior to his inauguration, he cannot afford drawn out confirmation fights and defeats.

    Does Trump’s choice of Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary mean that Goldman Sachs will again be in charge of US economic policy? Possibly, but we do not know. We will have to wait and see. Mnuchin left Goldman Sachs 14 years ago. He has been making movies in Hollywood and started his own investment firm. Many people have worked for Goldman Sachs and the New York Banks who have become devastating critics of the banks. Read Nomi Prins’ books and visit Pam Martens website, Wall Street on Parade. My sometimes coauthor Dave Kranzler is a former Wall Streeter.

    Commentators are jumping to conclusions based on appointees past associations. Mnuchin was an early Trump supporter and chairman of Trump’s finance campaign. He has Wall Street and investment experience. He should be an easy confirmation. For a president-elect under attack this is important.

    Will Mnuchin suppport Trump’s goal of bringing middle class jobs back to America? Is Trump himself sincere? We do not know.

    What we do know is that Trump attacked the fake “free trade” agreements that have stripped America of middle class jobs just as did Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. We know that the Clintons made their fortune as agents of the One Percent, the only ones who have profited from the offshoring of American jobs. Trump’s fortune is not based on jobs offshoring.

    Not every billionaire is an oligarch. Trump’s relation to the financial sector is one as a debtor. No doubt Trump and the banks have had unsatisfactory relationships. And Trump says he is a person who enjoys revenge.

    What about the hot-headed generals announced as National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense? Both seem to be death on Iran, which is stupid and unfortunate. However, keep in mind that Gen. Flynn is the one who blew the whistle on the Obama regime for rejecting the advice of the DIA and sending ISIS to overthrow Assad. Flynn said that ISIS was a “willful decision” of the Obama administration, not some unexpected event.

    And keep in mind that Gen. Mattis is the one who told Trump that torture does not work, which caused Trump to back off his endorsement of torture.

    So both of these generals, as bad as they may be, are an improvement on what came before. Both have shown independence from the neoconservative line that supports ISIS and torture.

    Keep in mind also that there are two kinds of insiders. Some represent the agendas of special interests; others go with the flow because they enjoy participating in the affairs of the nation. Those who don’t go with the flow are eliminated from participating.

    Goldman Sachs is a good place to get rich. That Mnuchin left 14 years ago could mean that he was not a good match for Goldman Sachs, that they did not like him or he did not like them. That Flynn and Mattis have taken independent positions on ISIS and torture suggests that they are mavericks. All three of these appointees seem to be strong and confident individuals who know the terrain, which is the kind of people a president needs if he is to accomplish anything.

    The problem with beating up on an administration before it exists and has a record is that the result can be that the administration becomes deaf to all criticism. It is much better to give the new president a chance and to hold his feet to the fire on the main issues.

    Trump alone among all the presidential candidates said that he saw no point in fomenting conflict with Russia. Trump alone questioned NATO’s continued existence 25 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Trump alone said that he would work to bring middle class jobs back to America.

    And Trump said that he would enforce immigration laws. Is this racism or is this a defense of citizenship? How is the US a country if there is no difference between illegal aliens and citizens?

    Commentators of all stripes are making a mistake to damn in advance the only government that campaigned on peace with Russia, restoring middle class jobs, and respect for the country’s borders. We should seize on these promises and hold the Trump administration to them. We should also work to make Trump aware of the serious adverse consequences of environmental degradation.

    Who is blowing these opportunities? Trump? Mnuchin? Flynn? Mattis?

    Or us?

    The more Trump is criticized, the easier it is for the neoconservatives to offer their support and enter the administration. To date he has not appointed one, but you can bet your life that Israel is lobbying hard for the neocons. The neocons still reign in the media, the think tanks, university departments of foreign affairs, and the foreign policy community. They are an ever present danger.

    Trump’s personality means that he is likely to see more reward in being the president who reverses American decline than in using the presidency to augment his personal fortune. Therefore, there is some hope for change occuring from the top rather than originating in the streets of bloody revolution. By the time Americans reach the revolutionary stage of awareness the police state is likely to be too strong for them.

    So let’s give the Trump administration a chance. We can turn on him after he sells us out.

  • A Visual History Of Population In America

    You’ve likely seen the population density map of the United States in one form or another. A lot of people per square mile reside in big cities, fewer people reside in suburban areas, and a lot fewer people reside in rural areas.

    But as FlowingData.com’s Nathan Yau explains, cities weren’t always cities though. Rural wasn’t always rural. If you look at people per square mile over a couple of centuries, you get a better idea of how the country developed.

    The animated map above shows population density by decade, going back to 1790 and up to recent estimates for 2015. The time in between each time period represents a smoothed transition. This is approximate, but it gives a better idea of how the distribution of population changed.

    As you watch, keep in mind that the map is based on data that was available and that it only represents the United States population.

    This is especially notable during the first century. No data shows in much of the country, the estimates are spotty in many territories, and there were people who lived in the blanked out areas before newcomers settled.

  • Did The Market Just Flash A Hindenburg Omen Warning?

    Amid the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune in the stock, bond, and commodity markets this week, a few 'rotten' things began to emerge. With major indices diverging notably, new highs and new lows soaring, and breadth deteriorating, analysts noted the re-awakening of The Hindenburg Omen signal…

    As John Hussman previously wrote, when we think of market “internals,” the number of new highs and new lows can contribute useful information. To expand on the vocabulary we use to talk about internals, “leadership” typically refers to the number of stocks achieving new highs and new lows; “breadth” typically refers to the number of stocks advancing versus declining in a given day or week; and “participation” typically refers to the percentage of stocks that are advancing or declining in tandem with the major indices.

    The original basis for the Hindenburg signal traces back to the “high-low logic index” that Norm Fosback created in the 1970’s. Jim Miekka introduced the Hindenburg as a daily rather than weekly measure, Kennedy Gammage gave it the ominous name, and Peter Eliades later added several criteria to reduce the noise of one-off signals, requiring additional confirmation that amounts to a requirement that more than one signal must emerge in the context of an advancing market with weakening breadth.

    And this week saw renowned technician Tom McClellan declare a Hindenburg Omen had struck…

     

    As we discussed over 6 years ago, the dreaded Hindenburg Omen is easily the most feared technical pattern in all of chartism (for the bullishly inclined). Those who know what it is, tend to have an atavistic reaction to its mere mention. Those who do not, can catch up on its implications courtesy of Wikipedia, but in a nutshell: "The Hindenburg Omen is a technical analysis that attempts to predict a forthcoming stock market crash. It is named after the Hindenburg disaster of May 6th 1937, during which the German zeppelin was destroyed in a sudden conflagration." Granted, the Hindenburg Omen is not a guarantee of a crash, and the five criteria that must be met for a Hindenburg trigger typically need to reoccur within 36 days for reconfirmation. Yet the statistics are startling: "Looking back at historical data, the probability of a move greater than 5% to the downside after a confirmed Hindenburg Omen was 77%, and usually takes place within the next forty-days."

    As a reminder, the 5 criteria of the Omen are as follows:

    1. That the daily number of NYSE new 52 Week Highs and the daily number of new 52 Week Lows must both be greater than 2.2 percent of total NYSE issues traded that day.
    2. That the smaller of these numbers is greater than or equal to 69 (68.772 is 2.2% of 3126). This is not a rule but more like a checksum. This condition is a function of the 2.2% of the total issues.
    3. That the NYSE 10 Week moving average is rising.
    4. That the McClellan Oscillator is negative on that same day.
    5. That new 52 Week Highs cannot be more than twice the new 52 Week Lows (however it is fine for new 52 Week Lows to be more than double new 52 Week Highs). This condition is absolutely mandatory.

    The last Hindenburg Omen occurred as the markets began to roll over in June 2015 (and did not end well) although that had followed a series of false alerts in the 2013 QE-enthused melt-up.

     

    However, while McClellan called the Hindenburg, it appears it may have fallen just short…

    Checking the rules:

    1: YES – see chart above (red and green lines BOTH above the blue)

    2: YES – 74 > 69

    3: YES – 10628 to 10631 (rising)

    4: YES – McClellan Oscillator -5.85 (below 0)

    5: NO – 236 New Highs is more than double the 74 New Lows

    And so from the most strict definition, The Hindenburg Omen did not strike this week…

    But it's close and as a reminder, while no Hindenburg flashed, Dana Lyons noted both the number of New Highs and New Lows set 3-month highs just over a week ago. If that sounds odd, it is. In fact, it was only the 2nd day ever in which each set a 3-month high. And since 1970, only 18 prior days saw New Highs and New Lows set as much as a 1-month high.

    image

     

    Something which has not boded well in the past…

    image

    As the table shows, the return in the S&P 500 has been negative 2 months after all 11 occurrences. And it wasn’t just the 2-month period that was poor. Median returns are negative across nearly all time frames from 1 week to 2 years. The 2-year result is perhaps the most eye-opening after the 2-month. The market is not typically down over a 2-year period so to see 7 of the 8 instances lower is a rare result.

    What causes the elevated numbers of New Highs and New Lows? And why would it necessarily be a negative for the stock market? We’re not sure, and we don’t really care. We’re never too concerned with the “why’s” when it comes to the markets. All we care about is what is happening. And for whatever reason, the market has been especially weak – and consistently so – following the occurrence of lots of New Highs and Lows. That is a legitimate red flag currently, in our view.

  • Obama TV: Is Obama Planning A "Fake News" Outlet Of His Own?

    After spending the past month blaming Hillary’s loss on the rampant spread of “fake news,” because choosing a failed candidate subject to numerous active federal criminal investigations and/or Obama’s failed policies couldn’t possibly be to blame, Mic is reporting that Obama is contemplating starting a propaganda machine media company of his own after leaving the White House.  

    President Barack Obama has been discussing a post-presidential career in digital media and is considering launching his own media company, according to multiple sources who spoke on background because they were not authorized to speak for the president.

     

    Obama considers media to be a central focus of his next chapter, these sources say, though exactly what form that will take — a show streaming on Netflix, a web series on a comedy site or something else — remains unclear. Obama has gone so far as to discuss launching his own media company, according to one source with knowledge of the matter, although he has reportedly cooled on the idea of late.

     

    According to another source, Obama met privately with Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg in Lima, Peru, on the sidelines of the recent APEC summit to discuss the matter.

