Today’s News 29th August 2016

  • Brazil's Banana Scoundrels Will Now Win Their Olympics

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via Stratgic-Culture.org,

    The Rio Olympics are gone – Bolt, Phelps, Neymar, the green pool, the Ugly American Lochte and all – but a global audience may have been spared a shameful last act.

    Mediocre incompetent opportunist, corrupt coward traitor, and certified political usurper, interim President Michel Temer, refused to go to the closing ceremony, afraid of being booed out of a packed Maracana stadium. According to the latest polls, 79% of Brazilians want Temer The Usurper out. Now.

    Thus Temer The Usurper was not able, according to protocol, to pass the baton (for Tokyo in 2020) to visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Team Temer offered a meeting later on in the capital, Brasilia. Japanese diplomats flatly refused; who wants your Prime Minister to meet a coward in hiding?

    Former President Lula lobbied hard to bring the Olympics to Rio, and preparations went on under President Dilma Rousseff. Coupled with Temer The Usurper’s primal fear of being booed just as in the Olympics opening ceremony, which led to his subsequent diplomatic humiliation, a noxious, pathetic political propaganda campaign was deployed right to the end of the games, trying to diminish or even extinguish Lula’s and Dilma’s role. Quite a few Brazilian athletes with great performances at the games benefited from government-supported sport programs.

    Now the Scoundrel Games are back in Brazil – with a parliamentary junta disputing gold medals with an institutional racket involving big banks, big business, corporate media and sectors of the Judiciary and the Federal Police. The farce is being sold as a trial in the Senate of President Rousseff, accused – without proof – of financially embellishing the state budget.

    Unlike the cowardly usurper, Rousseff is going to the Senate to stare all 81 members in the face; these are the people who by the end of this month will for all practical purposes save or bury Brazilian democracy for good. Rousseff, in case of – miraculously – not being impeached, proposes a referendum leading to new elections.

    As it stands, it does not look good. The late, great Jean Baudrillard – a great lover of Brazil – would characterize Rousseff’s impeachment drive as a simulacrum, obliterating the real crime; the parliamentary/institutional coup orchestrated by a notorious bunch of scoundrels, Temer included.

    The multi-layered coup, with modified Hybrid War elements, comes with a prearranged finale. It does not matter that even Brazilian Public Ministry experts have repeatedly admitted there’s no juridical basis for Rousseff’s impeachment. Even the federal prosecutor on the case concluded a few weeks ago that she did not commit a crime – «responsibility» or otherwise.

    The prosecutorial gang includes two of every three members of the Brazilian Congress who are facing an array of scandals. The overall institutional farce points to the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Public Ministry dragging their feet on indicting the legislative scoundrels while accelerating the procedure against Rousseff. That’s the definition of organized crime.

    The endgame, from the point of view of the coup plotter galaxy, is to criminalize and finish off with the Workers’ Party for good – from Lula and Rousseff downwards – under an upcoming barrage of hazy «obstruction of Justice» allegations.

    And the Obama administration loves it.

    The president of construction company giant Odebrecht, incarcerated for months now, accused Temer The Usurper of pleading for – and receiving – undeclared «electoral help», in cash, for his party, the PMDB. Temer has already been convicted for violating election finance laws and banned from running for office for eight years.

    Interim Foreign Minister Jose Serra also received «electoral help» for his presidential campaign in 2010; part of the loot was paid overseas, something that properly investigated could lead his party, the PSDB, to lose its registration.

    In these past few weeks, Temer The Usurper took no prisoners to turbo charge the impeachment timetable farce, at the same time preventing Dilma to mount a detailed defense. His excuse; he needs to go to Hangzhou, China, for the G20 summit starting on September 4. And he needs to go as president-in-charge – not as «leader» of an unelected caretaker government acting like they’ve earned their mandate in the polling booth.

    The real reason for the rush, though, is that Temer feared the serious Odebrecht corruption charge like the plague. Other charges may be imminent. Yet he’s protected – at least for now; the Mob – as in the Goddess of the Market, Brazil’s big banking and their shills in corporate media – is on his side.

    Brazil remains totally paralyzed by the political/institutional farce. The 8th largest economy in the world, second largest exporter of food products, and largest industrial platform in the developing West is bleeding, badly. Oil workers are accusing the Mob for 1.5 million lost jobs. Huge infrastructure projects are stalled. Large construction companies are virtually broke; Odebrecht by itself fired over 70,000 workers.

    In parallel Temer The Usurper’s «government» has already started to enact its masterplan – straight from disaster capitalism’s playbook. One of the key «policies» is to sell out Petrobras – and the pre-salt reserves – to foreign, as in US corporate, interests. Lula correctly identified the pre-salt reserves – the largest oil discovery in the 21st century so far – as the privileged source for a new development drive for Brazil.

    But there are way more disasters in store; selling out indigenous Brazilian industrial development via hardcore privatization, abandoning the defense of Brazilian engineering know-how; severe cuts on education, health, science and technology; «flexibilization» of workers’ rights, as in attacking them on all fronts; a regressive attack on pensions; and sabotaging Mercosur – the South American common market – to the benefit of vassal subordination to US interests.

    The – legitimate – Uruguayan Foreign Minister, Rodolfo Nin Novoa, was even compelled to denounced the – illegitimate – Brazilian Foreign Minister, the lowly Serra, for trying to buy Montevideo’s help to prevent Venezuela from stepping up to the temporary presidency of Mercosur. In a little over three months, Serra managed to reduce Brazilian diplomacy to a heap of rotten bananas.

    And then, of course, there’s the cherry in the cheesecake; the lame duck Obama administration’s full support for the coup and the impeachment farce.

    Obama did not have the balls to say it upfront. That came in the form of Secretary of State John Kerry meeting with the repellent Serra in a trip to Brazil in early August. Kerry even issued a long statement – for all practical purposes legitimizing the coup.

    Kerry did not have the balls to meet Temer The Usurper. So what; the whole Global South now knows where Washington stands. Parliamentary / institutional regime change is of course OK. As long as it prevents BRICS integration and Chinese trade/commercial advance in Latin America.

    Move on, nothing to see here – as Washington proceeds to the serious business of negotiating two crucial military bases with Argentina’s neoliberal vassal Mauricio Macri; one in resource-rich Patagonia, the other smack into the Brazil / Argentina / Paraguay triple border, right by the largest aquifer on the planet.

    And there’s all that pre-salt oil about to go to Chevron! How not to love the smell of regime change in the morning? Definitely smells like victory. And you don’t even need to send the Marines for it.

  • What Life Will Be Like After An Economic Collapse

    Submitted by Megan Stewart via SurvivalSullivan.com,

    If you have been waiting for a public announcement or news headline to let you know that an economic collapse has begun, you are in for the surprise of your life. If history in other countries and in Detroit, Michigan is any indication, there won’t be an announcement. An economic collapse tends to sneak up on a city, region, or country gradually over time. In some cases, the arrival of an economic collapse is so gradual that most people living in it aren’t even aware of it at first.

    Things just get gradually worse, often so gradually that people and families adjust as best they can until one day they actually realize that it’s not just their home or their neighborhood that has been hit so hard financially, it’s everyone. By that time, it’s often too late to take preventative action.

    In March of 2011, Detroit’s population was reported as having fallen to 713,777, the lowest it had been in a century and a full 25% drop from 2000. In December 2011, the state announced its intention to formally review Detroit’s finances. In May of 2013, almost two years later, the city is deemed “clearly insolvent” and in July of 2013, the state representative filed a Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition for Motor City. Detroit became one of the biggest cities to file bankruptcy in history.

    So we have only to look at what happened in Detroit, Michigan post-bankruptcy, to get an indication of what might soon be widespread across the United States and what is already widespread in countries like Brazil and Venezuela.

    Increased and Widespread Hunger

    Grocery stores and other businesses will fail one by one or be shut down from the riots and looting. In Detroit, the economic collapse left less than 5 national grocery stores for over 700,000 people. Imagine the lines even if food was still being shipped in on trucks. Small independent corner stores and family owned stores become the most convenient place to shop. These are stores with already high prices who make most of their profit from beer, wine, lottery, and cigarettes.

    Now imagine that shipping schedules have been affected by the economic crisis, this would mean longer lines with less certainty that any food would even be available once you got into the store to shop. People in Venezuela are actually dealing with government-run grocery stores and are limited to two days per week they can shop. They still face long lines and total uncertainty of what, if any food, will be left once it’s their “turn” to shop.

    One of the ways for you to prepare for an economic collapse and increase the likelihood that your family will be well-fed regardless of what is available in the grocery stores is to grow your own food. For further protection, consider planning and planting a hidden survival garden rather than a traditional garden that would be obvious to neighbors and looters. In addition, you can learn how to identify, harvest, and consume wild edible plants to supplement your food supply.

    Sporadic Public Services

    Public services, including the school system experience frequent strikes that shut them down for days at a time. Power issues and outages become more frequent and roadways become filled with potholes and other signs of disrepair as preventative measures are shoved aside. The water from the tap, that you pay for monthly, begins to smell funny, so you start filtering it before using it. Garbage collection service is sporadic and you begin to see increased trash along the streets and sidewalks.

    Your cell phone is certainly not something you can rely on since you can’t predict when the signal will be available. Although you pay for high-speed internet, actually getting that service on a daily basis is a matter of sheer luck. Increased littering in the streets and lack of regular garbage collection services becomes an issue because the litter now clogs storm drains every time it rains.

    In order to prepare for the sporadic and possible shutdown of public utility services, you can research alternative methods for getting what you need. Consider solar or wind power energy, digging a well or installing a rainwater catchment system. Invest in a composting toilet in the event that public septic systems are overloaded or malfunctioning.

    Social Unrest

    This is another one of those things that just tends to sneak up gradually. Initially, protests warrant our attention because it’s new and different and out of the ordinary. But as the protests become more and more frequent, people stop caring why the protests are happening. You learn to avoid areas where protests are likely to occur. You start taking an alternate route to work or entering your office building through a back door.

    Violence and vandalism begin to accompany the protests and roadblocks become part of your everyday routine. Like rush-hour traffic r, you plan enough time to get to work based on the knowledge that the road may be blocked due to a car or building being set on fire the night before. More people will be armed when in public, tempers will be short, there will be increased knife fights and shootings. This will put a huge strain on emergency services personnel such as police, fire, and EMS.

    Streets, yards, and even homes are flooding more often now. In addition to the litter, the metal storm drains and even copper pipes from abandoned homes are being stolen for cash. Before long you start to notice that the historic plaques are missing from city monuments, statues come up missing, even doorknobs, anything metal that can be scrapped is fair game for looters and thieves.

    One way to prepare for the next wave of riots is to move out of the city to a more rural location. If you can’t do that right now, then it will help to be intimately familiar with your city roads and other transportation routes. Make sure that you have several planned routes to/from work or your child’s school and any nearby grocery stores. In addition to planning alternative routes for daily travel, you should plan and practice several different bug out routes in case you need to leave your home quickly. Consider not only roads but also railroad tracks, subway tunnels, sewer tunnels, and power line easement roads as possible alternative routes.

    Transportation

    Daily travel is fraught with angry mobs and requires using alternative routes which result in everything just taking longer. Travel by bus, subway, and airline are unpredictable due to increased strikes. Roads go unrepaired as a result of striking workers or budget constraints. Increased bottlenecks on the roads lead to more frequent carjacking and muggings as thieves learn where people will be forced to stop.

    More people are forced to travel by bus, subway, or train due to skyrocketing gas prices, thus public transportation services are overwhelmed. There are increased train accidents, bus and subway breakdowns due to lack of investment, corruption, and politics getting in the way of doing things correctly. Strikes, protests, and roadblocks make everything worse. Soon the only way to get anything done involves “paying a little extra” or suffering long and uncertain delays.

    Plan for long delays in transportation by not only keeping your car gas tank full of gas at all times but also by stockpiling as much gas as you can safely store. Keep your car well-maintained, keep spare parts and engine fluids stockpiled, and perform preventative repairs. You can also consider an alternate form of transportation such as a motorcycle, foldable bicycle, or even a motorized scooter or boat if your situation warrants it.

    Criminal Activity

    When an economic crisis is in the making, you will definitely see an increase in criminal activity. People will become desperate to feed themselves and their families. More people will be more willing to cross the line into criminal activity to get what they need. Initially, you will hear about more incidents of violence, looting, robberies, and muggings.

    Your neighbor or a family member will be mugged and you will respond by taking additional safety precautions. You’ll check your car before getting into it, you’ll avoid dark areas, carry your keys in your hand. As reports become more frequent, you’ll start to travel only in groups and never alone.

    You’ll hear that the woman down the street had someone break into her house while she was sleeping. So you may nag your husband to reinforce the deadbolts and add security bars on the windows. When the neighbor is robbed, your husband will buy several guns and you both will learn to use them. You’ll teach your kids about gun safety and maybe create a plan of action for a home invasion.

    Before long, getting mugged or being a victim of some type of crime is as unpredictable and as common as a car accident. You’ll realize everyone in the neighborhood has now beefed up security on their homes. All your family, friends, and coworkers have experienced a mugging, carjacking, or worse.

    You’ll have no choice but to accept this new way of life and count on basic safety measures (a form of passive denial) or further learn to defend yourself and remain in a constant state of alert (a very stressful state over time). It’s difficult emotionally, mentally, and physically to remain on high alert 24/7 for any length of time. Most people will revert to a form of passive denial until the next incident happens to them or a family member.

    Take time now to learn self-defense moves and make sure you and all family members know how to use both non-lethal and lethal weapons. Keep weapons where you can reach them quickly but where they are safe from curious child fingers. Learn and consider putting into practice some of these 10 deceptive strategies for preppers so you can avoid becoming a target for criminals.

    Housing

    Streets that used to have a house on every lot, morph into desolate patches of houses as people lose their homes to banks or abandon their homes to move in with family or friends due to lack of finances. Houses fall into disrepair, lawns are overgrown, pests and rodents thrive in empty buildings.

    Abandoned homes that aren’t torn down or maintained by the city may be taken over by squatters, some with the best of intentions to clean it up, others who just need a place to sleep, or who are in between drug or alcohol binges. Squatters will modify heating systems to get them to work or customize DIY heating sources which can result in increased house fires and even explosions when things go wrong. As the housing conditions worsen, more people will become ill from prolonged exposure to the elements, to poor living conditions, and to increased insect and rodent infestations.

    The best way to ensure that housing for you and your family is stable is to keep up with needed repairs and do what you can to reduce your overall housing expenses. If you can pay ahead on your house payments or pay down on the principal amount, or even pay off your house, you stand a better chance of keeping control of it when things start to collapse.

    Unemployment

    More and more people you know will experience job loss or layoffs. It may seem easy enough to get another job at first, but as more and more people are displaced, finding a job will become almost impossible. Teenagers will be displaced from jobs that are now being taken by adults.

    This means instead of working for the summer and after school, more teenagers will be out on the streets without anything worthwhile to do. The neighborhood might just seem “rowdier” at night and then during the day too. But before long, boredom, frustration, and even anger will set in and the unemployed will join the ranks of the protestors and looters.

    Prepare for possible unemployment by saving up an emergency fund and stockpiling food and other supplies so that you can manage through several weeks or even months without steady income. Reduce your monthly expenses as much as possible so you can live on less when money gets tight.

    Healthcare

    This is one of the areas that many people don’t really consider when they think about an economic collapse but it’s probably one of the most important when it comes to human life and survival. This is especially true for those people who may take daily medications in order to treat a chronic life-threatening condition. Initially healthcare appointments may become more difficult to schedule. It may take longer to get in to see a doctor because quite frankly, more people are getting sick and needing care.

    Illnesses from poor diet, from low-quality water, or food that spoiled due to power issues will be more frequent. There will also be more injuries as a result of the looting, rioting, and increased criminal activity. You can expect increased incidents of domestic violence as family relationships are strained and crack under the stress of poor living conditions. Many people will lose access to their healthcare when they lose their jobs, and this will place a strain on public services such as free clinics and emergency rooms.

    To prepare for a shortage or lack of accessible healthcare, you can create and learn to use your own first aid kit and learn how to identify and use wild plants and natural remedies to treat minor illnesses and diseases.

    There’s really no way to predict the timing of an economic collapse with any certainty and in most cases, an economic collapse will occur gradually without much warning unless you are paying close attention to activity and events going on around you and around the world. The best way to be prepared when it does happen is to start changing your lifestyle now, in the ways discussed above, so that you and your family can survive hard times in the future.

  • Minimum Wage Claims Its Latest Victims – Ashley Furniture Slashes 840 Jobs In California

    A few weeks back we pointed out a couple of the reasons that businesses are fleeing California by the 1,000's ("3 Simple Charts That Help Explain Why 9,000 Businesses Have Left California In Just 7 Years").  Clearly the implementation of a State-wide $15 minimum wage hasn't helped "lure" business owners.

    On Friday, Ashley Furniture's 840 employees working in the company's production and warehouse facility in Colton, California became the latest victims of California's minimum wage hike.  Ashley announced they would be leaving open their retail store in Colton, but would be relocating the production facility that accounts for most of the location's jobs.  Per the San Bernadino Sun, Ashley Furniture released the following statements about the closure:

    We thank our employees for all their hard work, but closing these plants on Oct. 25 and rebalancing our manufacturing mix strengthens production capability and cost structure and will help ensure Ashley’s continued ability to compete effectively long-term in the global marketplace from a U.S. base.

     

    The majority of production in Colton will move to U.S. plants in Wisconsin, Mississippi and North Carolina.

    By shifting the majority of Colton production to other U.S. facilities we will create more efficiency and better use of existing capacity in our manufacturing network.

    Ashley Furniture

     

    Certainly, it's not surpurprising that Ashley would choose to relocate their California prodcution capacity to Wisconsin, North Carolina and Mississippi given that they each sport minimum wages that are a mere 52% lower than California's proposed $15 floor.

    Minimum Wage by State

     

    But, as per the norm, misinformed politicians rarely seem to take the heat for their reckless policies as Ashley employees prepared to protest the layoffs in Colton. 

    We cannot let companies like Ashley bleed the American dream,” Naja said. “It’s not only the employees, but the families, the kids, the wives. They’ve got wives with medical situations and things like that. There’s no way a huge company like Ashley’s can shut down the doors.

     

    We’re going to be here making a protest and we’re calling everybody that can come to please support us and find out what they did to us,” Zuniga said. “Come and support all the hard-working employees and parents that take income to their house. I’m the only one supporting my family. I’m the only one paying a mortgage.”

    Might we kindly suggest the better place to hold your protest would be in front of Jerry Brown's office in Sacramento. 

  • What If Only Taxpayers Voted?

    If “pay-to-play” is good enough for Hillary’s State Department, then why not the nation?

     

     

    Source: The Burning Platform

  • "If This Does Not Disqualify Hillary For The Presidency, It's Hard To Know What Will"

    Even the traditionally 'establishment' Wall Street Journal is waking up to the utter incredulity of an American media (and citizenry) which appears capable of cognitive dissonance on an epic scale when it comes to Hillary Clinton. As Kimberly Strassel explains the latest emails show that State and the foundation were one seamless entity.

    This is the week that the steady drip, drip, drip of details about Hillary Clinton’s server turned into a waterfall. This is the week that we finally learned why Mrs. Clinton used a private communications setup, and what it hid. This is the week, in short, that we found out that the infamous server was designed to hide that Mrs. Clinton for three years served as the U.S. Secretary of the Clinton Foundation.

    In March this column argued that while Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was important, it missed the bigger point. The Democratic nominee obviously didn’t set up her server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets—that was incidental. She set up the server to keep secret the details of the Clintons’ private life—a life built around an elaborate and sweeping money-raising and self-promoting entity known as the Clinton Foundation.

    Had Secretary Clinton kept the foundation at arm’s length while in office—as obvious ethical standards would have dictated—there would never have been any need for a private server, or even private email. The vast majority of her electronic communications would have related to her job at the State Department, with maybe that occasional yoga schedule. And those Freedom of Information Act officers would have had little difficulty—when later going through a state.gov email—screening out the clearly “personal” before making her records public. This is how it works for everybody else.

    Mrs. Clinton’s problem—as we now know from this week’s release of emails from Huma Abedin’s private Clinton-server account—was that there was no divide between public and private. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation were one seamless entity—employing the same people, comparing schedules, mixing foundation donors with State supplicants. This is why she maintained a secret server, and why she deleted 15,000 emails that should have been turned over to the government.

    Most of the focus on this week’s Abedin emails has centered on the disturbing examples of Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band negotiating State favors for foundation donors. But equally instructive in the 725 pages released by Judicial Watch is the frequency and banality of most of the email interaction. Mr. Band asks if Hillary’s doing this conference, or having that meeting, and when she’s going to Brazil. Ms. Abedin responds that she’s working on it, or will get this or that answer. These aren’t the emails of mere casual acquaintances; they don’t even bother with salutations or signoffs. These are the emails of two people engaged in the same purpose—serving the State-Clinton Foundation nexus.

    The other undernoted but important revelation is that the media has been looking in the wrong place. The focus is on Mrs. Clinton’s missing emails, and no doubt those 15,000 FBI-recovered texts contain nuggets. Then again, Mrs. Clinton was a busy woman, and most of the details of her daily State/foundation life would have been handled by trusted aides. This is why they, too, had private email. Top marks to Judicial Watch for pursuing Ms. Abedin’s file from the start. A new urgency needs to go into seeing similar emails of former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.

    Mostly, we learned this week that Mrs. Clinton’s foundation issue goes far beyond the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. This is straight-up pay to play. When Mr. Band sends an email demanding a Hillary meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain and notes that he’s a “good friend of ours,” what Mr. Band means is that the crown prince had contributed millions to a Clinton Global Initiative scholarship program, and therefore has bought face time. It doesn’t get more clear-cut, folks.

    That’s highlighted by the Associated Press’s extraordinary finding this week that of the 154 outside people Mrs. Clinton met with in the first years of her tenure, more than half were Clinton Foundation donors. Clinton apologists, like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, are claiming that statistic is overblown, because the 154 doesn’t include thousands of meetings held with foreign diplomats and U.S. officials.

    Nice try. As the nation’s top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton was obliged to meet with diplomats and officials—not with others. Only a blessed few outsiders scored meetings with the harried secretary of state and, surprise, most of the blessed were Clinton Foundation donors.

    Mrs. Clinton’s only whisper of grace is that it remains (as it always does in potential cases of corruption) hard to connect the dots. There are “quids” (foundation donations) and “quos” (Bahrain arms deals) all over the place, but no precise evidence of “pros.” Count on the Clinton menagerie to dwell in that sliver of a refuge.

    But does it even matter? What we discovered this week is that one of the nation’s top officials created a private server that housed proof that she continued a secret, ongoing entwinement with her family foundation – despite ethics agreements – and that she destroyed public records. If that alone doesn’t disqualify her for the presidency, it’s hard to know what would.

  • Shoulda Called Huma…

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • What Preppers haven't Prepped for – the big gaping hole

    Reading stories about Preppers is often more inspiring than reading about startups.  Preppers dedicate their entire life to their new way of life, as it were.  Take for example this recent article in the Washington Post about the American Redoubt:

    Those migrating to the Redoubt are some of the most motivated members of what is known as the prepper movement, which advocates readiness and self-reliance in man-made or natural disasters that could create instability for years. It’s scenario-planning that is gaining adherents and becoming mainstream in what Redoubt preppers described as an era of fear and uncertainty.  They are anxious about recent terrorist attacks from Paris to San Bernardino, Calif., to Orlando; pandemics such as Ebola in West Africa; potential nuclear attacks from increasingly provocative countries such as North Korea or Iran; and the growing political, economic and racial polarization in the United States that has deepened during the 2016 presidential election.

    Although the reasons for prepping are extremely varied, most dedicated preppers share several axioms of their prepping philosophy, such as:

    • Being ‘off the grid’ or self-reliant, for food, power, medical needs, and any needs or wants
    • Living in a secure, remote area
    • DIY mentality (Do It Yourself)
    • 6 month – 2 year supply of food and other supplies
    • Gold & Silver for if/when the financial system collapses

    Before exposing the big gaping hole in the prepper’s main doctrine, let’s give uber-credit to this ‘movement’ if you want to call it that.  Although many preppers are fueled by irrational fears, and some based on a low probability, high impact event statistic (for example, a meteor several miles wide can strike the Earth, causing widespread volcanoes, earthquakes, and other end of days scenarios, but the chance of this happening in next 100 years is very low, probably 1 in 100 million); their approach towards life is very American, in fact it was this type of survivalist gusto that made America what it was originally.  The land was untamed, there were ‘terrorists’ (called in those days, American Indians) and Americans had to be self-reliant because well, there was no DHS to call.  If your village was attacked by Indians or the British you had to defend yourself.  There was also the chance of a lifetime – live in the West in the most beautiful property in the world basically for free – but you must do all yourself.  Pioneers, Homesteaders, Tradesmen, Industrialists, all thrived and made America what it was.  This essence seems to have been lost by the baby boomer generation that was convenience and consumer oriented (but of course, not completely).  Anyway, preppers have ushered in a new age of Americanism based on their self-reliant approach.  And many good lessons come with ‘preparing’ such as self-defense, making a robust plan (such as any organization, business or military should have), and keeping a stockpile of supplies in case of shortages.  The previous generation, mostly not with us anymore, would appreciate all these values.  During the war, they lived without many things.  They ‘prepped’ because of war.  Many preppers today will say that we are at war, it’s just an information war, or assymetric war, or potential war.  Being a prepper in many ways is being smart in today’s world.  Who knows what will happen tomorrow.  

    The big gaping hole: FINANCIAL PREPPING

    Preface this by saying that – of course – like with anything – it’s not 100%.  But generally speaking, preppers have prepared for everything except for their finances.

    Preppers are NOT financially prepared!

    Keeping physical gold and silver is a good idea – but it isn’t a panacea.  Also there are many risks associated with spending Gold and Silver such as theft, loss, and acceptance.  Maybe in certain scenarios – no one would want silver, but they may want a beer?

    Yes, that’s right.  If you want a real currency to use in an end times scenario, stock up on cheap whiskey and gin.  Growing Marijuana will be easy in such times (the reason it has the nickname ‘weed’ is because it grows like a weed), but making a still requires knowledge, time, a place which is safe and suitable, dedication, and materials.  That’s just one example.  You can elaborate on this scenario with this lateral thinking.

    Other items of value in end times include tools of all kinds, and specifically tools that don’t run with electricity, but those too.  Dynamos, solar powered battery chargers, things like this – may be more valuable than gold or silver.  

    And as gun lovers like to say:

    The only real currency if society breaks down is accelerated lead.

    Preppers should beef up their knowledge and understanding of the financial system.  If the system collapses, the new society will need bankers too.  An economic system must evolve, eventually.  Even if humans are living as savages, at some point as we rebuild, preppers and survivors will need bankers too.


    (above: Camoflage as art, from ATL.)

    To learn more about the financial system as a whole, checkout Splitting Pennies – your pocket guide to becoming a financial wizard!