     

    While Obama has been on a crusade against “fake news” of late, we’re not exactly sure how adding yet another MSNBC substitute to the media arm of the democratic party will change anything in a meaningful way.  While Obama continues to “rethink his storytelling,” he and other democrats simply continue to prove that they’ve learned absolutely nothing from the 2016 election.  The entire election was a rejection of “storytelling” in favor of action, it was a rejection of establishment politicians, like Obama, who have proven time and again that, while they’re great at delivering emotional speeches on “Hope and Change,” they are completely void of any substance beyond their rhetoric. 

    When Rolling Stone asked the president about his future plans, Obama said he would begin “organizing my presidential center,” where a top subject would be, “How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging and the use of technology and digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the country?”

     

    In recent days — even before Trump’s surprising victory — Obama also mused openly about what he views as the dangerous state of media and his desire to play a role in fixing it. According to the New Yorker, Obama apparently obsessed over a BuzzFeed story that documented how more than 100 pro-Trump websites peddling fake news reports had originated in one small Macedonian town. The president worried aloud that the way stories are displayed on various platforms “means everything is true and nothing is true” and that “an explanation of climate change from a Nobel Prize-winning physicist looks exactly the same on your Facebook page as the denial of climate change by somebody on the Koch brothers’ payroll.”

     

    Obama has been outspoken in recent days about the faux news phenomenon, arguing that the rise of conspiracy theories and the easy propagation of fake stories has made it difficult to establish basic facts to frame a debate. “And now we just don’t have that,” he told New Yorker editor David Remnick.

    Of course, if true an Obama media company would threaten a long-standing tradition of former Presidents withholding criticism of their successors. 

    Depending on what form it takes, a hard dive into media could also put Obama at odds with presidential precedent. For decades, former presidents have followed a tradition of remaining quiet about their successors in public. During his recent visit to Peru, Obama said he would uphold that convention after leaving office, but also hinted he might speak out when he feels necessary. “If there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals, and if I think that it’s necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I’ll examine it when it comes,” Obama told reporters.

    Remember when Obama scolded Republicans with his “Elections have consequences. Tough luck, you lost. Get over it” line.  We guess that only applies when his team wins.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 03

Today’s News 3rd December 2016

  • Official Washington's "Info-Wars"

    Authored by William Blum, originally posted at Strategic-Culture.org,

    On November 16, at a State Department press briefing, department spokesperson John Kirby was having one of his frequent adversarial dialogues with Gayane Chichakyan, a reporter for RT (Russia Today); this time concerning U.S. charges of Russia bombing hospitals in Syria and blocking the U.N. from delivering aid to the trapped population.

    When Chichakyan asked for some detail about these charges, Kirby replied: “Why don’t you ask your defense ministry?”

    GC: Do you – can you give any specific information on when Russia or the Syrian Government blocked the UN from delivering aid? Just any specific information.

     

    KIRBY: There hasn’t been any aid delivered in the last month.

     

    GC: And you believe it was blocked exclusively by Russia and the Syrian Government?

     

    KIRBY: There’s no question in our mind that the obstruction is coming from the regime and from Russia. No question at all.…

     

    MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press): Let me –- hold on, just let me say: Please be careful about saying “your defense minister” and things like that. I mean, she’s a journalist just like the rest of us are, so it’s -– she’s asking pointed questions, but they’re not –

     

    KIRBY: From a state-owned -– from a state-owned –

     

    LEE: But they’re not –

     

    KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet, Matt.

     

    LEE: But they’re not –

     

    KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet that’s not independent.

     

    LEE: The questions that she’s asking are not out of line.

     

    KIRBY: I didn’t say the questions were out of line…

     

    KIRBY: I’m sorry, but I’m not going to put Russia Today on the same level with the rest of you who are representing independent media outlets.

    One has to wonder if State Department spokesperson Kirby knows that in 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking about RT, declared: “The Russians have opened an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive.”

    I also wonder how Mr. Kirby deals with reporters from the BBC, a STATE-OWNED television and radio entity in the U.K., broadcasting in the U.S. and all around the world.

    Or the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, described by Wikipedia as follows: “The corporation provides television, radio, online and mobile services throughout metropolitan and regional Australia, as well as overseas… and is well regarded for quality and reliability as well as for offering educational and cultural programming that the commercial sector would be unlikely to supply on its own.”

    There’s also Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty (Central/Eastern Europe), and Radio Marti (Cuba); all (U.S.) state-owned, none “independent”, but all deemed worthy enough by the United States to feed to the world.

    And let’s not forget what Americans have at home: PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) and NPR (National Public Radio), which would have a near-impossible time surviving without large federal government grants. How independent does this leave them? Has either broadcaster ever unequivocally opposed a modern American war? There’s good reason NPR has long been known as National Pentagon Radio. But it’s part of American media’s ideology to pretend that it doesn’t have any ideology.

    As to the non-state American media … There are about 1,400 daily newspapers in the United States. Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network, that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam while they were happening, or shortly thereafter? Or even opposed to any two of these seven wars? How about one?

    In 1968, six years into the Vietnam War, the Boston Globe (Feb. 18, 1968) surveyed the editorial positions of 39 leading U.S. papers concerning the war and found that “none advocated a pull-out.” Has the phrase “invasion of Vietnam” ever appeared in the U.S. mainstream media?

    In 2003, leading cable station MSNBC took the much-admired Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq. Mr. Kirby would undoubtedly call MSNBC “independent.”

    If the American mainstream media were officially state-controlled, would they look or sound significantly different when it comes to U.S. foreign policy?

    New Cold War Propaganda

    On Nov. 25, the Washington Post ran an article entitled: “Research ties ‘fake news’ to Russia.” It’s all about how sources in Russia are flooding American media and the Internet with phony stories designed as “part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders.”

    The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

    The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

    “The sophistication of the Russian tactics,” the article says, “may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on ‘fake news’.”

    The Post states that the Russian tactics included “penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.” (Heretofore this had been credited to Wikileaks.)

    The story is simply bursting with anti-Russian references:

    • –An online magazine header – “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.”
    • –“the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda campaigns.”
    • –“more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season.”
    • –“stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times.”
    • –“The Russian campaign during this election season … worked by harnessing the online world’s fascination with ‘buzzy’ content that is surprising and emotionally potent, and tracks with popular conspiracy theories about how secret forces dictate world events.”
    • –“Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news organizations for audience”
    • –“They use our technologies and values against us to sow doubt. It’s starting to undermine our democratic system.”
    • –“Russian propaganda operations also worked to promote the ‘Brexit’ departure of Britain from the European Union.”
    • –“Some of these stories originated with RT and Sputnik, state-funded Russian information services that mimic the style and tone of independent news organizations yet sometimes include false and misleading stories in their reports.”
    • –“a variety of other false stories — fake reports of a coup launched at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and stories about how the United States was going to conduct a military attack and blame it on Russia”

    A former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is quoted saying he was “struck by the overt support that Sputnik expressed for Trump during the campaign, even using the #CrookedHillary hashtag pushed by the candidate.” McFaul said Russian propaganda typically is aimed at weakening opponents and critics.

    “They don’t try to win the argument. It’s to make everything seem relative. It’s kind of an appeal to cynicism.” [Cynicism? Heavens! What will those Moscow fascists/communists think of next?]

    The Post did, however, include the following: “RT disputed the findings of the researchers in an e-mail on Friday, saying it played no role in producing or amplifying any fake news stories related to the U.S. election.” RT was quoted: “It is the height of irony that an article about ‘fake news’ is built on false, unsubstantiated claims. RT adamantly rejects any and all claims and insinuations that the network has originated even a single ‘fake story’ related to the US election.”

    It must be noted that the Washington Post article fails to provide a single example showing how the actual facts of a specific news event were rewritten or distorted by a Russian agency to produce a news event with a contrary political message.

    What then lies behind such blatant anti-Russian propaganda? In the new Cold War such a question requires no answer. The new Cold War by definition exists to discredit Russia simply because it stands in the way of American world domination. In the new Cold War, the political spectrum in the mainstream media runs the gamut from A to B.

  • Chinese Developers Rethink U.S. Real Estate Projects: "I See Danger…U.S. Real Estate Is Peaking"

    For months we’ve been warning that real estate markets in NYC and San Francisco, among others, are getting ready to rollover as the market is about to be flooded with new supply of luxury apartments (see here and here).  Real estate in both markets are just starting to show signs of cracking as the apartments sales cycle is getting stretched out and pricing growth has stalled. 

    Now, per an article from the Wall Street Journal, wealthy Chinese real estate investors are admitting that the jig is up in large cities like New York and are running for the hills.  With a substantial amount of capacity expected to come online over the next several quarters and a growth cycle that is entering its 8th year, one Chinese real estate investor admits “you get a sense now that it’s peaking.”

    Swelling supply of high-end New York condominiums could result in losses for some Chinese developers, analysts said. A push to partner with U.S. developers on other projects, meanwhile, has brought unexpected legal spats and other delays.

     

    “I see a danger in the real-estate market in the U.S.,” said John Liang, Xinyuan Real Estate’s managing director of U.S. operations. “With its seven- to eight-year cycle, you get a sense now that it’s peaking.” He added that he sees value in middle-tier residential properties in Manhattan and Queens.

     

    “Right now the prices are really high,” said Zhang Xin, chief executive of Soho China, whose family invested in a stake in Manhattan’s General Motors Building in 2013. “I would be very cautious if I were to make a large investment in New York’s real estate today.”

    NYC

     

    Of course, Manhattan isn’t the only Burrough experiencing a supply glut.  Forest City Realty was just forced to take a $300mm impairment charge on a joint venture with a Shanghai-based development company after “unprecedented rental supply in downtown Brooklyn” forced the copanies to delay development.

    CL Investment, which has three other high-end residential projects in Manhattan, plans to keep the office space as part of efforts to diversify, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

     

    In Brooklyn, N.Y., a deal between Shanghai-based, state-owned conglomerate Greenland Holding Group and Forest City Realty Trust on a 22-acre, 15-building mixed-use project in various stages of construction is facing stiff headwinds.

     

    Forest City earlier this month said it took a $307.6 million impairment charge for the project, called Pacific Park Brooklyn, and said it plans “to delay future vertical development.”