  • The Deep State (And The Rise Of The Unspeakable)

    Via Jesse's Cafe Americain,

    "The state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight.

     

    The pressure to conform to an authority figure or peer group can cause people to behave in shocking ways.

     

    It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice – certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.

     

    The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well-trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street."

     

    -Mike Lofgren

    As we noted previously, the deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip.  Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it?  I once thought so, and maybe I still do.  But it doesn’t use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program.  Ultimately it’s not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.

    Because inflated salaries, inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States.  Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood?  I’d certainly like to.  But I’ll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.

    Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it?  Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their related movements.  In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses, MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I’m thinking Perot, but one mustn’t be limited to that case), and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations.  The bad dealings toward, and genuine fear of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party’s wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of Trump among the Republican deep state wing.   This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and appealing — an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and more regulated population – is heart-warming, to be sure.  It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change.  Thank you, Bernie and especially Donald, for revealing this much!  And the “republicanization” of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of “stability.”

    Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep state has delivered?  Well, it is growing and broadening.  Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora’s box, assisted by technology, can’t be closed now.  The independent media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.  Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.

    Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth’ed up, and eff’ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start.  Maybe some job training that goes beyond the printing of license plates.  But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state, and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this dynamic lies the cure.

  • One Striking Chart Shows Why, According to MS, The Next Global Recession Begins In China

    Much has been said about China in the past year. Now, courtesy of Morgan Stanley’s Chetan Ahya, here is one additional data point revealing why China will be ground zero for the next global economic slowdown.

    As Ahya notes in his Sunday Start note, “several large economies in the world including but not limited to the US, euro area, China, Japan and UK are facing the 3D challenge of demographics, debt and disinflation. Among these economies, we believe that China, which currently accounts for 18% of global GDP and 27% of global manufacturing and contributes 45% to global growth, will be the biggest drag towards lower nominal GDP growth and consequently lower expected returns.

    Surprisingly, unlike many other Chinese doomsayers, Morgan Stanley does not think the catalyst of China’s upcoming “hard landing” will be financial, or debt-related:

    The key concern that investors have on China is that its debt build-up could result in a potential financial shock, which would be akin to the experience of the US in 2008 and emerging markets in the 1990s. However, we think that the macro set-up and policy preferences will mean that the risk of a financial shock in China is low. There are three key characteristics of China’s current macro set-up: i) Debt is being largely funded domestically, i.e., China is misallocating its own excess saving; ii) It remains a net creditor to the world (with a net international investment position of 14.7% of GDP) and it runs a current account surplus; and iii) It is facing significant disinflationary pressures, which will allow the central bank to inject liquidity to manage any potential risk-aversion in the domestic financial system. While there are non-performing loans in the banking system, policy-makers will likely have significant control of liquidity conditions to prevent a financial shock, in our view.

     

    Ideally, a quick adjustment approach following our five-step process of accepting lower potential growth, cutting excess capacity/recognising non-performing loans, recapitalising banks, cutting real interest rates and stimulating consumption with fiscal transfers to households for education and healthcare is needed to transition to a new productive growth cycle.

    That however, is unlikely for a country in which social tensions and rising unemployment are already the thing that keeps Beijing up at night: “However, considering the risks to social stability, a quick adjustment appears unlikely to us. Given its macro set-up and policy preference, we have long argued that the developments in China are more comparable to that of Japan in the 1990s.”

    So in lieu of a quick adjustment, a “gradual adjustment approach” would leave us with the outcome of an extended period of excess capacity, disinflationary pressures and declining nominal growth and returns in the economy. At the current pace of new investment that China is taking up, the incremental return on capital employed will likely continue to deteriorate.

    Morgan Stanley calculates that “although China has slowed its investment since 2012, we expect it to invest 41% of its GDP (US$4.7 trillion) in 2016. This compares with the 24% of GDP which China should have been investing if it were to maintain the same capital efficiency as it did between 2000 and 2007. China currently needs new investment of 6.4pp of GDP to achieve 1pp of GDP growth, compared with the average of 3.6pp between 2000-07.”

    It is this unsustainable trend of relentless capex spending and investment that MS believes is the reason “why China will weigh on the trend in global growth and returns.”

    In a globalised, integrated economy, the impact will extend well beyond China’s weight in the aggregates as it will also influence returns in other parts of the world via its role as a large market but, more importantly, as the marginal competitor.

    And here is the chart revealing what may be the most unsustainable trend in China, one that is even more dramatic than China relentless debt growth: accounted for 26% of global annual capex in 2015, compared with 9% in 2006 and 5% in 2000. Hence, as China continues to invest with low return expectations, that this will continue to weigh on the global returns on capital employed.

    * * *

    So can the global economy grow out of China’s adverse impact like it did in the 1990s in the face of Japan’s structural slowdown then?

    According to Morgan Stanley, such an outcome seems unlikely. Back then, none of the large economies ex-Japan suffered from the 3D challenge. Indeed, until recently, the emergence of China (with sustained high productivity growth) and its integration into the global economy was itself a key factor which had helped to sustain the global growth dynamic post the structural slowdown in Japan. However, the state of the global economy excluding China today is much weaker and, with no large emerging market ready to replace China as an engine of global growth in the near future, we could well be stuck in a lower nominal returns world.

    Who will suffer the most when China’s plane if not crashes, then downshifts permanently?

    The impact from China will be most keenly felt in the industrial segment and, indeed, economies in Europe, Japan and Korea, which have both a higher share of industrial activity in their economic output and also closer trade links with China, will be most exposed, in our view. The disinflationary pressures, coupled with the depreciating RMB, will also weigh on the inflation trend in the DMs, particularly in the US, and this is one of the key external factors keeping the Fed on hold and Treasury yields low.

    Needless to say, should the Fed proceed to hike and spike the dollar some more, all these adverse dynamics will accelerate that much more.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 28th August 2016

  • Negative Rates and Cash Bans: The Chaos Continues at Jackson Hole
    From: TheDailyBell.com

    Negative rates should be integral part of central bank policy options … Central banks should make negative interest rates a fully integrated part of monetary policy in order to respond effectively to future recessions, according to an academic paper presented on Friday to some of the world’s top central bankers.  “It is only a matter of time before another cyclical downturn calls for aggressive negative nominal interest rate policy actions,” concludes Marvin Goodfriend, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a former policy adviser at the Richmond Federal Reserve bank.  – Reuters

    The Federal Reserve meeting at Jackson Hole has been covered by the mainstream media in ways that gave the impression that policy discussions were a kind of theoretical exercise.

    Papers were presented on such issues as negative interest rates (see excerpt above) that emphasized an academic context. The idea that comes across is that those involved were earnestly striving to combat US economic dysfunction and current unnaturally low interest rates.

    The larger issue here is one that we didn’t find written about: the assumption of the inherent right of policymakers to do what is “necessary” to make the US economy “healthier.”

    The debate is certainly cast in theoretical terms but the results will inevitably involve the use of force.

    The assumption is that involved in the “monetary debate” will come to a reasoned conclusion that society as a whole will be impelled to adopt. Those who do not wish to adopt such a solution – and who actively resist – may be prosecuted or jailed.

    A few days ago, in a lead-up to the conference, the Wall Street Journal published a longish editorial by Dr. Kenneth Rogoff, the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University.

    Rogoff was also the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and the article was taken from an upcoming book, “The Curse of Cash,” to be published in September by Princeton University Press.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    Money fuels corruption, terrorism, tax evasion and illegal immigration—so the U.S. should get rid of the $100 bill and other large notes … When I tell people that I have been doing research on why the government should drastically scale back the circulation of cash—paper currency—the most common initial reaction is bewilderment. Why should anyone care about such a mundane topic?

    But paper currency lies at the heart of some of today’s most intractable public-finance and monetary problems. Getting rid of most of it—that is, moving to a society where cash is used less frequently and mainly for small transactions—could be a big help.

    There is little debate among law-enforcement agencies that paper currency, especially large notes such as the U.S. $100 bill, facilitates crime: racketeering, extortion, money laundering, drug and human trafficking, the corruption of public officials, not to mention terrorism

    The necessity for this sort argument has to do with the inevitable results of the imposition of negative interest rates. Cash will have to become more difficult to obtain and use because people won’t want to pay banks for placing cash in savings accounts. They might instead wish to hold cash at home so they don’t have to pay a fee.

    As stated, the larger issue here is one of compulsion – and its presentation within an academic context. The Wall Street Journal editorial, for instance, is part of a book that will shortly be issued. The discussion of negative interest rates in Jackson Hole was accompanied by a white paper produced by a professor of economics.

    The underlying reality is that these astonishingly comprehensive solutions don’t provide a choice. Even negative interest can be seen not as a monetary/policy response but as a kind of tax. An article by Christopher J. Waller (here) characterizes low rates as nothing more than a disguised money grab:

    Negative Interest Rates: A Tax in Sheep’s Clothing … A negative interest rate is just a tax on the banks’ reserves. The tax has to be borne by someone: The banks can choose not to pass it on and just have lower after-tax profits. This will depress the share price of banks and weaken their balance sheets by having lower equity values.

    This is true – and is an outcome of the way the Fed works. Imposing rates via monopoly authority always constitutes a tax, though this is not something regularly discussed when it comes to Fed “policy.”

    Generally speaking, mainstream media coverage wants to present monetary discussions in ways that emphasize its theoretical aspects. But the bottom line is that what’s being discussed is not going to end up as suggestions. Whatever is decided on will have the force of law.

    And if we look beyond “theory” to reality, the outcome of these kinds of discussions is invariably bad. Central bank monetary mayhem is everywhere you look. The West – the world, really – is locked into a quasi-depression as a result of a century of failing policies and monetary manipulation.

    In the US, Janet Yellen wants to pretend that a “recovery” is ongoing. But if so, it one that does without some 90 million potential workers who choose not to participate – either because they cannot or because they wish to participate outside of the formal economy.

    We recently posted an article entitled “Is the Fed Being Torn Down in Order to Create a New, Powerful Global Entity?” (here). When one examines the behavior of the Fed, and of central banks generally, it’s hard to conclude that their real mission is the one presented to us.

    Step back far enough to contemplate a century’s worth of results and the reality is clear: Central banks are supposed to destroy the economies they supposedly serve. Ironically, the destruction then provides the opportunity for them to expand.

    Giving a small group of individuals the power to decide on the value and volume of money is a ludicrous concept from any standpoint. But he problem is abetted by the mainstream narrative that never discusses the underlying lack of logic.

    And so we observe Jackson Hole, which is presented to us as a conclave of elite thinking but which is actually nothing more than high-brow propaganda for a system that has already failed and – as compensation for its failings – now contemplates even more radical “solutions” that will give rise to even worse problems.

    Conclusion: The mechanism of central banking is purposeful ruin. The end-result of this ruin is global governance. In the short-term this goal is disguised by an academic patina. But the long-term goal, an increasingly apparent one, is a brutal restructuring of the lives of seven billion people to benefit a handful of elite controllers.

    See more at TheDailyBell.com

  • Paul Craig Roberts Warns: US Is "A Dead Nation Walking"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Here is an excerpt from an informative article by Dmitry Orlov:

    A whiff of World War III hangs in the air. In the US, Cold War 2.0 is on, and the anti-Russian rhetoric emanating from the Clinton campaign, echoed by the mass media, hearkens back to McCarthyism and the red scare. In response, many people are starting to think that Armageddon might be nigh—an all-out nuclear exchange, followed by nuclear winter and human extinction. It seems that many people in the US like to think that way. Goodness gracious!

     

    But, you know, this is hardly unreasonable of them. The US is spiraling down into financial, economic and political collapse, losing its standing in the world and turning into a continent-sized ghetto full of drug abuse, violence and decaying infrastructure, its population vice-ridden, poisoned with genetically modified food, morbidly obese, exploited by predatory police departments and city halls, plus a wide assortment of rackets, from medicine to education to real estate… That we know.

     

     

    This sort of downward spiral does not automatically spell “Apocalypse,” but the specifics of the state cult of the US—an old-time religiosity overlaid with the secular religion of progress—are such that there can be no other options: either we are on our way up to build colonies on Mars, or we perish in a ball of flame. Since the humiliation of having to ask the Russians for permission to fly the Soyuz to the International Space Station makes the prospect of American space colonies seem dubious, it’s Plan B: balls of flame here we come!

     

    And so, most of the recent American warmongering toward Russia can be explained by the desire to find anyone but oneself to blame for one’s unfolding demise.

    I use the writings of Orlov and The Saker as checks on my own conclusions.

    In his article Orlov concludes that the United States is a dead nation, still walking, but no longer a uni-power. I agree with Orlov that US weapon systems are more focused on profits than on effectiveness and that Russia has superior weapons and a superior cause based on protection rather than dominance. However, in his assessment of the possibility of nuclear war, I think that Orlov under-appreciates the commitment of Washington’s Neoconservatives to US world hegemony and the recklessness of the Neoconservatives and Hillary Clinton. Washington is incensed that Russia (and China) dare to stand up to Washington, and this anger crowds out judgment.

    Orlov, also, I think, under-estimates the weakness in the Russian government provided by the “Atlanticist Integrationists.” These are members of the Russian elite who believe that Russia’s future depends on being integrated with the West. To achieve this integration, they are willing to sacrifice some undetermined amount of Russian sovereignty.

    It is my conclusion that Washington is aware of the constraint that the desire for Western acceptance puts on the Russian government and that this is why Washington, in a direct thrust at Russia, was comfortable orchestrating the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government. I believe that this constraint also explains the mistakes the Russian government made by refusing the requests of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics to be reincorporated as parts of Russia, where the territories formerly resided, and by the premature withdrawal from Syria that allowed Washington to resupply the jihadists and to insert US forces into the conflict, thus complicating the situation for Russia and Syria.