     

    “We revised the schedule due to a number of factors, including almost unprecedented concentrations of new rental supply in downtown Brooklyn, which will take time for the market to absorb,” said Forest City CEO David LaRue.

    Just to add insult to injury, the softening real estate market is coming just as China is once again looking to tighten rules on capital investments outside of China. 

    The headwinds come at a time when Beijing once again is planning to tighten its rules on Chinese investment capital leaving the country.

     

    The Chinese State Council is expected to soon announce new reviews of foreign acquisitions of $10 billion or more and property investments by state-owned firms of more than $1 billion, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

     

    Total Chinese direct investment in U.S. real-estate and hospitality assets is nearly $12.6 billion, accounting for nearly a fifth of total Chinese investment in the U.S. since 1990, according to a recent report from the Rhodium Group and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. Most of the activity has taken place since 2010 and is concentrated in areas such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

    Of course, no matter what kind of capital controls are put in place, just like the Vancouver and Sydney real estate markets, we suspect that when Chinese money needs to be laundered, people will find a way.  The only question is now that yet another bubble has run its course, where subsequent bubbles will emerge.

    * * *

    For those who missed it, below is what we recently wrote after 3Q16 apartment closings plunged 18.6% in NYC.

    New York City apartment owners should take note of the latest 3Q16 “Elliman Report” on Manhattan real estate sales because the market looks to be in free fall.  In fact, the number of apartment closings plunged 18.6% YoY while apartments sat on the market an average of 8.2% longer.  Inventory also spiked with re-sale inventory up 8.2% YoY and new development inventory up a massive 27.2%.   

    “The number of re-sales has fallen year over year in each of the last four quarters at an increasing rate.  Listing inventory reflected significant differences in the rate of growth between re-sale and new development.  Re-sale inventory expanded 8.2% to 5,290 while new development inventory surged 27.2% to 973 respectively from the same period a year ago.“

    Median sales prices did increase YoY by 7.6% but collapsed QoQ despite a massive surge in pricing on the luxury end of the market.

    NYC Real Estate

     

    The re-sale market looks even more bleak, on a standalone basis, as the overall numbers above are skewed by sales of super-luxury new development units.  The number of re-sale closings collapsed over 20% YoY while days on the market increased 7.5%

    NYC Real Estate

     

    All segments of the market exhibited volume weakness with co-op sales down 17.1% YoY on a 14.1% increase in listing days and a modest 1.4% increase in median sales price.

    NYC Real Estate

     

    Condo sales declined 20.1% YoY on a 2.4% increase in listing days and a 6.7% increase in median sales price.  Meanwhile, condo inventory rose over 15%.

    NYC Real Estate

     

    And, of course, the luxury market seemed to hold up the best in 3Q with volumes still weak at -18.6% but median pricing up 23.9% and listing inventory down YoY.

    NYC Real Estate

     

    In conclusion, the lesson seems to be that the marginal New York City buyer has been priced out of the market (volume down 20%) while sellers have not yet accepted that the bubble has burst deciding instead to maintain listing prices while letting their apartments sit on the market longer amid growing inventory levels.  Meanwhile, the luxury market is the only segment that seems to be holding up which only serves to prove that Chinese billionaires still have cash they would like to hide in the U.S.

  • Obama Supports Forcing Women To Register For Military Draft

    Submitted by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

    Continuing the debate over a massive expansion of the Selective Service, the White House today announced that President Obama is in favor of expanding registration for the military draft to include all women when they turn 18.

    "As old barriers for military service are being removed, the administration supports — as a logical next step — women registering for the Selective Service," said Ned Price, a spokesman for Obama's National Security Council.

     

    The White House had previously expressed neutrality on the controversy, but took a position in a statement to USA TODAY on Thursday.

     

    Under current law, women can volunteer to serve in the military but aren't required to register for the draft. All adult men must register within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

    The announcement comes ahead of a planned House vote on a bill to study the expansion of the military draft, or to potentially eliminate the Selective Service outright. The White House has repeatedly insisted they have no plans to bring the draft back, but want to force everyone to register anyhow to “foster a sense of public service.”

    The measure had roiled social conservatives, who decried it as another step toward the blurring of gender lines akin to allowing transgender people to use public lavatories and locker rooms. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, spoke for a number of Republicans when he described the provision as "coercing America's daughters" into draft registration.

     

    But proponents of including women in the draft pool viewed the requirement as a sensible step toward gender equality. They pointed to the Pentagon's decision last year to open all front-line combat jobs to women as removing any justification for gender restrictions on registration.

    The administration opened all combat roles to women, and officials say they believe expanding the registration system is a “logical next step,” ensuring “gender equality” in forcing the public to register for potential conscription in future wars.

    Though there is some call from some in Congress to do away with the Selective Service system entirely as an unused relic of the past, there appears to be considerable support for keeping it in place despite its practical uselessness, simply on the grounds that it doesn’t cost that much.

    The Selective Service system was eliminated by President Ford in 1975, two years after the last conscription lottery. President Carter brought the system back in 1980 as part of a show of hostility toward the Soviet Union over the invasion of Afghanistan. The system has remained in place ever since, even though the Soviet occupation ended, the Soviet Union fell, and the US has been occupying Afghanistan themselves for the last 15 years.

  • CNN Caught in Locker Room Talk; Crew Jokes About Trump's Plane Crashing

    Nothing to see here. The girls at CNN were merely fraternizing, joking it up about the President elect’s airplane crashing. If you listen closely, one of the catamites caught giggling said he’d only be injured, not killed, so there’s that. 

    Hot mics are a bitch and so is the person who made these comments.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • Stanford Study Reveals California Pensions Underfunded By $1 Trillion Or $93k Per Household

    Earlier today the Kersten Institute for Governance and Public Policy highlighted an updated pension study, released by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, which revealed some fairly startling realities about California’s public pension underfunding levels.  After averaging $77,700 per household in 2014, the amount of public pension underfunding for the state of California jumped to a staggering $92,748 per household in 2015.  But don’t worry, we’re sure pension managers can grow their way out of the problem…hedge fund returns have been stellar recently, right?

    Stanford University’s pension tracker database pegs the market value of California’s total pension debt at $1 trillion or $93,000 per California household in 2015. 

     

    In 2014, California’s total pension debt was calculated at $77,700 per household, but has increased dramatically in response to abysmal investment returns at California’s public pension funds that hover at or below zero percent annual returns.

     

    The Pension Tracker database (www.pensiontracker.org) is maintained by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) and is intended to help localize pension data by providing the ability to look up the market value of pension debt in any locality in California.

    Looking back to 2008, the underfunding levels of California’s public pension have skyrocketed 157% on abysmal asset returns and growing liabilities resulting from lower discount rates. 

    Perhaps this helps shed some light on why CalPERS is having such a difficult time with what should have been an easy decision to lower their long-term return expectations to 6% from 7.5% (see “CalPERS Weighs Pros/Cons Of Setting Reasonable Return Targets Vs. Maintaining Ponzi Scheme“)…$93k per household just seems so much more “manageable” than $150k.

    Pension

     

    Oddly enough, California isn’t even the worst off when it comes to pension debt as Alaska leads the pack with just over $110,000 per household.

    Pension

     

    Of course, at this point the question isn’t “if” these ponzi schemes will blow up but rather which one will go first?  We have our money on Dallas Police and Fire…

  • Clinton & Trump Aides Forum Devolves Into Screaming Match – "I Would Rather Lose Than Win The Way You Did"

    How was this ever going to end well? An election post-mortem forum erupted into a shouting match as top strategists of Hillary Clinton’s campaign accused their Republican counterparts of fueling and legitimizing racism to elect Donald Trump. Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri exclaimed "I would rather lose than win the way you guys did," to which Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, fumed "I can tell you are angry, but wow… Will you ever accept the election results?" And it went down-hill from there…

    As NBC News reports, a Harvard panel that traditionally writes the first draft of presidential campaign history devolved into a shouting match between Trump and Clinton aides on Thursday in a raw, emotional display echoing the divisive campaign.

     Jennifer Palmieri, who was Hillary Clinton's communications director, zeroed in on Steve Bannon, the incoming chief strategist for President-elect Donald Trump who once ran the web site Breitbart.

     

    "If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am proud to have lost," said Palmieri, one of six Clinton aides who sat across tables from top Trump campaign staff at a forum moderated by three journalists, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell among them. "I would rather lose than win the way you guys did."

     

    Kellyanne Conway, who managed Trump's campaign, was visibly angry and indignantly interrupted. "Do you think I ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform?"

     

    "You did, Kellyanne. You did," Palmieri said, as other Clinton aides chimed in in the affirmative. With only two microphones allowed to be open at any given time, the shouting match was so heated it became difficult to follow.

     

    "Do you think you could have just had a decent message for white, working-class voters? How about, it's Hillary Clinton, she doesn't connect with people? How about, they have nothing in common with her? How about, she doesn't have an economic message?" Conway said.

     

    "There were dog whistles," said Clinton strategist Joel Benenson at one point.

     

    Said Conway: "Guys, I can tell you are angry, but wow. Hashtag he's your president…will you ever accept the election results? Will you tell your protesters that he's their president, too?"

    Exposing a somewhat stunning level of cognitive dissonance, seemingly blaming the media, The Washington Post reports that Clinton’s campaign aides insisted, again and again, that their candidate had been held to a different standard than the other contenders — as evidenced by the controversy over her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

    Palmieri said that many political journalists had a personal dislike for the Democratic nominee and predicted that the email issue will go down in history as “the most grossly overrated, over-covered and most destructive story in all of presidential politics.”

     

    “If I made one mistake, it was legitimizing the way the press covered this story line,” Palmieri said.

     

    Mook added that Trump deftly used his rally speeches to “switch up the news cycle.”

     

    “The media by and large was not covering what Hillary Clinton was choosing to say,” Mook said. “They were treating her like the likely winner, and they were constantly trying to unearth secrets and expose.”

     

    For instance, Mook posited that the media did not scrutinize Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns as intensively as the issue of Clinton’s private email server.

     

    Conway retorted: “Oh, my God, that question was vomited to me every day on TV.”

    Joel Benenson, Clinton’s chief strategist, meanwhile, served notice that the election may be over but that the battles it spawned are not.

    “You guys won, that’s clear,” Benenson said. “But let’s be honest. Don’t act as if you have a popular mandate for your message. The fact of the matter is that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.”

     

    At which point Conway turned to her side and said: “Hey, guys, we won. You don’t have to respond. He was the better candidate. That’s why he won.”

  • The Propaganda About Russian Propaganda

    Authored by Adrian Chen, originally posted at The New Yorker,

    In late October, I received an e-mail from “The PropOrNot Team,” which described itself as a “newly-formed independent team of computer scientists, statisticians, national security professionals, journalists and political activists, dedicated to identifying propaganda—particularly Russian propaganda targeting a U.S. audience.” PropOrNot said that it had identified two hundred Web sites that “qualify as Russian propaganda outlets.” The sites’ reach was wide—they are read by at least fifteen million Americans. PropOrNot said that it had “drafted a preliminary report about this for the office of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), and after reviewing our report they urged us to get in touch with you and see about making it a story.”

    Reporting on Internet phenomena, one learns to be wary of anonymous collectives freely offering the fruits of their research. I told PropOrNot that I was probably too busy to write a story, but I asked to see the report. In reply, PropOrNot asked me to put the group in touch with “folks at the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ, and anyone else who you think would be interested.” Deep in the middle of another project, I never followed up.

    PropOrNot managed to connect with the Washington Post on its own. Last week, the Post published a story based in part on PropOrNot’s research. Headlined “Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say,” the report claimed that a number of researchers had uncovered a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign” that spread fake-news articles across the Internet with the aim of hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump. It prominently cited the PropOrNot research. The story topped the Post’s most-read list, and was shared widely by prominent journalists and politicians on Twitter. The former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Why isn’t this the biggest story in the world right now?”

    Vladimir Putin and the Russian state’s affinity for Trump has been well-reported. During the campaign, countless stories speculated on connections between Trump and Putin and alleged that Russia contributed to Trump’s election using propaganda and subterfuge. Clinton made it a major line of attack. But the Post’s story had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot’s work: the group released a thirty-two-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of two hundred suspect news outlets. The organization’s anonymity, which a spokesperson maintained was due to fear of Russian hackers, added a cybersexy mystique.

    But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess. “To be honest, it looks like a pretty amateur attempt,” Eliot Higgins, a well-respected researcher who has investigated Russian fake-news stories on his Web site, Bellingcat, for years, told me. “I think it should have never been an article on any news site of any note.”

    The most striking issue is the overly broad criteria used to identify which outlets spread propaganda. According to PropOrNot’s recounting of its methodology, the third step it uses is to check if a site has a history of “generally echoing the Russian propaganda ‘line’,” which includes praise for Putin, Trump, Bashar al-Assad, Syria, Iran, China, and “radical political parties in the US and Europe.” When not praising, Russian propaganda includes criticism of the United States, Barack Obama, Clinton, the European Union, Angela Merkel, NATO, Ukraine, “Jewish people,” U.S. allies, the mainstream media, Democrats, and “the center-right or center-left, and moderates of all stripes.”

    These criteria, of course, could include not only Russian state-controlled media organizations, such as Russia Today, but nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself. Yet PropOrNot claims to be uninterested in differentiating between organizations that are explicit tools of the Russian state and so-called “useful idiots,” which echo Russian propaganda out of sincerely held beliefs. “We focus on behavior, not motivation,” they write.

    To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labelled a Russian propagandist. Indeed, the list of “propaganda outlets” has included respected left-leaning publications like CounterPunch and Truthdig, as well as the right-wing behemoth Drudge Report. The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. “It’s so incredibly scattershot,” Higgins told me. “If you’ve ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you’re Russian propaganda.” In a scathing takedown on The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot “embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.”

    By overplaying the influence of Russia’s disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat. “Think about RT and Sputnik’s goals, how they report their success to Putin,” Vasily Gatov, a Russian media analyst and a visiting fellow at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, told me. “Their success is that they have penetrated their agenda, that they have become an issue for the West. And this is exactly what happened.” (Kristine Coratti Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Post, said, “The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers. PropOrNot was one. The Post reviewed its findings, and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews.”)

    In a phone interview, a spokesman for PropOrNot brushed off the criticism. “If there’s a pattern of activity over time, especially combined with underlying technical tells, then, yeah, we’re going to highlight it,” he said. He argued that Russian disinformation is an enormous problem that requires direct confrontation. “It’s been clear for a while that Russia is a little braver, more aggressive, more willing to push the boundaries of what was previously acceptable.” He said that, to avoid painting outlets with too broad a brush, the group employs a sophisticated analysis that relies on no single criterion in isolation.

    Yet, when pressed on the technical patterns that led PropOrNot to label the Drudge Report a Russian propaganda outlet, he could point only to a general perception of bias in its content. “They act as a repeater to a significant extent, in that they refer audiences to sort of Russian stuff,” he said. “There’s no a-priori reason, stepping back, that a conservative news site would rely on so many Russian news sources. What is up with that?” I asked to see the raw data PropOrNot used to determine that the Drudge Report was a Russian-propaganda outlet. The spokesman said that the group would release it to the public eventually, but could not share it at the moment: “That takes a lot of work, and we’re an all-volunteer crew.” Instead, he urged me to read the Drudge Report myself, suggesting that its nature would be apparent.

    On its Twitter account, PropOrNot, in support of its research, cites an article I wrote for the Times Magazine, in 2015, about an online propaganda operation in Russia. But my investigation was focussed on a concrete organization that directly distributed disinformation. I was able to follow links from Twitter accounts and Web sites to a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda. Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot’s findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking.

    Another major issue with PropOrNot is that its members insist on anonymity. If one aims to cut through a disinformation campaign, transparency is paramount. Otherwise you just stoke further paranoia.The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia. The PropOrNot spokesman would speak to me only on the condition of anonymity and revealed only bare biographical details on background. “Are you familiar with the assassination of Jo Cox?” he asked, when I asked why his group remained in the shadows, referring to the British M.P. murdered by a right-wing extremist. “Well, that is a big thing for us. Basically, Russia uses crazy people to kill its enemies.”

    I can report that the spokesman was an American man, probably in his thirties or forties, who was well versed in Internet culture and swore enthusiastically. He said that the group numbered about forty people. “I can say we have people who work for major tech companies and people who have worked for the government in different regards, but we’re all acting in a private capacity,” he said. “One thing we’re all in agreement about is that Russia should not be able to fuck with the American people. That is not cool.” The spokesman said that the group began with fewer than a dozen members, who came together while following Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine. The crisis was accompanied by a flood of disinformation designed to confuse Ukraine and its allies. “That was a big wake-up call to us. It’s like, wait a minute, Russia is creating this very effective fake-news propaganda in conjunction with their military operation on the ground,” the spokesman said. “My God, if they can do that there, why can’t they do it here?” PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. PropOrNot has claimed total financial and editorial independence.

    Given PropOrNot’s shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the group’s claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden’s office. In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October. Two of the group’s members, an ex-State Department employee and an I.T. researcher, described their research. “It sounded interesting, and tracked with reporting on Russian propaganda efforts,” Chu wrote. After a few phone calls with the members, it became clear that Wyden’s office could not validate the group’s findings. Chu advised the group on press strategy and suggested some reporters that it might reach out to. “I told them that if they had findings, some kind of document that they could share with reporters, that would be helpful,” he told me. Chu said that Wyden’s office played no role in creating the report and didn’t endorse the findings. Nonetheless, he added, “There has been bipartisan interest in these kind of Russian efforts, including interference in elections, for some time now, including from Senator Wyden.” This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information “concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election.”

    The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump’s stunning election. The story combines two of the most popular technological villains of post-election analysis – fake news and Russian subterfuge – into a single tantalizing package. Like the most effective Russian propaganda, the report weaved together truth and misinformation.

    Bogus news stories, which overwhelmingly favored Trump, did flood social media throughout the campaign, and the hack of the Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s e-mail seems likely to have been the work of Russian intelligence services. But, as harmful as these phenomena might be, the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier. Vasily Gatov told me, “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putinistic.”

  • Hillary Supporters Get Welcome News As Study Confirms White Population Dying Off Fast In Key Swing States

    Disaffected Hillary snowflakes at colleges and universities all around the country, many of whom surely cried themselves to sleep last night, woke up this morning to some of the best news they’ve received in weeks.  According to a new study by the University of New Hampshire Carsey School of Public Policy, white people are dying off faster than ever in the U.S.  Moreover, the biggest declines are coming in key swing states like FL and PA.  Even better, the study expects the “natural decrease” of whites to accelerate in the future.

    In 2014, deaths among non-Hispanic whites exceeded births in more states than at any time in U.S. history. Seventeen states, home to 121 million residents or roughly 38 percent of the U.S. population, had more deaths than births among non-Hispanic whites (hereafter referred to as whites) in 2014, compared to just four in 2004. When births fail to keep pace with deaths, a region is said to have a “natural decrease” in population, which can only be offset by migration gains. In twelve of the seventeen states with white natural decreases, the white population diminished overall between 2013 and 2014.

     

    This research is the first to examine the growing incidence of white natural decrease among U.S. states and to consider its policy implications. Our analysis of the demographic factors that cause white natural decrease suggests that the pace is likely to pick up in the future.

    Here are some of the the “Key Findings” from the study:

    NH

     

    At the national level, the White birth-to-death ratio has been shrinking aggressively since the “great recession” started in 2008.  By the time 2014 rolled around the rate had declined to near parity.  Researchers attribute the trends to “declining fertility due to the Great Recession” and an aging baby boomer population.

    Over the last several decades, demographers have noted the growing incidence of natural decrease in the United States. More widespread natural decrease results from declining fertility due to the Great Recession, and the aging of the large baby boom cohorts born between 1946 and 1964. This senior population is projected to expand from nearly 15 percent of the total population in 2015 to nearly 24 percent in 2060.  Much of this aging baby boom population is white, and so white mortality is growing. Together, growing white mortality and the diminishing number of white births increase the likelihood of more white natural decrease.

    NH

     

    Meanwhile, white populations in the key swing states of FL and PA have been shrinking for years while NV and AZ also joined the club in 2010 and 2012, respectively.

    NH

     

    And while white populations are declining the Southwest and Northeast, the Midwest populations are still growing…but no real problem there as those are Republican strongholds anyway.