    Orlov sees Russian advantage in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and the breakaway republics as the conflict could be leading to the collapse of the US puppet government in Kiev. However, the disadvantage is that the ongoing conflict is blamed on Russia and feeds Western anti-Russian propaganda. It also makes Russia look weak and unsure of itself as if the Western criticism of Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea has struck home and Russia is afraid to repeat it by accepting the pleas of the break-away republics.

    Moreover, if the Russian government had accepted the requests of Donetsk and Luhansk to return to Russia from which they were artificailly separated, not only would the conflict have been ended, but also the Ukrainian people would have realized the disaster caused by Washington’s coup against their government, and Europe would have realized from decisive Russian action that it was not in Europe’s interest to provoke Russia in behalf of Washington. The correct Russian response was prevented by the Atlanticist Integrationist desire to appease Washington.

    In contrast to Orlov, The Saker underestimates Russian military strength, but he does understand the constraints placed on Russian decisiveness by the Atlanticist Integrationists, who seem to count in their ranks the economic establishment including the central bank and perhaps the prime minister himself. Putin does not seem to be overly concerned with what appears to me to be a fifth column of Washington’s agents as Putin himself has placed heavy bets on achieving accommodation with the West. However, Putin has cracked down on the US-financed NGOs that have tried to destabilize Russia.

    Western reporting and think tank and university reports on Russia are propaganda and are useless to understanding the situation. For example, in the current issue of The National Interest Thomas Graham, who had the Russian desk on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush regime, attributes the “destabilization of eastern Ukraine” to “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” He avoids mentioning the US-orchestrated overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government and that Crimea voted overwhelmingly (97 percent) to rejoin Russia when faced with the Russophobic government Washington established in Kiev.

    According to Graham, the foul deed of Russia’s acceptance of a democratic outcome upset all of Washington’s very friendly, supportive, and hopeful attitudes toward Russia. With all of Washington’s “assumptions that had guided America’s Russia policy” irreversibly dashed, it is no longer possible to maintain that Russia “is a suitable partner for addressing global issues.” Graham goes on to define Russia as a problem because Russia favors a multi-polar world to a uni-polar world run by Washington.

    It is possible to read Graham’s repeat of the propaganda line as Graham genuflecting before the Neoconservatives before going on quietly in a low-key manner to attack their hegemonic attitude toward Russia. In his concluding paragraph Graham says that Washington must find a new approach to Russia, an approach of balance and limits that rejects “resort to force, which would be devastating given the destructive power of modern weaponry.”

    All in all, it is an artful argument that begins by blaming Russia’s response to Washington’s provocations for a dangerous situation and concludes with the argument that Washington must adjust to Russia’s defense of her own national interests.

    It is reassuring to see some realism creeping back into Washington attitudes toward Russia. However, realism is still a minority view, and it is highly unlikely that it would be the view of a Hillary regime.

    In my opinion, the chance of nuclear war from Neoconservative intention, miscalculation or false launch warning remains high. The provocations of US/NATO military forces and missile bases on Russia’s borders are reckless as they build tensions between nuclear powers. It is in times of tension that false warnings are believed and miscalculations occur. In the interest of life on earth, Washington should be de-escalating tensions with Russia, not building them. So far there is no sign that the Neoconservatives are willing to give up their hegemonic agenda for the sake of life on earth.

  • American Electorate Loses As Partisan Media Coverage Of Candidate Health Turns Outright Bizarre

    The recent media frenzy surrounding Clinton and Trump's health records has accomplished little more than to, once again, expose a "press" that is becoming increasingly partisan with each passing day. 

    Right-leaning media outlets have spent countless hours reporting on the various health issues experienced by Clinton over the years and pointing to pictures of her falling down on the campaign trail or seemingly zoning out at times as evidence of her frailty.  Meanwhile the left-leaning organizations have mostly dismissed the Hillary health concerns as conspiracy theories of right-wing nut jobs.  

    Like this tweet from a New York Times columnist calling on google to censor commentary on Hillary's health

     

    Or this interview by Rachel Maddow where Hillary's health concerns are repeatedly dismissed as conspiracy theories.

     

    The problem is that Hillary's potential health issues were easy to dismiss when they were only being covered by some "right-wing" media outlets like Breitbart.  But now, as The Hill points out, reputable doctors are starting to come forward to suggest that Hillary's health might be a serious issues.  One such person is Dr. Bob Lahita, Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, who offered the following comments on Hillary's health:

    "This is a very unusual story with Hillary,” said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots she's been diagnosed with in the past. "The very fact that she’s having these clots and she’s had two bouts of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least."

     

    When asked if questions about Clinton's health are legitimate and not part of a political conspiracy, Lahita said without hesitation, “I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.”

     

    Lahita then pivoted to past presidents who entered office with health problems.

     

    “You go back to the history of our presidents and we’ve had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who’ve concealed their health during their campaigns," explained Lahita.

     

    "It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time," he continued, "So we have issues here and I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the polls."

    Last week, we also reported how Dr. Drew Pinsky, board-certified medicine specialist and CNN employee, broke the mold of conformity at CNN, when he said that he is "gravely concerned" about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health, pointing out that treatment she is receiving could be the result of her bizarre behaviors (see "CNN Cancels Dr. Drew's Show One Week After He Voiced "Grave Concern" For Hillary's Health").  Pinsky's honesty promptly got him fired from CNN.

    With legitimate doctors coming forward with questions about Hillary's health, the left has been forced to pivot on their "conspiracy theory" narrative.  Which is why they are now going on the offensive by raising questions about Trump's health and painting his doctor as someone who belongs in the "loony bin" (they may have a point there actually).

    Countless hours of media coverage have been spent analyzing the following letter from Trump's doctor who declares "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency." 

    Trump Health Letter

     

     

    And the following video where Trump's doctor admits he threw together the letter in a rush…

     

    While we find the media circus "entertaining", we have some radical ideas on how to put this topic to bed.  Is the health of the next President of the United States a legitimate issue?  Of course it is – let's face it, no one is voting for the candidate with the best VP. 

    So why not just have a transparent process where independent doctors review and assess the historical health records of both candidates?  Wouldn't the American voters benefit from some facts rather than the empty media rhetoric? 

    But, logical solutions like that wouldn't sell many newspaper or TV ads so no holding of breath please.

  • FatLivesMatter – The 'Discriminatory' Costs Of Obesity

    The obesity epidemic in the United States continues to spread; and while the consequences of obesity on health are obvious, HowMuch.net notes that the impacts of the epidemic extend even into personal finance and work.

    The following chart exposes the costs of obesity for each gender…

    Source: HowMuch.net

    The graphic above breaks down the costs of obesity by composition, with each composition having a distinct color. Each gender is represented by its respective sex symbol. The data were collected from a comprehensive study on the costs of obesity from George Washington University.

    There are several compositions that are equal or near-equal between the two genders. The researchers found that obesity adds excess medical costs equally across both genders. At the same time, life insurance costs for the obese are also equal for both genders. While the study found that the medical costs were equal among both genders, many other costs vary between obese men and women.

    The biggest difference in obesity costs between men and women come in the form of wages. Research has found that there is a connection between obesity and lower wages for female employees. Obese female employees earn relatively less compared to normal-weight female employees. Male employees who are obese do not receive relatively lower wages, according to the research. The result is $1,855 in added costs for obese women. However, the research paper notes “…accurately estimating the casual relationship between wages and weight cohorts is problematic, as the direction of the relationship has not been conclusively determined.”

    The other biggest difference between obesity costs for men and women are in the composition absenteeism. The researchers found that obese male employees miss an additional two days of work annually due to illness related to obesity. Obese female employees miss between an extra one and five work days per year. Overweight and moderately obese male employees did not see incremental costs due to missing work, while female employees in the same two categories saw increased costs due to missed work. The largest incremental cost for both men and women in this composition was for the severely obese. Both morbidly obese (higher than severely obese) male and female employees saw added costs due to missed work from obesity related illness, but less than the costs for the severely obese.

    While additional medical bills play a major role in added costs for both obese men and women, there are other many other areas where the obese have additional costs. In particular, sickness due to obesity related illness and lowered productivity leads to added costs. Obese female employees may receive lower wages, but additional research must be done to be sure.

    #FatLivesMatter

  • “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like This Before" – The Housing Markets In The Hamptons, Aspen And Miami Are All Crashing

    One month ago, we said that “it is not looking good for the US housing market”, when in the latest red flag for the US luxury real estate market, we reported that sales in the Hamptons plunged by half and home prices fell sharply in the second quarter in the ultra-wealthy enclave, New York’s favorite weekend haunt for the 1%-ers.

    Reuters blamed this on “stock market jitters earlier in the year” which  damped the appetite to buy, however one can also blame the halt of offshore money laundering, a slowing global economy, the collapse of the petrodollar, and the drastic drop in Wall Street bonuses. In short: a sudden loss of confidence that a greater fool may emerge just around the corner, which in turn has frozen buyer interest.

    A beachfront residence is seen in East Hampton, New York, March 16, 2016.

    We concluded this is just the beginning, and sure enough, several weeks later a similar collapse in the luxury housing segment was reported in a different part of the country. As the Denver Post reported recently, high-end sales that fuel Aspen’s $2 billion-a-year real estate market are evaporating, pushing Pitkin County’s sales volume down more than 42 percent to $546.45 million for the first half of the year from $939.91 million in the same period of 2015.

    The collapse in transactions means that Aspen’s high-end real estate market “one of the most robust in the country, with dozens of options for buyers ready to spend more than $10 million” finds itself in its first-ever sustained nosedive, despite “dense summer crowds, soaring sales tax revenues and high lodging occupancy.”

    Like in the Hamptons, the question everyone is asking is “why”? There are many answers:

    Ask a dozen market watchers why, and you’ll get a dozen answers. Uncertainty around the presidential election. Fear of Trump. Fear of Clinton. Growing trade imbalances with China. Brexit. Roller-coaster oil prices. Zika. Wobbling economies in South America. The list goes on.

    “People are worried about all kinds of stuff these days,” says longtime Aspen broker Bob Ritchie. “I’ve never seen anything like this before.”

    The speed of the collapse has been stunning. Until just last year, the local market was beyond robust, with Pitkin County real estate sales hitting $2 billion in 2015, a 33% annual increase driven largely by sales of homes in Aspen, where prices average $7.7 million.

    This year, however, “a slowdown in January turned into a free fall.” Sales volume in Pitkin County is down 42%, according to data compiled by Land Title Guarantee Co.

    Almost all of that decline is coming from Aspen, where the market is frozen. Sales in the Aspen-Snowmass market in the first half of the year were the bleakest since the first half of 2009, and inventory soared to levels not seen since the recession.


    High-end sales that fuel Aspen’s $2 billion-a-year real estate market  are evaporating

    The statistics are stunning: single-family home sales in Aspen are down 62% in dollar volume through the first-half of the year. Sales of homes priced at $10 million or more — almost always paid for in cash — are down 60%. Last year, super-high-end transactions accounted for nearly a third of sales volume in Pitkin County.

    “The high-end buyer has disappeared,” said Tim Estin, an Aspen broker whose Estin Report analyzes the Aspen-Snowmass real estate market.

    “Aspen has never experienced such a sudden and precipitous drop in real estate sales,” according to the post.

    Worse, it’s not just the collapse in the number of transaction: even more disconcerting for brokers who have always trumpeted Aspen as a safe and lucrative place to park a huge pile of money: Prices are dropping.

    In the first half of this year, the average price per square foot of Aspen homes dropped 22 percent to $1,095 from $1,338 in 2015. Recent Aspen sales also closed at more than 15 percent below listing price, a rare discount.

    Some brokers suspect that the frenzied sales and pricing pace of 2015 was not sustainable. The present decline is a correction, they say. “I think a lot of people thought we would go to the next level in 2016. Take the next step up and that step got resistance from buyers,” said longtime Aspen broker Joshua Saslove, who just put an Aspen home for more than $10 million under contract. If it closes, it will be just the fourth sale above $10 million in Aspen this year, compared with more than a dozen by this point last year.

    “I think a lot of developers thought they would push their, say, $5 million properties to $6 million this year, but no one is buying,” Saslove said. “I don’t see that nonchalance or cavalier attitude any more.”

    To be sure, Saslove is hoping that a rebound is coming; that however, may be overly optimistic and first far more pain is in store especially if one considers what is taking place in yet another formerly red-hot housing market, where suddenly things are just as bad, because as Mansion Global reports

    Luxury condo sales in Miami have crashed 44%.

    According to the latest report by the Miami Association of Realtors, the local luxury housing market is just as bad, if not worse, than the Hamptons and Aspen.

    The latest figures out of Miami this week showed residential sales are down almost 21% from the same time last year. But as bad as this double-digit decline may seem, it pales in comparison to what’s happening at the high end of the market.

    A closer look at transactions for properties of $1 million or more in July shows just 73 single-family home sales, representing an annual decline of 31.8%, according to a new report by the Miami Association of Realtors. In the case of condos in the same price range, the number of closed sales fell by an even wider margin: 44.4%, to 45 transactions.

    The Miami housing market, and its luxury segment in particular, has been softening for the past year with high-end condos sitting on the market for twice as long as they did a year ago and sellers offering bigger discounts amid an increased supply.


    Number of closed sales for Miami condos priced over $1 million fell by 44%

    In July, townhouses and condos of $1 million or more waited, on average, 162 days for a buyer, a 1.9% increase over a year ago and the longest time of any other price range, according to the report.