    White natural decrease states are widely dispersed, with clusters in the South, West, and Northeast regions. States with minimal white natural increase are also widely distributed, though they are often in close proximity to the natural-decrease states. States with high natural increase are concentrated in the Mountain West and the West North Central regions but also include Texas, Louisiana, Indiana, and Virginia.

    NH

     

    So it’s not all bad news for democrats…if Hillary can hold out for a couple more election cycles, and suppress her “pneumonia” flare ups, she may just be unbeatable.

  • In Defense Of Trump's Deal With Carrier

    Submitted by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    Donald Trump hasn’t yet made the move from Trump Tower to America’s most expensive public housing, but he was able to come through with one campaign promise this week by announcing a deal with Indiana-based Carrier Air Conditioning that will keep almost 1,000 jobs in the state. As reported, the deal seems largely focused on the State of Indiana offering millions in tax breaks and an understanding that the Trump administration will push for regulatory and corporate tax relief at the Federal level.

    While the jobs Carrier will be keeping in the US only makes up about a third of the jobs the company had planned to move to Mexico, the underlying deal seems to reflect a larger commitment to addressing the corporate tax and regulatory burdens that have long held back the American economy. While some have described Trump's approach as crony capitalism, if the terms of the deal really are limited to tax relief, such claims are baseless. While it is true that tax breaks for specific companies are less ideal than across-the-board cuts (or outright abolishment) of business taxes, they should not be confused with taxpayer subsidies.

    As Matthew McCaffrey wrote last year defending tax credits for video game companies:

    Decades ago, economists like Mises and Rothbard were already arguing that tax breaks are not economically or ethically equivalent to receiving subsidies. Simply put, being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from competitors. Exemptions and loopholes do not forcibly redistribute wealth; taxes and subsidies do, thereby benefiting some producers at the expense of others.

     

    Yes, entrepreneurs who take advantage of tax breaks will incur fewer costs than entrepreneurs who don’t. But this doesn’t show that exemptions or loopholes provide unfair advantages; in fact, just the opposite — it shows that taxes penalize entrepreneurs unlucky enough to be left holding the bill.

    Tax breaks are beneficial to those who claim them, but they are not subsidies. Rather, exemptions and loopholes are life jackets in a sea of wealth redistribution. Mises said it perfectly: “capitalism breathes through those loopholes.” Sadly, his simple insight continues to elude most commentators.

    Yet still, unsurprisingly, the deal has been condemned by devoted Trump-critics from across the ideological spectrum.

    David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, found the offering of tax breaks and regulatory relief alarming, telling The Fiscal Times:

    This is not a precedent we want to see — American presidents aren’t supposed to interfere on behalf of individual companies. When the president does it himself it makes clear that this is a crony economy, to benefit the president’s friends, and that individual companies can be subject to pressure and punishment directly at the hands of the president.

    Of course, Trump didn’t make this deal by himself — he worked with the Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who is still the governor of Indiana. There’s also no indication that Trump’s deal with Carrier reflected any sort of personal interest in the specific company, but rather is part of a larger push to keep companies from re-locating overseas. While Trump’s rhetoric on trade, with a heavy focus on the potential use of tariffs, is itself troubling, there is nothing inherently wrong with an administration focused on keeping jobs in America — especially if this is accomplished by relieving tax and regulatory burdens.

    A more compelling argument against Trump’s deal was made by AEI’s James Pethokoukis:

    More broadly, this is all terrible for a nation's economic vitality if businesses make decisions to please politicians rather than customers and shareholders. Yet America's private sector has just been sent a strong signal that playing ball with Trump might be part of what it now means to run an American company. Imagine business after business, year after year, making decisions based partly on pleasing the Trump White House. … Indeed, one Indiana official, Politico reports, thinks the deal was driven by concerns United Technologies “could lose a portion of its roughly $6.7 billion in federal contracts.”

    Pethokoukis is correct, if business decisions start to be made entirely to please President Trump, then the American economy would suffer. But, again, the carrots Trump used for the Carrier deal involved lower taxes and a promise of regulatory relief. Should he follow through, then Trump’s economic policy would be helping American workers while simultaneously benefiting American customers and company shareholders. While future deals may deviate from this approach, and any move to push punishing tariffs should be rightfully criticized, it isn’t applicable in this specific situation.

    And while it’s fair to speculate that Carrier’s parent company, United Technologies Corp., is hoping any good will it builds with a Trump administration will either lead to future government contracts, or protect the ones it has, this is simply the unfortunate consequence of having government and business so tightly entwined to begin with. It is hardly unique to either the Carrier deal or the Trump administration.

    Of course it should come as no surprise that the most absurd analysis of Trump’s deal comes from Senator Bernie Sanders, who in The Washington Post wrote:

    Just a short few months ago, Trump was pledging to force United Technologies to “pay a damn tax.” He was insisting on very steep tariffs for companies like Carrier that left the United States and wanted to sell their foreign-made products back in the United States. Instead of a damn tax, the company will be rewarded with a damn tax cut. Wow! How’s that for standing up to corporate greed? How’s that for punishing corporations that shut down in the United States and move abroad?

     

    In essence, United Technologies took Trump hostage and won. And that should send a shock wave of fear through all workers across the country.

    Sanders main criticism is that Trump moved away from rhetoric punishing American businesses and instead tried to alleviate some of the additional costs government imposes on them. It’s not a surprise this upsets the senator from Vermont, as in his world, an opportunity to increase someone’s tax burden is a terrible thing to waste — which is why he campaigned on raising them for most of America.

    Though the deal with Carrier will go a long way to make America great again for those workers who were facing losing their jobs, it is a drop in the bucket for the ills that really plague the country. There are still many warning signs about what the economic policy of a Trump administration will look like. But not every action he takes will necessarily be bad policy.

    If Trump builds on this win with broader cuts on corporate taxes and regulatory relief, as he ran on during the campaign, than these policies should be praised — just as any future attacks on sound economics or individual liberty should be condemned.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Dec 02

Today’s News 2nd December 2016

  • The 20 Most Sinister Psyop Leaflets Of All Time

    Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Some of the weirdest and most disturbing advertisements ever created are done so for military campaigns. They come in the form of propaganda leaflets, which are dropped by air or otherwise disseminated into a country or territory that is being invaded. Virtually every war since the beginning of the 20th century has produced these leaflets, which are also known as psyops or psychological operations and can be divided up into three categories: white, grey, and black. The intention is to use psychology and symbolism to influence members of the general population, inciting fear and, ultimately, compliance.

    Governments use psyops in a variety of contexts but the most common is during war, when entire populations must be convinced that killing in the name of God and State is not murder. Citizens also need an emotional impetus to grant their government the impunity to kill civilians and children in the most brutal of ways, including via unmanned drones. All but a few countries in the world are currently engaged in war, so there are a lot of psyops in progress as you read this.

    The following leaflets come to you thanks to the incredible archives of PsyWar.org. They are, in this author’s humble opinion, the most sinister psyop leaflets ever dropped:

    British leaflet produced by General Headquarters in France for German troops on the Western front 1915-1918

    psyop_germany

    British balloon distributed propaganda leaflets for German troops on the Western front, 1918

    psyop_early

    World War 2 Germany to Allies – “While you were away”

    psyop_yanks

    “Waiting in Vain”

    psyop_waitinginvain

    “Life is short – Death is quicker!”

    psyop_lifeisshort

    Christmas message from Soviet Union to Germany 1941-1945

    psyop_mother

    Japan to Allied Troops 1941-1945 – “CAPITALISTS DEMAND RED ENDLESSLY!”

    psyop_japan

    First Iraq War – 1991 – “Adhere to the following procedures to cease resistance”

    psyop_adhere

    “CEASE RESISTANCE BE SAFE”

    psyop_iraq1

    “Escape to Your Home!”

    psyop_escapetohome

    IFOR/SFOR BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 1996-2004

    psyop_bosnia

    Operation Enduring Freedom – 2001-2002

    psyopleaflet

    psyop_leaflet2

    psyop_money

    Operation Iraqi Freedom – Coalition Psyop 2003-2004

    psyop_mosque

    psyop_leaflet3

    psyop_ordnance

    psyop_leaflet4

    Israel to Lebanon 2006 – “Your defenders are your destroyers”

    psyop_israel2

    psyop_israel

    These days, the internet has turned into a powerful new breeding ground for wartime psyops, but the psychological methods and imagery still follow the same tactics; you just have the added tools of chat rooms, social media, and forums as ways to manufacture consent.

  • JPMorgan Tells Investors: Ignore Mainstream Media

    In its 'year-forward' 2017 outlook, JPMorgan's Marko Kolanovic warns that:

    In the short-term, with additional rate hikes imminent and the record level of the USD, we are at an increased risk of repeating the scenario from January 2016 where fundamental and systematic investors were selling at the same time in the aftermath of a Fed hike (albeit, some risks are lower this time, such as higher Oil prices and a lack of focus on China/CNY). According to our macroeconomic model, the VIX also appears to be ~3 points too cheap (1 standard deviation) relative to dozens of macroeconomic variables.

     

    So what is driving the VIX and is it still a good measure of equity market risk? There are several factors that can explain the behavior of equity volatility this year. The first one is structural and we described it as market pinning during most of July and August, caused by option positioning. At the peak of market pinning in August, the S&P 500 realized less than 5% annualized volatility and moved less than 10bps on a number of days. As Brexit, the US election, and the September volatility spike were well anticipated events, they also resulted in covering of option hedges, and opportunistic selling of volatility. Low/negative bond yields increased the allure of selling volatility (and buying equities) and put further pressure on volatility levels. Finally, it appears that the time horizon of macro traders has shortened dramatically, likely as a result of increased participation of machines and algorithms that are quicker to adjust to significant events and can eliminate trading activity of slower investors (such as the overnight post-election move).

     

    What will market volatility be in 2017? We think that, fundamentally, risks for equities in 2017 are higher compared to 2016. We expect an increased level of geopolitical risk and increased uncertainties related to the new US administration. In Europe, significant risks include fallouts from Brexit, the referendum in Italy, elections in France and Germany, and continued tensions related to immigration. The Middle East will likely see further turmoil in relation to developments in Syria, and low Oil prices that continue exerting pressure on budgets of Oil exporters. While the US macroeconomic cycle may get a boost from the proposed fiscal stimulus, corporate tax reform and de-regulation, both the passage and efficacy of these measures are far from certain at this moment.