    As in the previous two markets, the locals want something to blame, in this case the strong dollar, which has significantly increased the value of properties in other currencies, has been blamed, and perhaps rightfully so as sales to foreigners—an important client base, since international buyers  acquire more homes in Florida than in any other state, according to the National Association of Realtors – have tumbled.

    Real estate appraiser and data expert Jonathan Miller said that Miami is behaving like most of the rest of the U.S. housing market, which is in fairly good shape overall “but soft at the top.”

    As noted here over the years, In the case of Miami, like in other most other coastal markets such as New York and Los Angeles, the housing boom was heavily boosted by foreign buyers, who used US luxury real estate as their new form of anonymous “offshore bank accounts” courtesy of the NAR’s exemption from Anti-Money Laundering Provisions. However, after the recent drops in commodity prices and the spike in the USD, they have scaled back their purchases.

    “The international component is not as intense,” Mr. Miller said.

    Depsite the slowdown deals are still being done, with cash the preferred form of payment of foreign buyers in the U.S., – some 43% of all sales in Miami in July were closed in cash, however down from 48.1% the same month last year, according to the latest figures.

    Other potential buyers are also stepping back: cash sales for townhouses and condominiums, an indicator of investor activity, hit their lowest level in a year last month: 633 transactions, representing a 30.4% year-over-year decline, according to the report.

    As for the forecast for the coming months, sales activity doesn’t look likely to surge. There were 1,272 pending sales of townhouses and condos in Miami in July, which means 25.4% fewer transactions waiting to close than in the same month in 2015 and the lowest number so far this year. Meanwhile, as a result of a building boom, luxury condo inventory is up 47.8% from last year, with 2,482 units worth $1 million or more waiting to change hands; this means that sellers of high-end condos will continue to face stiff competition, prompting even fewer transactions and/or lower prices.

    So far, the collapse at the luxury end has failed to transmit to the broader market, less impacted by lack of foreign demand, however as we documented two weeks ago, it is only a matter of time before the overall US housing market suffers as well. The only question is whether the NAR and the US Census Bureau, who tabulate the “goal-seeked”, seasonally adjusted data, will admit it before or after the presidential elections. The likely answer: it depends on who the next president is.

  • Joe Biden Humiliated In Turkish "Appeasement" As Erdogan Bombs US Allies In Syria

    The last time U.S. Vice President Joe Biden flew to Turkey, in January, he had a stern message for President Erdogan: his model of Islamic democracy was setting a bad example by intimidating media and threatening academics. However, his tone was markedly different when he arrived in Ankara on Wednesday, just weeks after a failed coup in Turkey that has strained relations between the two countries, and on the same day that Turkey launched a full-blown incursion into northern Syria “to halt ISIS.” With Turkey making very clear, and very open overtures toward Russia, Biden was in full blown diplomatic damage-limitation mode.

     

    The dramatic shift in dplomatic posture by Biden comes as the U.S.-Turkish alliance has been dealt several blows in recent weeks, to the point where the US vice president’s arrival in Ankara shows just how concerned the US, which is counting on continued support from Turkey – NATO’s second-biggest military – has become.  American worries have been compounded by Erdogan restoring ties with Russia – the Turkish president’s first diplomatic meeting after the failed coup was with Putin in St. Petersburg, as a result of which Turkey has been discussing military cooperation with the Kremlin.

    Meeting with Erdogan and Turkey’s prime minister in Ankara on Wednesday, Biden delivered a message of alliance and conciliation.   “Let me say it for one last time: The American people stand with you … Barack Obama was one of the first people you called. But I do apologize. I wish I could have been here earlier,” Biden said.

    But he wasn’t.

    And while Biden’s pathetic attempt at appeasement may have come and gone, reinforcing just how much the American people stand with a person whose pre-arranged purge of political opponents has resulted in over 100,000 Turkish citizens fired or arrested, Turkey’s diplomatic humiliation of the US continued, when far from attacking ISIS in Syria, the stated objective behind the invasion, Turkish forces and rebels supported by Erdogan continued their deadly attacks on Kurdish-backed forces in north Syria on Saturday. The same Kurdish-backed forces which are also backed by the US.

    And it’s not as if Turkey is even hiding it: Turkey’s government, which is fighting a Kurdish insurgency at home, has said the Syrian campaign it opened this week is as much about targeting Islamic State as it is about preventing Kurdish forces filling the vacuum left when Islamists withdraw. Turkey wants to stop Kurdish forces gaining control of a continuous stretch of Syrian territory on its frontier, which Ankara fears could be used to support the Kurdish militant group PKK as it wages its three-decade insurgency on Turkish soil.

    According to Reuters, Turkish security sources said two F-16 jets bombed a site controlled by the Kurdish YPG militia, which is part of the broader U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition.

    Meanwhile, the US-backed Kurds are fighting back,  and according to military sources, one Turkish soldier was killed and three others wounded when a tank was hit by a rocket that they said was fired from territory held by the Kurdish YPG. The sources said the army shelled the area in response.

    At that point the chaos that is the Syrian conflict, with so many competing elements, many of whom supported by the US, was on full display.  Case in point: Syrian rebels opposed to Ankara’s incursion said Turkish forces had targeted forces allied to the YPG and no Kurdish forces were in the area. On the ground, Turkish-backed Syrian rebels fought forces aligned with the SDF near the frontier town of Jarablus. Forces opposed to Ankara said Turkish tanks were deployed, a charge denied by Turkey’s rebel allies.

    As a result, the narrative is now split in two: one “confirming” the Turkish explanation, the other justifying the actions of the YPG, just in case the US decides to flip after all, and support its “lesser” allies:

    he Jarablus Military Council, part of the SDF, had said earlier on Saturday that Turkish planes hit the village of al-Amarna south of Jarablus, causing civilian casualties. It called the action “a dangerous escalation”.

     

    The Kurdish-led administration that controls parts of northern Syria said Turkish tanks advanced on al-Amarna and clashed with forces of the Jarablus Military Council. But the Kurdish administration said no Kurdish forces were involved.

     

    However, the leader of one Turkey-backed rebel group gave a rival account. He told Reuters the rebels battled the Kurdish YPG around al-Amarna and denied any Turkish tanks took part.

     

    Turkish security forces simply said Turkish-backed forces had extended their control to five villages beyond Jarablus.

    In short, chaos and a full-blown media propaganda war; however, as Reuters notes, one thing is clear: any action against Kurdish forces in Syria puts Turkey further at odds with its NATO ally the United States, which backs the SDF and YPG, “seeing them as the most reliable and effective ally in the fight against Islamic State in Syria.”

    However, just like Biden’s arrival in Ankara was a tacit admission that the US will fully ignore Erdogan’s unprecedented crackdown on human righs in post-coup Turkey as the president purges even the remotest political opponent, so the YPG, which has been “backed” by the US, is about to realize just how little such backing really means when the US has bigger fish to fry, in this case desperately trying to keep Turkey on its good side, and away from Putin’s circle of influence, all the while providing countless concessions to Turkey as the country continues to openly defy western norms and put away dissidents, while arresting members of the press, and education system, as Erdogan nationalizes private corporations alleged to have ties with the notorious “coup plotter” Fethulah Gullen.

    In doing so, the Obama administration has once again revealed the true extent of its hypocricy, as it turns a blind eye toward the trampling of human rights in Turkey, while screaming bloody murder when something similar takes place in any other part of the world.

    Meanwhile, Turkey’s humiliation of its “partner”, the US, will continue, and much to the amusement of Vladimir Putin, there is absolutely nothing Obama will do about it. 

  • UNLOCKING GOLD'S TRUE VALUE: The Economic Code – Finally Revealed

    SRSrocco

    By the SRSrocco Report,

    The true value of gold is much higher than the spot price quoted in the market.  This is due to several factors, but the most important reason is misunderstood by just about every economist and monetary scientist in the world today.  Those who are able to understand the information in this article, will finally be able see the value of gold (money) in a totally different way.

    Unfortunately, the majority of economists and precious metal analysts look at gold in a very specialized way.  While precious metals analysts see gold as real money versus the Keynesian view of a Fiat Dollar System, both fail to grasp gold’s true value.  Gold is more than a precious metal based on supply and demand.  Furthermore, the Austrian School of Economics looks at gold as a foundation of money in the procurement of goods and services.  However, gold’s real value comes from energy in all forms and in all stages in its production.

    The Foundation Of Gold Money:  ENERGY = GOLD = MONEY

    To understand this principle, I have decided to use one of the largest gold producers in the world as an example, Newmont Mining.

    According to Newmont’s 2013 All-In-Sustaining-Cost for producing gold, they provided the following chart:

    Newmont AISC

    Now, this was a few years ago when the price of oil (energy) was higher, so with lower energy prices, costs have come down since then.  Regardless, this still provides us with a list of costs.  The main part of Newmont’s sustaining costs are shown as CAS – Cost Of Sales.  That’s the blue part of the bar chart, which is broken down on the right, in the circle pie-chart.

    If we look at the pie-chart by itself, we see that energy comprises 20% of the total costs.  Of course, the knee-jerk reaction from a typical precious metals analyst is that energy is only 20% of Newmont’s cost to produce gold.  The analyst only sees 20% energy cost because his mind has been trained to look in a superficial and specialized way.

    Here is a breakdown of the CAS -Cost Of Sales pie-chart:

    Newmont CAS

    As we can see, diesel at 10% and power (electricity) at 10% comprises 20% of pure energy for Newmont’s gold cost.  However, we must realize that labor at 50%, is also a form of energy…. it’s HUMAN ENERGY.  People need to understand that science breaks down labor into work or energy.  The term Horsepower was developed from the energy of horses performing work.  Thus, human labor is a form of work, and is also a form of energy.

    Now, some of the labor force gets paid more because their labor contains more experience and specialization.  For example, an experienced mechanic working on the huge earth moving machines gets paid more than another working doing regular manual labor because of the TIME & ENERGY invested in the mechanic’s trade.  The mechanic spent years doing work and education which consumed one hell of a lot of energy in different forms to have 20 years experience.  Thus, the energy in labor for years of work has provided him that experience.  Which means, the amount of work-energy the mechanic has done for 20 years allows him to be paid a higher rate.

    So, if we add human labor (work-energy) of 50% of the CAS cost with the 20% of diesel and power, the total is now 70%.  So, if we were going by scientific terms of doing work-energy, pure energy and labor energy comprises 70% of Newmont’s cost to produce gold in its CAS- Cost Of Sales breakdown.

    Okay, let’s look at the remaining two categories:

         Consumables = 10%
         Materials & Parts = 20%

    Newmont’s uses a lot of consumables to produce gold.  Here is a list of some of Newmont’s consumables provided in their 2015 Sustainability Report:

    Newmont Materials Used

    I decided to use lime as perfect example, because the production and transportation of lime is very energy intensive.  Again, according to a typical gold mining analyst, he places lime as a “consumable cost” and not an energy cost.  Once we look at the total process of producing and transporting lime, we will realize the overwhelming value or cost of lime is from the ENERGY in ALL FORMS and in ALL STAGES.

    Here is simple diagram of the production of lime, which Newmont consumed 515,800 tonnes in 2015 to produce gold:

    Lime Production Process

    The lime is first mined from the ground and transported to the production plant.  This costs a lot of energy from the diesel in the truck as well as the labor-energy of the truck driver.  As the lime moves through the producing plant, it consumes a great deal of energy as electricity is needed to power the plant as well as the high-temperature Kilns that process the lime.

    Here is a small section of an EPA Report on the Economic Production of Lime in the United States:

    EPA Lime Cost Breakdown

    As the report states, the cost of materials for producing lime is much greater than the labor… three to four times greater.  If we go back to Newmont’s CAS – Cost of Sales, labor was 50%, which is half the cost, while the other half was from energy, materials and consumables.

    Regardless, the largest percentage of materials used to produce lime is liquid fuels.  Furthermore, the lime industry spent $138.2 million on energy in 1996, which was 31.4% of its material cost.  I would imagine that energy cost is much higher now and accounts for an even higher percentage of total costs.

    In addition, we must add the percentage of human labor to the total energy cost in producing lime.  Moreover, all the other materials used to make lime also must be viewed the same way in their production.  Even though the lime industry purchased materials to produce lime, the overwhelming value of those materials came from the energy consumed in ALL FORMS and in ALL STAGES.

    Once the lime is produced, it has to be transported to Newmont’s gold mines.  Lime is very heavy, so it takes a lot of energy to transport lime via ship, railroad or by truck.  Either way, the energy burned in the ship, locomotive and truck as well as the labor by the ship captain and crew, locomotive engineer or truck driver also must be added to the total cost as ENERGY.

    Using lime as an example, we can see that other consumables such as cyanide, grinding materials and cement also get their value from the energy in all forms and in all stages in their production.  This is also true for the other category of “Materials & Parts.”

    If Newmont has to replace a large part of a system in one of their ore processing facilities, the value of that part comes from all the energy consumed in all forms and in all stages along the way.

    Additional Newmont Mining Full Cycle Energy Costs Explained

    Let’s take a look at Newmont’s All-In-Sustaining-Cost chart once more:

    Newmont CAS

    Okay, I just explained the first category on the bottom of the bar chart in blue, the CAS – Cost Of Sales.  Let’s discuss the next category called “Sustaining Capital (in red).”

    Newmont Mining spends a lot of money on sustaining capital to be able to produce gold on a continual basis.  According to their Q2 2016 financial report, they will spend between $650 and $700 million on sustaining capital in 2016.  One part of sustaining capital is “stripping costs.”  This is a tremendously energy intensive activity of stripping (removing) overburden and poor quality ore.

    Many of you are aware of this huge cost if you watch the show, GOLD RUSH.  If my memory serves me correctly, the team under Parker Schnabel spent something close to $500,000 to remove the overburden and move their wash plant on one of their biggest gold cuts last year in Alaska.  The majority of that cost was the diesel to power the huge earth moving machines to remove that overburden.

    Basically, the stripping cost listed as “Sustainable Capital” is from the liquid energy burned and human labor.  Another energy cost found in sustainable capital is the making of new haul roads to get to the new ore cut.  This takes a huge amount of energy as loaders, haul trucks and other earth moving machines transport the rock and gravel to make these new haul roads.

    If I went down the entire list of sustaining capital, the overwhelming expenditure of the $650-$700 million Newmont will spend this year will be from all the energy in all forms and in all stages.

    Another category not included here is regular “Capital Expenditures.”  This would include purchasing a new one of these massive haul trucks below:

    CAT-797F

    This is the Caterpillar 797F that costs $5 million.  If we went on the same journey as we did when I explained the cost to produce lime, we would find out that the overwhelming value of that massive CAT 797F comes from all the ENERGY in ALL FORMS and in ALL STAGES.

    Hell, the huge tires for the CAT 797F, that cost $40,000 a piece, each contain nearly 2,000 pounds of steel, enough to build two small cars and enough rubber to make 600 tires to put on them.

    Again, according to the gold mining analysts, they list the Caterpillar 797F as a capital expenditure.  However, if we look through the entire ENERGY MATRIX, we now see that what Newmont purchased as a CAT 797F haul truck, is again…. all the energy in all forms and in all stages in its production.

    If we consider the last few categories in Newmont’s All-In-Sustaining-Cost bar chart of Exploration-Advanced Projects, General & Administration and Other, we can apply the same energy logic.  It takes a lot of energy to explore for gold as well as advancing new gold mining projects.  Not only does it take the burning of a lot of energy to explore and advance projects for gold mining, there is also a lot of human labor (manual & experienced), materials and parts to consider in the total process.

    Unfortunately, most people have been programmed to compartmentalize everything today.  They see most things separately and are not able to understand how energy gives value to the majority of goods and services in the world today.  They just see the end result and believe that it magically appeared on the storeroom shelf.  I would assure you that the value of most goods sitting on the shelves in the thousands of Walmarts across the country were derived from ENERGY, in all forms and in all stages.

    While Newmont is showing on its balance sheet that it purchased, lime, materials or equipment, it really purchased a great deal of energy that was consumed in their production.

    There are several other items that Newmont has to dish out money to be in the business of producing gold, such as interest expense and taxes to name a few.  I would imagine someone reading this article would be quick to blurt out that interest expenses and taxes are not energy.  Well, that might be true if we look at them in a superficial way, but most taxes go to pay the governments to maintain roads, infrastructure, public buildings and government employees that function as a necessary part of our highly complex society.

    Thus, the government spends a lot of money on energy as well as human labor to maintain roads and infrastructure.  So, if we really expand our ENERGY MATRIX horizons, we would see that ENERGY is the main driver that comprises the value of most goods and services in the world today… including GOLD.

    The Strategic Importance Of ENERGY = GOLD = MONEY

    Hundreds of years ago, the prize by empires was obtaining gold and silver.  This was especially true for the Spanish Empire and its leading role in the world at the time due to its ability to acquire massive amounts of gold and silver from South America and Mexico.

    During the 1500’s when the Spaniards were using Aztecs as slaves to loot gold and silver from their lands, the energy source at the time was mainly human and animal labor.  To build the massive Spanish Armada that was destroyed or then sunk by a huge storm in 1588, it took a great deal of human and animal labor.

    Spanish Armada

    (courtesy of Wikipedia)

    Furthermore, according to this source, On May 28th 1588, the Armada, with around 130 ships, 8,000 sailors and 18,000 soldiers, 1,500 brass guns and 1,000 iron guns, set sail from Lisbon, Portugal, headed for the English Channel.  The Spanish were able to amass such a large fleet of ships, crew and armaments due to massive amount of gold and (especially) silver they plundered from South America and Mexico.

    According to the Historical World Silver Production 1492-1927, the Spaniards produced over 90 million oz of silver from 1521-1600 in Mexico alone.  They started mining silver in Zacatecas, Mexico in 1540, the region where the largest primary silver miner in the world, Fresnillo is currently producing silver.

    Furthermore, the Spanish opened large-scale mines in Peru, in the land of the Incas.  From 1533 to 1600, over 94 million oz of silver were produced.  As we can see, the Spanish became the leading empire on the globe due to their ability to amass the largest hoard of silver on the planet at the time.

    Well, this all changed in the early 1900’s when the top oil barons realized the value of money would come from oil and no longer from just human and animal labor.  This is why the top oil companies decided to carve up the globe in the early 1900’s and work with each other to control, extract, and sell the most important energy source to world.

    Oil was also the main reason why Hitler decided to attack Russia in World War 2.  He needed the oil to continue with his plans of Nazi expansion.  Instead of using gold or silver, Hitler needed oil.. and badly.

    Germany attacks Russia

    According to this source on Germany & Oil:

    At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941.

     

    The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

    Here we can see that Hitler gained five million barrels of much-needed oil from Norway, Holland, Belgium and France  to be able to attack Russia.  I have read some accounts that Russia was the REAL PRIZE for Hitler and the Nazi’s.  Which is why they used their lightning-speed Blitzkrieg Warfare on the Western European countries to consume as little fuel as necessary while acquiring the necessary petrol to attack Russia.

    When the United States entered into World War 2, it was just a matter of time before the Germans were beaten.  The U.S. was the Saudi Arabia at the time and was providing most of the oil to the allies.  It was the huge reserves of oil and natural resources that propelled the United States to becoming the leading empire in the world.

    Unfortunately, the United States peaked in cheap oil production in 1970.  One year later, Nixon dropped the Dollar-Gold peg.  How ironic… aye?  Then of course we had the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and Iranian oil crisis of 1978 which pushed the price of oil from $1.80 a barrel in 1970 to $31 by 1979.  This had a profound impact on the price of gold and silver as they skyrocketed during that decade.

    However, over the next 45 years, clever bankers on Wall Street, London and etc, have hoodwinked investors into putting their surplus funds into paper assets which have become the GREATEST PONZI SCHEME in history.

    This paper ponzi scheme can only work on RISING OIL PRODUCTION.  Again, the greatest ponzi scheme in history can only work on rising oil production.  Furthermore, it can only work on rising CHEAP oil production.  Unfortunately, the world has peaked in cheap oil production a decade ago.  We are filling in the gaps with very expensive oil production that the world cannot afford without the massive increase of debt.

    According to the work by the Hills Group and Louis Arnoux, they believe an OIL PEARL HARBOR will take place by the end of the decade:

    Oil Pearl Harbor

    They don’t see a rising oil price in the future, rather they believe it will fall as the available net energy to the market will continue to decline.  They also believe the economic principle of supply and demand will no longer function as a “Thermodynamic Collapse” of oil will take place.

    With rapidly falling oil production, the $250 trillion in total world assets of Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate and Insurance Funds will be in big trouble.  Thus, investor fleeing rapidly falling paper assets and Real Estate will move into gold (and silver) to protect wealth.

    Energy has been the key driver for the value of gold and silver for thousands of years.  For the majority of our history, the energy has come from human and animal labor.  However, as coal, then oil came in the picture, this changed the dynamics considerably.  With the peak of inexpensive global oil production, the world is about to experience one hell of a FINANCIAL CALAMITY.  Very few people are prepared for what is coming.

    With the understanding that most goods and services in the world are based upon all the ENERGY in ALL FORMS and in ALL STAGES, things are about to get very interesting.  Some believe falling energy production will depress the price of gold.  This is an incorrect assumption

    Due to the massive funneling of the world’s funds into paper assets over the past 45 years, this has artificially lowered the value of gold (and silver).  Once the world wakes up to the fact that they are invested in ENERGY IOU’s, investors will move into physical gold to protect wealth as oil production declines in earnest.

    We have a new series at the SRSrocco Report site, called WELCOME TO THE CONVERSATION where we discuss new topics about energy, mining, precious metals and the economy:

    Lastly, if you haven’t checked out our new PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page, I highly recommend you do.

    Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

  • The War On Whistleblowers & Why America's Next President Will Kill Julian Assange

    Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

    I’m worried about Julian Assange. This is not a maternal instinct, but rather, a pragmatic one. The increasingly hostile statements made by top state officials and their surrogates show a widespread condemnation of whistleblowers in the halls of government. President Obama set the tone early in his administration.

    In the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the rhetoric goes well beyond condemnation of methodology and straight to advocating for his brutal murder.

    We already know that Obama, Clinton, Sanders, and Trump have all said they would prosecute Assange. Clinton, to get more specific, wants him extradited from Ecuador, prosecuted for espionage, and his WikiLeaks removed from the Internet. Her desire to charge him with espionage is only a little ironic considering the Clinton Foundation’s Pay-to-Play system arguably warrants an espionage indictment, as does Clinton’s storing of Special Access Program intelligence on an unencrypted private server.

    Meanwhile, over in the Trump Tower of Mordor, the business mogul’s draconian approach to just about everything includes a ruthless hatred of all journalists, and most certainly whistleblowers. Trump has indicated his treatment of an extradited Assange or Snowden would be severely harsh. Snowden, in particular, would be assassinated if Trump had his way. I can only shiver imagining how a President Trump would react to a major leak from the inner chambers of his new political empire.

    The transition from authorities’ vows of prosecution to their use of surrogates who openly call for Assange’s assassination is highly disturbing, to say the least.  Granted, Assange supposedly has his ‘thermonuclear’ device — a 1.4 GB cache of files containing the identity of spies, military secrets, and unredacted documents from Bank of America and BP that can be unencrypted and released upon his death or arrest — but with a large faction of the mainstream media acting as a bullhorn for state propaganda, any damage inflicted by Julian’s ‘insurance’ packet could likely be mitigated by some social engineering. Remember the Panama Papers? A couple months ago people were saying it was the biggest leak in human history. Have you heard even a nostalgic reference to it since?

    All this wouldn’t be quite as surprising — or alarming — if the anti-democratic venom hadn’t trickled down into the daily talking points of media figures and network journalists (whom I affectionately refer to as the State Department’s paid interns). Voices from across the political spectrum have repeated the claim that Russia has ‘weaponized’ Wikileaks. Sometimes they pose the conspiracy theory as a question. “Has Russia weaponized Wikileaks to disrupt a U.S. election?” My question in response would be: has the U.S. media questionized State Department propaganda in order to deflect attention away from a rigged primary and a political power structure that is rotten to the core? It’s actually a brilliant little piece of state agitprop. They managed to turn the public’s attention away from one of the most egregious examples of election fraud in recent history and demonize both Russia and Wikileaks in one fell swoop.

    Such blatant propaganda is to be expected from the government. But coming from a journalistic establishment that is ostensibly there to dig for the truth, it’s rather shocking to see rampant election tampering from a major American political party get trumped by an unproven accusation toward a foreign country. Regardless of one’s conspiratorial appetite, seeing the 4th estate function as the infotainment branch of the State Department, parroting its every chirp of propaganda, should be profoundly distressing.

    Let me give you a couple of examples, first from a mainstream right-of-center publication, then from a wildly popular left-of-center ideologue. In the former, we have TIME Magazine, which has had the hickeys of state propaganda on its neck for decades. On August 12th, 2016, TIME published an article called “WikiLeaks Is Getting Scarier Than the NSA.” I’ll let that sink in for a moment. I don’t even have the emotional bandwidth to explain why that title earns the ‘Psyop of the Century’ award. Just. . . remember to be scared.

    On the left, we have Bill Maher, whose excoriations of hypocritical Republicans can be extremely entertaining and perceptive. Like The Daily Show, Maher functions as the liberal end of what some cultural philosophers think of as a manufactured spectrum of acceptable discourse. When Maher, who claims solidarity with Assange and the cause of WikiLeaks, repeats the same government talking point that Russia is tampering with our elections, it kind of forces you to consider that all corporate media — left or right — operates under the same tent.

    The anti-WikiLeaks propaganda wouldn’t feel so existential if I didn’t believe anti-whistleblower messaging is soon going to escalate into an actual long-term military campaign against leakers and hacktivists around the world. In the near future, don’t be surprised if there is some ‘event’ that catalyzes a mobilization of military campaigns against targets that are deemed ‘a danger to our democracy because of their unlawful disclosures of matters of national security.’ This would almost assuredly include symbolic targets like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden to achieve a “chilling effect.” We’ve already seen Intercept writer Barrett Brown receive prison time for essentially hyperlinking to leaked information in an article. Add to this the fact the Obama Administration has used the Espionage Act to prosecute twice as many defendants as all previous administrations combined, and you get a sense of how power structures are increasingly criminalizing the dissemination of information.

    Now back to my non-maternal worrying over Julian’s safety. Recently, in a stunning interview (above) with Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, Assange may have underhandedly confirmed that the recently murdered DNC operative Seth Rich was the leaker of the 3,000 emails that showed the DNC colluded with the Clinton camp, the implication being he was killed either out of revenge for the leak or to prevent future leaks. He didn’t state this explicitly but his abrupt and completely random reference to the murder in the context of assessing the dangers faced by WikiLeaks sources doesn’t make sense unless that was his way of ‘accidentally’ signaling a connection.

    The interviewer picked up on that and asked him, “Why make the suggestion of a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”

    The fact that Wikileaks posted a $20,000 reward for any information on Seth Rich’s murder suggests they do not believe it was a random robbery, which is further evidenced by the fact that his wallet, credit cards, and phone were not taken.