     

    The main market risk for equities will come from a stronger USD and higher rates, in our view, which can destabilize equity P/E, Emerging Markets, the housing market, and US equity segments such as multinationals, domestic manufacturing, bond proxies, etc. Higher USD and bond yields will also undercut the ability of the new US administration to revive US manufacturing or use the fiscal deficit to re-ignite growth.

     

    Periods of low volatility may mask underlying fundamental risks. These quiet periods will be followed by quick outbursts of volatility that may not last long enough to be captured by an average investor. Hedgers may buy volatility ahead of an event and sell shortly before the catalyst to capture volatility grinding higher (rather than a spectacular increase).

     

    To gauge market risks, equity investors should watch for further increases in bond yields and strengthening of USD. Geopolitical developments should be gauged from both traditional and non-traditional data sources (such as big data sentiment indicators, independent media outlets, etc.) given the failure of many traditional data sources to anticipate geopolitical developments this year.

    So in summary – don't trust the "fakeness" of a low VIX or the mainstream media when it comes to managing your money.

  • Trump's Treasury Secretary Pick Is A Lucky Man… Very Lucky

    Authored by Jesse Eisinger, originally posted at ProPublica.org,

    Steven Mnuchin has made a career out of being lucky.

    The former Goldman Sachs banker nominated to become Donald Trump’s treasury secretary had the perspicacity to purchase a collapsed subprime mortgage lender soon after the financial crisis, getting a sweet deal from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Now, if he’s confirmed, he will likely be able to take advantage of a tax perk given to government officials.

    Mnuchin was born into a family of Wall Street royalty. His father was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs for 30 years, serving in top management. He and his brother landed at the powerful firm, too. After making millions in mortgage trading, Mnuchin struck out on his own, creating a hedge fund and building a record of smart and well-timed investment moves.

    He dodged disaster when he inherited his mother’s portfolio. She was a longtime investor with Bernie Madoff, the largest Ponzi schemer in American history. After she died in early 2005, Mnuchin and his brother quickly liquidated her investments, making $3.2 million. The Madoff trustee, Irving Picard, sued to retrieve the money from the Mnuchins, as he did from other Ponzi scheme winners, contending that they were fake gains. A court ruled that Picard could only claw back money from those who had cashed out within two years before the collapse. The Mnuchins, having pulled out roughly three years before, got to keep their Madoff money. That something was dodgy about Madoff was an open secret on Wall Street.

    After the financial crisis, the FDIC seized IndyMac, whose irresponsible mortgage loans failed as the housing bubble burst. Desperate to offload the bank, the FDIC subsidized the takeover by sheltering Mnuchin and his team of investors, including hedge fund managers John Paulson and George Soros, from losses. The investors injected $1.55 billion into the bank in 2009. They changed the name to OneWest and five years later, sold it to lender CIT for more than $3 billion, doubling their investment.

    Mnuchin also benefited from what may have been a nice fluke a little later. He served as the co-chair of Relativity Media, a film and entertainment company, for about eight months until May 2015. Relativity filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2015. Just before it collapsed, Relativity paid off a $50 million loan to Mnuchin’s bank, OneWest, in full.

    Paying off one creditor in full just before filing for bankruptcy looks questionable, especially when there is the appearance that such a deal isn’t at arm’s length. One Relativity investor cried fraud and sued in 2015, contending that Relativity used its loans for improper purposes, including to make payments to OneWest. Mnuchin’s lawyer called the claims preposterous and the suit was initially thrown out. A lawyer for the investor, a film financing company, told the Los Angeles Times that it planned to refile.

    Mnuchin was blessed again when the Obama administration did not crack down harder on foreclosure abuses. OneWest got a reputation among activists and borrowers as one of the more feckless banks, accused of throwing borrowers out of their homes, denying mortgage modifications, and targeting the elderly with reverse mortgages. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency settled with OneWest, and over a dozen other banks and mortgage servicers, over its robosigning practices in 2011. That regulatory settlement, called the Independent Foreclosure Review, was an utter debacle, as ProPublica has detailed. Regulators set up a process for consultants to review how the servicers had handled modification reviews, which meant in effect that the banks were monitoring themselves. The regulators did not punish any top financial executives over foreclosure mistreatment. In a happy circumstance for Mnuchin, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general did not include OneWest in their subsequent and more punitive settlement over foreclosure bad behavior.

    Mnuchin was fortunate once more to pick the right candidate, Trump, early; most of Wall Street assumed that Hillary Clinton would win and bet accordingly with its political donations.

    What good happenstance, then, that Trump didn’t mean what he said about Wall Street on the campaign trail.

    On the stump, Trump said, “We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the people who rigged it in the first place.” He attacked Goldman Sachs by name, saying that the bank “owns” Ted Cruz, whose wife worked at the firm. “I know the guys at Goldman Sachs,” he said, “They have total, total control over [Cruz]. Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton.” Trump put an image of Goldman CEO and chairman Lloyd Blankfein, along with other Jewish figures in finance like George Soros and Janet Yellen, in a commercial late in the campaign that was widely decried as anti-Semitic.

    Trump did not feel such a strong antipathy for Goldman that he passed over a firm veteran to be his treasury secretary.

    Mnuchin still owned $97 million of CIT stock as of last February. The Treasury Department will likely require him to sell those shares, since it poses a conflict of interest for the treasury secretary to own a stake in a financial institution. But therein lies a final good break for Mnuchin: According to a provision of the tax code, he can defer taxes, as long as he complies with certain conditions. That benefit, available to all officials who are required to sell investments upon taking a government job, could be worth millions to Mnuchin.

  • Payrolls Preview: Unemployment Rate Expected To Drop (But Blame The Weather & Calendar If Not)

    A series of stronger than expected data in recent days pushed Goldman Sachs to up their payrolls growth expectation to 200k (above the 180k expectations), but they note that while the unemployment rate is likely to drop (to 4.8%), average hourly earnings may disappoint. Of course, they add, any non-narrative-confirming misses on the data can likely be explained away by "weather effects and residual seasonality."

    As Goldman details, we forecast that nonfarm payroll growth increased to 200k in November, after an increase of 161k in October. We have revised up our forecast from 180k previously reflecting stronger data this week. Labor market indicators were stronger on balance last month, including improvements in reported job availability, the ADP report, and the employment components of service-sector surveys. In addition, we see a likely boost from positive weather effects and possible residual seasonality.

    Arguing for a stronger report:

    Job availability. The Conference Board labor differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—rose to +5.2, reversing a small decline in October. This measure has risen by about ten points over the last year.

     

    Service sector surveys. The employment components of service sector surveys mostly improved in November. The Richmond Fed (+7pt to +13), Dallas Fed (+6.5pt to +9.2), and New York Fed (+2.2pt to +10.9, after our seasonal adjustment) measures of service sector employment all strengthened. The Philly Fed non-manufacturing employment index edged down (-0.7pt to +15.6) but remains at levels consistent with expansion. Service sector employment increased 142k in October and has increased 161k on average over the last six months.

     

    ADP. The payroll processing firm ADP reported a 216k gain in private payroll employment in November, up from a downwardly revised 119k increase in October. While this is a significant beat, the new methodology ADP introduced last month creates some additional uncertainty around the translation of this upside ADP surprise into the outlook for tomorrow’s nonfarm payroll report.

     

    Some rebound from Hurricane-related weakness. In October, employment in the three sectors that we find are most sensitive to weather-related swings – retail, construction, and leisure and hospitality – increased by 20k, which is a smaller gain than the 6-month (33k) and 12-month (73k) average changes through September. Among East Coast states, employment in these sectors declined by a total of 16k in October, relative to an average monthly increase of 15k over the prior six months (Exhibit 1). Some of the biggest declines were in Florida and South Carolina, the states most impacted by Hurricane Matthew.

     

    Seasonals. Since the recession, November payroll growth has surprised consensus expectations roughly 2/3 of the time, with an average surprise of +27k.

     

    Exhibit 1: Some Potential Upside from East Coast States Impacted by Hurricane-related Weakness

    Source: Department of Labor, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

    Neutral Factors:

    Temporary election-related hiring. Election-related hiring typically shows up to some degree in the government and marketing research and opinion polling categories in the non-seasonally adjusted payroll data. However, the BLS makes a special adjustment to these changes to remove the effects of the election and in prior election years those categories did not spike on a seasonally adjusted basis in November. Therefore, it is unlikely we will see any direct election effect in the seasonally adjusted series.

     

    Jobless claims: Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits moved slightly higher, with the four-week moving average edging up to 253k in the November survey week. Initial claims were affected by technical factors including temporary auto plant shutdowns and weather-related effects from Hurricane Matthew, but we do not detect a significant change in the underlying trend which continues to show low layoff activity in the economy.

     

    Job cuts: Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas after our seasonal adjustment increased by 4k to 32k in November, but remain close to cycle-lows.

    Arguing for a weaker report:

    Online job ads. The Conference Board’s Help Wanted Online (HWOL) report reversed last month’s gains, and stands 15% lower than levels last year. However, we put limited weight on this indicator at the moment in light of research by Fed economists that argued that the HWOL ad count has been depressed by higher prices for online job ads.

     

    Manufacturing sector surveys. The employment components of manufacturing surveys were mixed in November. The ISM manufacturing (-0.6pt to 52.3), Chicago PMI, Empire State (-6.2pt to -10.9), and Kansas City Fed (-6pt to +1) employment indexes all declined, while the Dallas Fed (+4.3pt to +4.5), Richmond Fed (+2pt to +5), and Philly Fed (+1.4pt to -2.4) measures edged up. Manufacturing employment declined by 9k in the October report, and has declined by 7k on average over the last six months.

    We expect the unemployment rate to edge down to 4.8% in the November report from an unrounded 4.876% in October. Last month, the household survey showed a 43k decline in employment but the unemployment rate edged down to 4.9% due to a decline in labor force participation. The broader U6 unemployment rate dropped to a new post-crisis low of 9.5% as the number of involuntary part-time and marginally attached workers both declined.