    It is also certainly a bit coincidental that within days of the conspiracy going viral, Seth Rich’s family made a public statement asking for rumors about his death to stop. On a likely related note, their new family spokesman is none other than Brad Bauman, who is a Democrat ‘crisis communications’ consultant with the Pastorum Group. According to his LinkedIn profile, Brad’s job is “providing strategic communications advice to Democratic candidates.”

    Disputes over this conspiracy persist, but there is no hard evidence linking his death to a politically motivated act of violence by DNC or Clintonian operatives. However, one can surely admit it is unusual for a family to hire a high-powered PR firm that provides “public relations for progressive candidates.” One logical explanation is that the Clinton campaign realized suspicions would surface after Seth Rich was found murdered and immediately started damage control. If Pastorum hadn’t only been created last year, it might not seem so peculiar. And if their web page had any content on it whatsoever, it would be possible for people to easily learn about the origins of their creation. But, like Russia’s connection to the DNC leak, it’s just a theory.

    Again, the assertion that a whistleblower was murdered by an operative for a major political party cannot be proven at this time. Nor can the assertion that the murders of five people (in two months) who were going to testify against Clinton had any connection with Clinton operatives.

    What can be proven, and what should be taken far more seriously, is the metamorphosis of the state’s rhetoric against Wikileaks from hostile to downright war-like. Not vitriolic, but war-like — as in quite literally the kind of rhetoric that leads to actual war with tanks, guns, and bomber planes — or, in this case, maybe just a bomb robot or a stealthy climber.

    It’s a worrisome time for Assange supporters. The last two weeks, in particular, have been downright surreal. First, Obama hagiographer Michael Grunwald tweeted with maniacal delight his support of Assange being killed in a drone strike. Then, Clinton strategist Bob Beckel went on Fox News and jumped up and down in his seat begging for someone to “illegally shoot the son of a bitch…[because] a dead man can’t leak stuff.”

    These two men, Democrat luminaries regularly featured on POLITICO and CNN, advocated the extrajudicial killing of a whistleblower to millions of people.

    The stigmatization and demonization of whistleblowers and hacktivists come after a decade in which the U.S. government’s civil liberty abuses have been laid bare for all to see. Snowden’s history-altering revelations about the NSA set the precedent that in the information age, state abuses can be illuminated for citizens to see. Transparency doesn’t bode well for Big Brother.

    Notably, the NSA leaks facilitated by WikiLeaks are still pouring out. The Intercept recently began publishing internal NSA newsletters written by and circulated among its critically important Signals Intelligence Directorate, or SIGINT. Intercept writer Micah Lee spoke to Anti-Media about the SIDtoday articles.

    “Besides the hundreds of small, but significant, individual revelations about the NSA,” he said, “the SIDtoday articles as a whole describe a secret history of the United States’s response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Until Snowden leaked documents, the public didn’t understand, or consent to, what America’s spies were doing, but SIDtoday tells the story of how and why it came it be.”

    Micah says the Intercept has only published 9% of what it has, which will amount to around 4,500 articles. Micah acknowledged the dangerous environment in which whistleblowers now find themselves.

    “No matter [who is elected], it will be an uphill battle for whistleblowers, but I doubt that will stop them.”

    It is my assertion that both Trump and Clinton are likely to engage in specific military operations to dismantle organizations responsible for high-level leaks. It could very well be the next ubiquitous war.

    Clinton has cultivated a well-documented track record of pro-war ideologies, not the least of which is her perpetual use of the War on Terror to trigger fear and trauma in the minds of voters. Who could forget the primary debate in which she used 9/11 imagery to defend her Wall Street connections?

    An example that may have flown under the radar was the Clinton Foundation’s advertisement for the 2014 exhibit “Spies, Traitors, and Saboteurs: Fear and Freedom in America.” It was a featured installation at the William J. Clinton Presidential Center in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas.

    According to the Clinton Foundation’s site:

    Americans have endured thousands of incidents of terror, violence, or subversion right here at home by domestic terrorists and foreign agents, militant radicals and saboteurs, traitors and spies…The exhibition reminds us that Americans have known and dealt with acts of terror since the founding days of the republic and will continue to face these challenges in the years ahead.”

    For Clinton (and assuredly Trump, too) war is a permanent fixture in the American empire, as it was for Bush, Obama, and virtually all presidents before them. But the enemies are scattered and amorphous now. Radical jihadists are not like traditional standing armies; their prosecution requires a global, never-ending ubiquitous brand of war that is encoded into the very structure of American foreign policy. A widespread declared war against hackers, hacktivists (Anonymous), whistleblower organizations (WikiLeaks) and individual whistleblowers (Snowden, Chelsea Manning, etc.) would be similar. The empire’s enemy would be scattered, and tracking them would require that the tentacles of the security state slither further into every home and digital device.

    For the empire, these leaks are a direct assault on the power and hegemony of the ‘deep state,’ the synergistic nexus of state diplomats and officials, defense contractors, financial institutions, surveillance courts, and the military-industrial complex that together forms the connective tissue holding together a globalist oligarchy.

    They stand to lose too much from hacked information showing their improprieties. And the rhetoric continues to accelerate. Guccifer 2.0’s recent hack of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s computer provoked her to use the phrase “electronic Watergate.”

    It will be a bipartisan war, and the battle lines will be drawn harshly. In the same vein as Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” axis of evil, the umbrella of terrorism will expand to include any organizations that leak classified information, any group that publishes the information, and eventually, any journalist that links to a publication containing the information. Barrett Brown, currently serving 63 months for linking to a leak, may agree with me.

    Whatever administration is in office will, of course, invoke national security as the pretext for the War on Leaks.

    Maybe a giant financial institution is hacked, and the information released is said to be the catalyst for an economic downturn; then another leak is blamed for a terrorist attack that kills hundreds of innocent people; then several more major corporations have their entire systems compromised; then an individual hacker releases 50 million social security numbers; celebrities see more of their lascivious sex acts on TMZ (maybe a couple of A-listers are outed).

    Soon the entire country agrees: we must go to war with hackers and organizations that leak information.

    After years of hating the government, Americans welcome Big Brother back into their lives as the protector of information. They need the state.

  • Artist's Impression Of Hillary Clinton's Old Office

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 27th August 2016

  • One World Currency introduced by The Cartel Settlement Coin

    Well, it finally happened.  Mark your calendars for the year 2016 as ‘the year’ a real One World Currency has been announced.  But don’t worry – as we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – MONEY DOESN’T EXIST.

    How is it possible, you say – when we haven’t heard about it in the news?  Let’s start with the ‘lead’ story on this breaking event:

    Big banks buckle down to build better bitcoin — RT Business

    UBS, Deutsche Bank, Santander and BNY Mellon have partnered up to create a new digital currency to facilitate intra-bank settlements, the FT reports. The cryptocurrency will use blockchain technology underpinning the Bitcoin.

    Why is this different than any other Bitcoin startup – there sure have been many.  Because these are the banks that control the global currency market, also known as AKA ‘the cartel’ according to court documents.  

    Checkout some of the stories leading up into this climatic moment:

    Big Banks Band Together to Launch ‘Settlement Coin’ – CoinDesk

    UBS Sheds New Light on Blockchain Experimentation

    Settlement Coin Creators Seek to ‘Liberalize’ Central Banks With Blockchain – CoinDesk

    8 Banking Giants Embracing Bitcoin and Blockchain Tech

    ‘Central banks looking at Bitcoin as real threat to dominance’ — RT Op-Edge

    So why does any of this matter?  Central Banking policy has run the global economy into the ground.  Central Banks OWN $25 Trillion of Financial Assets.  $13 Trillion worth of Government Bonds in the world have NEGATIVE YIELDS.  The financial system as it is now, is on the path for implosion. 

    Settlement Coin apparently is targeting ‘back office settlement’ to reduce costs which are about $80 Billion per year.  But why then does RT compare it with SDRs:

    If implemented, the new cryptocurrency would be the first to be used officially between major financial institutions. The concept resembles the IMF’s Special Drawing Right (SDR), introduced in 1964. Based on a basket of currencies (the US dollar, euro, the Japanese yen, pound sterling and the soon to be joined Chinese yuan this October), it is used to supplement the IMF’s member countries’ official reserve. As of March 2016, 204.1 billion SDRs equivalent to about $285 billion had been created and allocated to countries.

    Has the world gone mad, and people don’t understand the difference between “Blockchain” and “Bitcoin” and “Cryptocurrency” and “US Dollars” ?  We have to note here, RT needs to hire some “Forex Experts” to consult with their authors on this topic.

    To clarify, the big banks are working on multiple blockchain projects, as well – most of them have filed patents for their own crypto currencies, most notably, Citi: 

    Citi: Bitcoin is an Opportunity for Banks, Not a Threat – CoinDesk

    Citibank Is Working On Its Own Digital Currency, Citicoin | TechCrunch

    Citi Research released a 56-page report on bitcoin saying that it is not going to disrupt banks or credit card networks. It says there will be increased transaction costs for bitcoin to provide increased volume. As for the use of bitcoin in remittance payments, it says bitcoin’s advantage dissipates when the “last mile” cost of converting to fiat currency is considered. The report notes the growth of bitcoin mobile apps in developing countries but sees regulations rising that put them in question. It claims existing payment systems are generally efficient. The report also talks about Ripple and Ethereum as well as government-backed digital currencies. There is also an extensive summary of bitcoin’s legal status in different countries.

    Once implemented, these banks have the means to quickly connect this new cryptocurrency “Settlement Coin” to their existing global network, as well as adding their own proprietary currencies such as “CitiCoin.”

    It will take some time before the cryptocurrency is even released, and still probably years before it’s widely accepted.  What makes this week’s announcement unique is that, for the first time the banks publicly announced they are making a new digital ‘crypto currency’ that isn’t issued by a central bank, that can be implemented by them across and without borders, which is a perfect fit for a replacement of the US Dollar and other fiat currencies when they completely run out of QE steam.

    But here’s the real clincher, exposing this as a real One World Currency:

    One of those resources is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system used by central banks (it’s typically reserved for high-value transactions that need to be settled instantly), and the other is central bank-issued cash.  Using the Utility Settlement Coin (USC) unveiled today, the five-member consortium that has sprung up around the project aims to help central banks open-up access to these tools to more customers. If successful, USC has the potential to create entirely new business models built on instant settling and easy cash transfers.  In interview, Robert Sams, founder of London-based Clearmatics, said his firm initially worked with UBS to build the network, and that BNY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, ICAP and Santander are only just the first of many future members.  “Cash is a leg to almost every trade,” said Sams, who previously worked for nine years as a derivatives trader with Sanctum FI, also in London. “In order to get most of the benefits of a distributed ledger in settlement, there has to be cash on a distributed ledger rail.”  How transactions might be processed, and who will own the nodes, has also not been shared. But what we do know based on a statement from the company is that Clearmatics described the USC as “a series of cash assets” for currencies, including US dollars, euros, British pounds and Swiss francs.

    For those who understand that it’s monetary policy driving the value of currencies down, not supply and demand, there’s no need to read between the lines – they spell it all out real simple.

    For a quick primer for those who don’t know, the Federal Reserve is the sole issuer of US Currency (not the US Mint, who prints notes and coins.)  The Federal Reserve is a private institution, owned by the banks.  It was previously thought that, the idea of a one world currency was preposterous, because, how would all countries agree on having a single central bank?  But here’s the workaround – the Forex banks have a monopoly on the global monetary system.  So by forcing their central bank partners to use “Settlement Coin” in order to save on hefty settlement fees (and it will solve the problem of the recent SWIFT hacks as well – part of the plan??? )

    A few scenarios here – one, the banks knew that if they didn’t do it, some new players might do it.  Two, this plan was hatched long ago by some clandestine CIA op, starting with the release of Bitcoin, leading into the global one world cryptocurrency, all sponsored by Illuminati.  Three, central banks have legitimate concerns about security (such as because of recent hacks) and have no real way out of QE, they can’t stop it and they can’t continue it.  This is a parallel financial system in which assets can be transferred over to.

    To learn more about Forex, checkout Splitting Pennies – the pocket guide to make you an instant Forex genius!  If you’re a non-US citizen or Pension Fund looking for a real Forex investment with a proven track record, checkout Magic FX Strategy.  

  • Introducing America's Winningest Political Candidate: "Lesser Evil"

    Authored by Ben Tanosborn,

    Why, I am constantly being asked by my overseas peers, do you Americans have such affection for a creepy old pretender, a political candidate who’s been around forever, and all he has done is have his way with you?  Does the “me-or-else” political ultimatum award Lesser Evil license to govern and rape?  Whether dressed as Tweedledee or as Tweedledum, Lesser Evil righteously appears to so think; adding one more rosary bid in our march towards the 2016 presidential election… just as it happened in 2012 and, as I tap into my memory, to all other quadrennials before then. 

    Enter the protagonists this year playing the part of Lesser Evil: Clinton and Trump; both well experienced in deceit, one consistently showing signs of being a truly consummate sociopath, while the other disguises a different strain of the same affliction reasonably well.  Both candidates pied-pipering away to their immutable, loyal following which approximate in each case almost a quarter of the electorate; leaving us, the remaining half-plus, trying to determine who of these two becomes our least distrusted psychopath to lead America  in all domestic and foreign affairs:  our faithful but not so beloved Lesser Evil, of course.

    Neither Democrats nor Republicans have party memberships which come close to having a reasonable cross-section of the population in the two critical areas that divide the nation: race and economics… not remotely!  And that fact alone, like never before in America’s history, poses insurmountable problems in governing, and brings a constant impasse which does not lend itself to negotiation, much less compromise.  It also adds serious impediments in selecting, or compromisingly-accepting, leadership that can be respected, if not accepted, by a society with a true common ground.