    We expect average hourly earnings to increase 0.1% month-over-month, or 2.7% from a year ago, after rising to a new cycle high of 2.8% year-on-year in October. A modest retracement of last month’s gains and negative calendar effects are likely to contribute to a softer number. Our wage tracker, which captures the broader trend in wage growth across four major indicators, stands at 2.6% year-over-year as of Q3.

    *  *  *

    Finally, we look forward to seeing The White House spokesperson basking in the afterglow of their track record compared to president-elect Trump's likely tweeted response.

  • Not Zero Sum: World Bond Markets Endure $1.7 Trillion Sell Off; Equities Gain $635 Billion

    According to Bloomberg, world equity markets gained $635b in market cap, while bonds lost $1.7t — leaving a deficit of more than $1 trillion since the election. Much of those losses were absorbed by foreign governments, the cucks participating in never ending QE schemes. The balance sheets of the ECB and Federal Reserve are looking much worse now than just one month ago.

    source: Bloomberg

    “The market has moved with remarkable swiftness to price in the anticipated reflationary impact of a Trump administration,” said Matthew Cairns, a strategist at Rabobank International in London. “This has, in turn, prompted a notable rotation out of fixed income and into equities.”

    Still, Cairns cautioned the moves are “remarkable given the distinct lack of clarity as regards what policies the president-elect will actually pursue.”

    November’s rout wiped a record $1.7 trillion from the global index’s value in a month that saw world equity markets’ capitalization climb $635 billion.

    The yield on 10-year U.S. notes rose 56 basis points in November, the biggest jump since 2009, and was at 2.44 percent as of about 4 p.m. in New York, after reaching the highest since June 2015.

    The average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Global gauge climbed to 1.61 percent on Nov. 23, after touching a record low of 1.07 percent on July 5.

    “A lot of people are beginning to think that it is the end of the bull rally,” said Roger Bridges, chief global strategist for interest rates and currencies in Sydney at Nikko Asset Management’s Australia unit, which oversees $14 billion. U.S. 10-year yields may rise to 2.7 percent in January, Bridges said.

    I think it’s important to remind people that the stock market has been soaring on the hopes of rapid GDP growth under Trump — who promised to build all sorts of stuff — walls, tunnels, bridges etc. What people don’t seem to grasp, unfortunately, is that in order to fund these projects the government needs to tap the bond markets.

    The 10yr bond yield has risen from 1.75% to 2.44% over the past month. The cost to service the national debt has skyrocketed — making it increasingly difficult to enact ambitious fiscal stimulus. Couple that with the break-neck gains in the dollar, especially against our chief trading rivals (+14% v yen over the past month), and one can easily paint a picture that all of the recent grandeur in equity markets has only served to ingratiate the wealthiest in the country and have hampered the specter of any real fundamental change, via fiscal stimulus, promised by Trump — which is central to his platform.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • Who Still Lives At Home With Their Parents?

    Via Priceonomics.com,

    Living at home with your parents isn't just for little kids anymore. Young adults are now more likely to live with their parents than in any other living arrangement, according to a recent report by the Pew Research Center. Recent college grads aren’t alone; adults in the 25-29 and 30-34 age brackets are also moving home in record numbers.

    What forces are steering people into their parents’ basements? We wanted to find out, so we analyzed data from Earnest , a Priceonomics customer. We analyzed a dataset of more than 60,000 user responses to questions about their living situations to understand how it's influenced by factors like gender, age, location, and education.

    In our sample, 15% of the adults live with their parents. But that figure is higher in parts of the country with a high cost of living, underscoring the fact that income is a key determinant of living situation. Accordingly, people who have greater earning potential—as a result of earning a graduate degree or specializing in science, technology, engineering, or math (the STEM fields)—are the most likely to live independently.

    ***

    We first wanted to look at the impact of gender on living arrangement. The chart below shows the proportion of males and females in our sample who live with their parents.

    Data source: Earnest

    Men have gotten press lately for earning degrees at lower rates than women and entering the workplace in decreasing numbers. But we found that males and females are virtually even when it comes to living at home.

    We next considered age. Is it fair to characterize people who live at home mostly as recent college grads? We broke our sample into eight age groups and charted the percentage of each group that lives with their parents below. 

    Data source:  Earnest

    Indeed, younger adults are far more likely than older ones to live with their parents. In our sample, the average age of a person living at home was 27. The average renter and owner were 31 and 37, respectively. 

    At the tail end of this graph, we see a small number of older adults reporting to live with their parents. This could represent a group that lives with elderly parents to provide care.

    We wanted to know where these multigenerational households are located. Are they equally common across the country, or are there hotspots where adults are more likely to live at home? We calculated the percentage of the population that lives at home in each state for which we had at least 10 responses. 

    Data source:  Earnest

    Likelihood of living at home varies by location. More adults live with their parents in places like Hawaii and the New York metropolitan area—areas where the cost of living, and thus the bar one must clear to live independently, is high. 

    Conversely, states in the middle of the country are associated with both a lower cost of living and a larger proportion of independent adults. Indeed, our map resembles maps that  show the cost of living across the United States.

    If cost of living influences living arrangements, people are likely living at home out of financial necessity. We would then expect income to be low among people who live with their parents. Is it? 

    For each of four income brackets, we calculated the percentage of adults living at home, considering only the respondents who specified an income. Users who left this field blank were not included.

    Data source:  Earnest

    Our data suggest that people who live at home do so because they can’t afford to live independently. This group makes an average annual income of around $6,000. That’s not enough to pay the rent, no matter which state you live in.

    Yet, some people who live at home make a wage that should allow them to live independently. Like the older groups in our age analysis, these high earners could be older adults in established households who live with elderly parents to provide, not receive, support.

    A person’s income is strongly influenced by their education. Are those who live at home less educated than their independent counterparts? We grouped our data based on highest degree attained, then calculated the percentage of each group that lives with their parents.

    Data source:  Earnest

    In general, having more education means it’s less likely you’ll live at home: just 3% of PhDs live with their parents, versus a quarter of those with only a high school diploma.

    Surprisingly, a two-year associate’s degree grants more independence than a bachelor’s: 18% of associate’s degree-holders live with their parents, compared to 20% of bachelor’s-holders. This could be owing to the greater student loan burden faced by the latter group.

    Even within one of these categories, not all degrees are created equal. A bachelor’s degree in a STEM discipline may offer access to more lucrative jobs than one in the humanities. Does it also affect living situation? 

    We grouped our sample based on self-reported major and charted the percentage of each group that lives at home below.

    Data source:  Earnest

    Just 8.2 percentage points separate all majors we considered, except law. Compare this to the 22-point spread between PhD-holders and high school grads in our degree analysis above. What you study matters less than the level of education you attain. 

    That said, students of the hard sciences, plus law and education, are more likely to live away from home, whereas students of the humanities and “soft” sciences like psychology have more trouble leaving the nest.

    But a person’s independence is likely determined by a combination of what they study and the level of education they attain. Entry level jobs in STEM may pay as well as jobs held by PhDs in non-STEM fields. Does that translate to more independence in living situation?

    To find out, we grouped our sample by highest degree attained and major (classified simply as STEM or non-STEM). The percentage of each group living at home is displayed below.

    Data source:  Earnest

    Having a graduate degree in any discipline matters more than having it in any particular one: individuals with master’s degrees—in STEM or not—live at home in the lowest numbers.

    But for bachelor’s and associate’s degree-seekers, major matters. For both degrees, STEM students are less likely to live at home than are non-STEM majors. Associate’s degree-holders in STEM are also more independent than holders of STEM or non-STEM bachelor’s degrees. Again, this may be due to the higher student loan burden faced by graduates of 4-year schools.

    ***

    So what should you do if you’d like to live independently? Our data indicate that it’s all about income.

    First, live in an affordable state. Avoiding the coasts, and certainly the New York metropolitan area, would be a good idea.

    Seeking education should also be a priority. Earning a bachelor’s or associate’s degree will reduce your chances of living at home, and signing up for a graduate degree will further increase your independence.

    Finally, studying STEM will also help boost you out of the nest. In every degree program we considered, STEM majors lived at home less often than did students of non-STEM disciplines.

  • After A "Run On The Pension Fund" Dallas Mayor Demands Halt Of Withdrawals

    We’ve written several times over the past couple of months about the epic meltdown of the the Dallas Police and Firefighters Pension (DPFP) (see here, here and here for background).  It all started when the Pension Board discovered that one of their real estate managers had been consistently overmarking illiquid real estate investments.  That discovery resulted in an FBI investigation of the manager and a $1BN write down for the DPFP.  In the wake of the writedowns, Dallas policemen and firefighters rushed for the exits and withdrew over $500mm in assets. 

    Fearing a “run on the bank” that could push the whole city of Dallas into bankruptcy, Mayor Mike Rawlings has just sent a scathing letter to the DPFP Pension Board demanded that withdrawals be halted immediately until the “solvency and actuarial soundness of the Pension System is restored.”

    As the Board is well aware, at the beginning of this year, the actuarial value of assets under your supervision and control were reset to market value, resulting in a $1 billion valuation loss.  This significant markdown was the result of years of mismanagement and abuse. 

     

    Critically the Pension System’s actuary warned that the Pension System would become insolvent even sooner if Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”) funds are drawn down in less than a ten-year period.

     

    Despite this clear warning, you have inexplicably paid out nearly $500 million in lump-sum DROP withdrawals over a matter of mere months – notwithstanding your power to unilaterally restrict or limit DROP withdrawals.  In doing so, you have knowingly allowed DROP funds to be withdrawn at record levels, cognizant that doing so is irreparably harming the Pensions System’s solvency and liquidity.

     

    Already, as a result of your actions, the Pension System’s ability to pay its members’ future benefits has been irreparably reduced from a period of 15 years to 10 years.  Further, both the City of Dallas and the Pension System have projected that DROP withdrawals, if unabated, will lead to a liquidity crisis in the Pension System with the next 90 days, causing a forced sale of illiquid assets.  Your Board Chairman summed it up best when referring to the payment of DROP withdrawals: “- the continuation of this practice would be financial suicide.”  And yet the practice continues. 

     

    Given the urgency of this matter, I request a response within 48 hours as to whether the Board will immediately cease DROP payments until such time as the solvency and actuarial soundness of the Pension System is restored.

    MR

     

    As the Dallas Morning News points out, the DPFP’s previous management refused to believe that a “run on the bank” was possible and feared any efforts to limit withdrawals would have just resulted in “backlash from police and firefighters when the restrictions were lifted.”  Instead of limiting withdrawals, in fact, the Pension Board proposed a $1BN, taxpayer funded bailout. 

    The previous administration didn’t believe the run on the bank would ever happen. When The Dallas Morning News asked then-administrator Richard Tettamant about the possibility in 2012, he replied that it wouldn’t happen.

     

    “This could happen to Bank of America or Fidelity Investments as well, but as with them, there would be no reason for people to do that,” Tettamant said in an email. “The pension system has sufficient liquid assets to cover all DROP distribution requests.”

     

    More than $500 million has been withdrawn from the $1.5 billion fund this year. Most of it came after Aug. 11, when the pension fund proposed benefit cuts to help save it from insolvency caused by overvalued and risky real estate investments made by the previous administration.

     

    Still, the current pension board, which includes four City Council members, unanimously decided not to restrict DROP withdrawals this year after  hours of deliberations and legal advice given behind closed doors.

     

    Pension board members believed they couldn’t restrict the withdrawals forever and feared the backlash from police and firefighters when the restrictions were lifted. And they hoped that keeping DROP open would boost confidence in the fund.

    Meanwhile, Rawlings didn’t earn any new friends among police or firefighters with his letter, as the President of the Dallas Fire Fighters Association lashed out at the Mayor for throwing “gasoline on the fire.”

    Dallas Fire Fighters Association President Jim McDade also blasted the mayor for the letter. He said the city needs to step up instead of throwing “gasoline on the fire.”

     

    “If the mayor believes that his letter will stop the ‘run on the bank’ he is wrong,” McDade said in a written statement. “He just created a SPRINT to the bank.”

    Alas, while Dallas police and fire fighters may ultimately endure some short-term pain if redemptions are temporarily halted, we suspect that the real long-term losers, as per the usual, will be taxpayers who will be forced to pony up whatever amount of money is required to keep the whole farce going just a little longer.

     

    Here is the full letter from Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings:

  • Yahoo's Advice To Trump: Educate Children In Media Literacy To Combat Fake News

    Submitted by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWeill.com,

    Writing for Yahoo News, National Political Columnist Matt Bai provides a suggestion to combat the so-called “fake news” epidemic that has become a major talking point of the mainstream media since Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election. According to Bai, we should be “teaching our kids how to consume” information in an age where the internet has provided a press to anyone with a computer and a router.

    Within his article, titled “The real problem behind fake news“, Bai calls fake news a “searing hot topic these days” and mentions the infamous WaPo article which cites a shadowy, anonymous organization known as PropOrNot (Propaganda or Not) that smears many legitimate conservative and libertarian news sources like Zero Hedge, Infowars, Breitbart, World Net Daily and The Ron Paul Institute as Russian propaganda.

    That WaPo article highlighted what was the second blacklist of websites to make its rounds in the mainstream press last month. The first list was put together by a nobody liberal professor from Merrimack College (let me tell you how worthy of circulation that is).

    Bai writes:

    The emergence of “fake news” is a searing hot topic these days, as you’ve probably heard — a new, truth-free media to go with our new, truth-free politics. The Washington Post reports that a lot of these phony stories, some of which probably influenced the election in at least a tangential way, originate with Russian “bots” programmed to confuse American readers. (Payback, I guess, for all those years when Voice of America did the same thing.)

     

    Under enormous pressure, Facebook and Google have now promised to do a better job of curating the content that populates their sites. Which is all very comforting, if you really want software engineers assuming the role of civic arbiter that has traditionally fallen to journalists. I don’t.

     

    And the problem with cracking down on social media sites is that it’s a little like the war on drugs. You can try to stamp out the supply of garbage news, but the Web is a vast place, and as long as someone can make money off misinformation, it will always find a crack through which to seep.

    Aside from citing the WaPo hit piece on basically all effective news outlets outside the MSM realm, Bai is being reasonable. Most will agree, it is better not to have Facebook and Google taking on the role of civic arbiter and information gatekeeper. And the promoting of a crackdown on social media could lead to the very slippery slope of censorship.

    The Yahoo News journalist goes on to writes:

    No, the long-term solution here is about stemming the demand. The answer doesn’t lie in hectoring tech companies into policing content, but rather in teaching our kids how to consume it.

    Bai says that “navigating the news media isn’t intuitive anymore” and compares it to flying a plane rather than driving a car.

    “A Big Bang at the genesis of the Internet age” has fractured the entire (Media) industry and its audience into a million pieces,” he says.

    “The proliferation of social media and the rise of mindless aggregation” is also causing this problem of “fake news” reaching the masses, Bia writes.

    My kids will spend months of their young lives studying the Revolution and the Civil War and the advent of mass production, which is fine. In grade school, they spend some part of every year revisiting the social movements of the ’60s, which is noble and important.

     

    But what’s called “media literacy” in the education world — the ability to consume torrents of information with some level of competence and sophistication — is still an outlier in social studies curricula, despite having been discussed now for decades. Even when it’s taught, it’s crammed into a high school unit, by which time today’s grade-schoolers will have been surfing YouTube for half their lives.

    It seems like a great idea, teach kids how to objectively analyze the media. But, if we are to take the mainstream media’s labeling of “fake news” seriously, we will find ourselves telling our children that only big networks like CNN and MSNBC are trustworthy sources.

    The real problem with the entire fake news narrative is that “fake news”, by PropOrNot’s definition, is really not a problem at all.

    The mainstream media is telling everyone that since Google’s algorithm made a mistake by linking to a false news report, individuals now must surrender their ability to look at things objectively and only trust the big news networks.

    Just look at PropOrNot.com’s blacklist, it is full of alternative news sites that now have large enough audiences to bang heads with the corporate controlled press. And considering that the trust in the mainline news is equal to that of trust in congress, this can only be seen as a way to discredit the grassroots news organizations that are threatening the old media’s reign.

    The labeling of fake news should be left up the internet user who might stumble across some wrong information or even some disinformation.

    It would be foolish to allow the mainstream press, an unknown organization that hides its identity and a leftist professor that teaches feminist media studies, to provide what is real and what is not.

    I would also not be too enthusiastic on the public school system, that runs off federal funding, embracing the rise of alternative voices in media that are usually critical of government (the way it is suppose to be).

    Matt Bai ends his piece for Yahoo with a very laughable thought.

    Here’s a radical thought: If President Trump is looking for a bold and useful education initiative that might serve the incidental purpose of redeeming what’s left of his soul, media literacy would be a pretty good place to start. Getting behind a nationwide push in K-through-12 classrooms could be an important and unifying priority for the incoming education secretary, Betsy DeVos.

     

    Willingly or not, Trump has done more than anyone else to expose the problem. The least he can do is begin to address it.

    HA!

    You mean the Donald Trump that absolutely ridiculed the mainstream media during a meeting last month over their blatant bias coverage of the election and misrepresentations?

    Hate to break it to you Matt, but if Trump were to do that many of the websites on the PropOrNot list cited by WaPo would be presented as “real news” to our children. CNN and ABC would be identified as the establishment government lapdogs that they are.

    I hope Trump takes your advice.

  • 70% Of Immigrants Admitted Under Obama's "Minor Refugee" Program Are Actually Adults

    Two years ago the Obama administration sought out to tackle a “crisis” that involved minors seeking out “human smugglers” to help with transportation across the U.S. – Mexico border.  So, with a swipe of the pen, Obama signed an executive order allowing minors of certain Central American countries to flee to the U.S. under a “refugee/parole program.” 

    Two years later, there’s just one problem: 70% of the people admitted under the program are actually adults.  According to MRC TV, official data from the State Department indicates that of the 1,600 aliens that have traveled to the U.S. under the CAM program to date, only 480 of them are actually under the age of 18. 

    Now, under the CAM program, the State Department told MRCTV in an email Wednesday that of the 1,600 aliens who have traveled to the United States to date, only 480 of them – just 30 percent – are children under the age of 18.

     

    Conversely, a full 70 percent of those aliens who’ve been allowed into the United States under the president’s program for “minors” are adults.

    The controversial initiative was launched in December 2014 as part of President Obama’s executive actions on immigrants, and was touted as a way to bring illegal alien children from certain Central American countries into the United States to be reunited with their families, who are often here illegally themselves.  The move was allegedly designed to keep underage children from relying on dangerous human smugglers to bring them across the U.S. –Mexico border illegally.  Per the State Department:

    The United States is establishing an in-country refugee/parole program in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to provide a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are currently undertaking to the United States. This program will allow certain parents who are lawfully present in the United States to request access to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for their children still in one of these three countries. Children who are found ineligible for refugee admission but still at risk of harm may be considered for parole on a case-by-case basis. The refugee/parole program will not be a pathway for undocumented parents to bring their children to the United States, but instead, the program will provide certain vulnerable, at-risk children an opportunity to be reunited with parents lawfully resident in the United States.

    Immigrant Detention

     

    And, like many government initiatives, the CAM program has been completely ineffective in slowing the number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.  In fact, as MRC points out, U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently reported that it apprehended 97% more unaccompanied illegal minors at the border this October than last year. 

    On top of failing to provide much help to many child “refugees,” the CAM program hasn’t made a notable impact on the number of unaccompanied children and families who’ve elected to come into the United States illegally via the Mexican border – which is the very problem the initiative was supposedly created to alleviate.

     

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports it apprehended another 4,973 unaccompanied illegal alien children (UACs) at the U.S.-Mexico border in October, up 97 percent from the 2,519 UACs that border agents apprehended in October of last year. That same month, the Obama administration released more than 6,000 illegal alien children to sponsors living in the United States.

     

    CBP also caught another 6,029 family units crossing the Southwest U.S. border illegally during the month of October, a total 179 percent higher than the 2,162 family units the agency caught in October of last year. The border surge has increased so much, in fact, that officials are now warning the wave is already threatening to overwhelm their resources.

     

    In fact, CBP data shows that since President Obama launched the costly CAM program in December 2014, nearly 100,000 unaccompanied alien children and more than 123,000 family units have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    But don’t worry, even though the CAM program has been proven completely ineffective, it only cost taxpayers ~$1BN in 2016 so no big deal.

Digest powered by RSS Digest