    Hillary’s ascent to the Democratic nomination is a vivid example of how a likely-to-lose general election candidate – had the GOP nominated a sane conservative – prevailed over Honest Bernie.  Not only was the DNC unequivocally proven to be in Hillary’s safe pocket, something for which there has been little to none media/public outrage, but the scoundrelous Clintons also had the old clique of black community and church leaders in their fist, totally and irrationally influencing the primary vote.  And I say irrationally on the basis that Bernie Sanders would likely have proven to be a far superior advocate for blacks on all fronts.  Sad bottom line for the Democratic Party: had black voters equally supported Hillary and Bernie, and the party elite not cast their preference for Hillary Clinton before the primaries, Senator Sanders would have walked away with the party’s nomination hands down, not Clinton. Sanders, who had been “allowed” entrance to the primaries by the Democratic hierarchy as a political side show, tainted with the political scarlet letter in the US – S for Socialist, just could not be permitted to represent the Democratic Party in what its hierarchy likely saw a suicide candidacy.  So Sanders was mercifully put to pasture as a party’s beast of burden, not as a racehorse.

    In similar vein, had the bigopat crowd (angry bigoted patriots) not found a pied-piper in born-again Republican Trump, a non-conservative self-serving billionaire, a conservative nominee would have emerged from the ranks of the Republican career politicians; in much the same fashion as Hillary’s crown had been placed on Bill’s political queen.  Not that it would have made much difference in America’s non-democratic binary politics!  Once again, much-raped America will always have a prospective escort, old-and-creepy Lesser Evil, to take her to the Quadrennial Cotillion.   

    I have often been told by my peers overseas, mostly in a discreet and constructive way that our lack of civic/political involvement in government might have inflicted on us our just deserts.  But if we have been politically indigent in the past, perhaps due partly or wholly to our privileged economic condition vis-a-vis much of the world, circumstances thrust upon us, while unprepared and in full force against the whirlwind of globalization need to be reevaluated and changed.  Politicians of both parties have been extremely careless and derelict in their approach to globalization.

    To summarily complete the division in America, traditional politics (politicians) also fail to acknowledge the strident racial disharmony which still permeates the nation.  Such racial disharmony is treated in the same blind-deaf-mute way we treat the existence of the metric system; hoping that they both hopefully disappear, effortlessly in our part.

    The political duopoly in America simply does not work; nor does it offer hope, a future for a cohesive society.  It may have reasonably worked in the past because of our very gifted, blessed economic advantages… but those advantages are either gone or exiting fast.  If we are looking for a brighter, more optimistic future for all, and not just 20 percent knights and squires in our population, America needs to bring to the political table OTHER people and ideas, not just continue with the same Demo-Repugnancy, that will enlarge our political wisdom and give us a pathway to reach physical and economic well-being as well as provide a moral compass for all.

    A corporate media that would force bringing Greens and Libertarians to the presidential debates in 2016 would forever find its penitential-redeeming place in America’s history.

  • How The Hillary 'Victory Fund' Uses State Democratic Committees To Launder Money To The DNC

    Is the Hillary Victory Fund using state democratic committees to launder donations from wealthy individuals to the Democratic National Committee?  Evidence gathered by Bloomberg would certainly seem to suggest so.

    So how does it work?  Campaign finance laws specifically restrict the amount of money any single person can give to individual candidates ($2,700), a party's various state committees ($10,000) as well as a party's national committee ($33,400).  In theory, therefore, that would imply a person would be capped out at $46,100 if he contributed the max his Presidential candidate, his party's national committee and his party's state committee.  But, that's just a narrow "interpretation" of the "intent" of the campaign finance laws and Hillary isn't really all about "intent"…just ask FBI Director Comey.   

    So, the Hillary Victory Fund has come up with a clever way to use state democratic committees (of which there are 33) as money-laundering tools to effectively increase the amount that can be contributed to the Democratic National Committee from $33,400 to $363,400 (it's only like 1,000% more than intended). 

    How do they do it?  Well, the rules say that a single person can only contribute $10,000 to any one State.  That said, they don't restrict people from contributing $10,000 to multiple states.  Moreover, there are no restrictions on transfers of funds from Democratic State Committees to the Democratic National Committee.  See where we're going with this? 

    Effectively the Hillary Victory Fund acts as a "bundler" which collects large donations from wealthy investors.  Per the diagram below, contributions are then maxed out to "Hillary For President" and the "Democratic National Committee."  Any remaining funds are then spliced up and sent in $10,000 increments to the 33 different State Democratic Committees.  That said, the state committees simply act as flow through entities which subsequently pass the contributions from the Hillary Victory Fund along to the Democratic National Committee.  Isn't that neat? 

    The beauty of this system, of course, is that once the money is aggregated at the Democratic National Committee it becomes very "flexible."  The DNC can then use that money to support Hillary and/or any of a number of contentious races in any state it wants (e.g. battleground states). 

    Hillary Victory Fund

     

    At this point, you're probably thinking this is just another Hillary conspiracy theory…surely none of this can be proven, right?  Well, actually it's pretty easy to track and is happening fairly regularly in the Democratic Party.  Bloomberg provided the following example tracking a $343,400 donation from hedge fund manager, Donald Sussman, which was made to the Hillary Victory Fund on March 25, 2016.  In April, the maximum of $33,400 of Sussman's donation was transferred to the Democratic National Committee.  Then on April 25, 2016, another $10,000 (again the per state maximum) of Sussman's money was transferred to the South Carolina Democratic State Committee along with $169,000 of money from other donors.  Wouldn't you know it, that very same day the South Carolina Democratic State Committee passed the full $179,000 on to the Democratic National Committee.  Almost like the donation caps never existed!

     

    Hillary Victory Fund

     

    In fact, Bloomberg found that 83% of all money distributed by State Democratic Committees to the National Committee originated from donors that had already maxed out their $33,400 contributions to the DNC.

    Hillary Victory Fund

     

    That said, as Robert Kelner of Covington & Burling points out, what the Hillary Victory Fund is doing isn't technically illegal. Sure, it probably violates the "intent" of the law but we're not gonna split hairs are we?

    “I’m not aware of any case law or regulations that would prohibit a state party from transferring to a national party committee funds raised through a joint fundraising committee,” Robert Kelner, an election law expert at Covington & Burling said. “But as a practical matter, it does appear that the DNC may be using Hillary Victory Fund as a mechanism for allowing donors to give more to the DNC indirectly than would otherwise be permitted directly.”

    Oddly enough, Bloomberg pointed out that there is no evidence of similar activities within the Republican National Committee.

    There’s no sign that the Republicans are following the same strategy. Donald Trump’s joint fundraising committee has yet to transfer any money to the 11 state Republican parties that are part of the arrangement.

    So there you go folks.  Don't you feel proud to be an American?

  • 76-Year-Old Veteran Kills Himself In VA Parking Lot After Being Denied Treatment

    Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

    A 76-year-old military veteran killed himself outside a Long Island Veteran Affairs facility Sunday after being denied treatment. He was reportedly seeking help for mental health issues at the Northport Veterans Affairs Medical Center but was turned away, an unfortunately common experience plaguing veterans seeking healthcare in recent years.

    According to the New York Times, two people connected to the hospital spoke about the incident on the condition of anonymity. They explained he had been frustrated that he was unable to see an emergency-room physician for reasons related to his mental health,” the Times reported.

    He went to the E.R. and was denied service,” one anonymous source said.And then he went to his car and shot himself.

    Peter A. Kaisen of Islip, New York, committed suicide in the parking lot of the Northport facility, where he had been a patient. He was in the parking lot outside Building 92, the facility’s nursing home, when he shot himself.

    One of the Times’ anonymous sources questioned why Kaisen had not been referred to Building 64, the mental health center at Northport.

    The staff member said that while there was normally no psychologist at the ready in the E.R., one was always on call, and that the mental health building was open ‘24/7,’” the Times reported.

     

    Someone dropped the ball. They should not have turned him away,” the source said.

    Christopher Goodman, a spokesman for the hospital, said there “was no indication that he presented to the E.R. prior to the incident,” and the Times was unable to determine whether there was an official record of his visit to the VA on Sunday.

    The Northport center has faced heightened scrutiny since the Times reported on mismanagement at the facility in 2014, but the problems at Northport are problems of the entire system.

    Just last month, an Iowa military veteran suffering from PTSD and substance abuse killed himself after being denied treatment by the VA. He reportedly made an appointment seeking treatment but eventually posted on social media that he was turned away “even though he requested it and explained to a doctor that he felt his safety and health were in jeopardy,KWQC, a local news outlet reported.

    One veteran who drove to a Seattle VA last year with a broken foot was denied assistance walking from his car to the hospital entrance, a distance of a few feet. He was told to call 911, instead. One gun-wielding veteran with PTSD was shot and killed by police in Maricopa County, Arizona, last year after he was turned away from the VA hospital when he sought treatment for a mental health emergency. He had routinely called suicide hotlines for help but never received the full attention he needed.

    Veteran suicides in the United States are a chronic problem. Though some argue the relatively recent figure from the VA that 22 veterans kill themselves per day is inflated, veterans still face a suicide risk higher than the rest of the American population. As USA Today has noted:

    In 2014, veterans accounted for 18% of all suicides in the United States, but made up only 8.5% of the population. In 2010, veterans accounted for 22% of U.S. suicides and 9.7% of the population.

    Further, a more recent analysis by the VA found that in 2014, 20 veterans killed themselves per day. Politifact, an independent fact-checker, has confirmed this figure. While rates of veteran suicides appear to be declining, the figures are still troubling.

    Even absent mental health issues like depression and PTSD, veterans are dying waiting for regular health care. A VA whistleblower revealed last year that 238,000 out of 847,000 veterans died after submitting requests for treatment they never received. An audit in 2014 found 57,000 veterans were waiting more than 90 days for an appointment with the VA.

    The United States government, politicians, and the media often express compassion and gratitude for veterans. To their credit, some lawmakers recently attempted to allow veterans to use cannabis as an alternative treatment in an amendment to a budget bill — a move Congress ultimately blocked.

    But in spite of failed and often unwieldy efforts to reform veterans’ health care, the VA’s systemic failures continue to leave veterans feeling ignored and abandoned by the very institutions that still claim to value them.

  • The Broken Chessboard: Brzezinski Gives Up On Empire

    Submitted by Mike Whitney via Counterpunch.org,

    The main architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in The American Interest titled “Towards a Global Realignment” has largely been ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia. Brzezinski, who was the main proponent of this idea and who drew up the blueprint for imperial expansion in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, has done an about-face and called for a dramatic revising of the strategy. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the AI:

    As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture.

     

    Five basic verities regarding the emerging redistribution of global political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East are signaling the coming of a new global realignment.

     

    The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.”

     

    (Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

    Repeat: The US is “no longer the globally imperial power.” Compare this assessment to a statement Brzezinski made years earlier in Chessboard when he claimed the US was ” the world’s paramount power.”

    “…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.” (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997, p. xiii)

    Here’s more from the article in the AI:

    “The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene….. The decisive new global reality was the appearance on the world scene of America as simultaneously the richest and militarily the most powerful player. During the latter part of the 20th century no other power even came close. That era is now ending.” (AI)

    But why is “that era is now ending”? What’s changed since 1997 when Brzezinski referred to the US as the “world’s paramount power”?

    Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the “violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal. His comments on Islam are particularly instructive in that he provides a rational explanation for terrorism rather than the typical government boilerplate about “hating our freedoms.” To his credit, Brzezinski sees the outbreak of terror as the “welling up of historical grievances” (from “deeply felt sense of injustice”) not as the mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths.

    Naturally, in a short 1,500-word article, Brzezniski can’t cover all the challenges (or threats) the US might face in the future. But it’s clear that what he’s most worried about is the strengthening of economic, political and military ties between Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the other Central Asian states. This is his main area of concern, in fact, he even anticipated this problem in 1997 when he wrote Chessboard. Here’s what he said:

    “Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

     

    “…To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

    “…prevent collusion…among the vassals.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

    The Obama administration’s reckless foreign policy, particularly the toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words, Washington’s enemies have emerged in response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only blame himself.

    Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has responded to the growing threat of regional instability and the placing of NATO forces on Russia’s borders by strengthening alliances with countries on Russia’s perimeter and across the Middle East. At the same time, Putin and his colleagues in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries have established an alternate banking system (BRICS Bank and AIIB) that will eventually challenge the dollar-dominated system that is the source of US global power. This is why Brzezinski has done a quick 180 and abandoned the plan for US hegemony; it is because he is concerned about the dangers of a non-dollar-based system arising among the developing and unaligned countries that would replace the western Central Bank oligopoly. If that happens, then the US will lose its stranglehold on the global economy and the extortionist system whereby fishwrap greenbacks are exchanged for valuable goods and services will come to an end.

    Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s more cautious approach is not likely to be followed by presidential-favorite Hillary Clinton who is a firm believer in imperial expansion through force of arms. It was Clinton who first introduced “pivot” to the strategic lexicon in a speech she gave in 2010 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Here’s an excerpt from the speech that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine:

    “As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…

     

    Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…

     

    The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”

    (“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

    Compare Clinton’s speech to comments Brzezinski made in Chessboard 14 years earlier:

    “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… (p.30)….. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. ….About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

    The strategic objectives are identical, the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions. We have not yet reached the tipping point for US primacy, but that day is fast approaching and Brzezinski knows it.

    In contrast, Clinton is still fully-committed to expanding US hegemony across Asia. She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world. She’s going to persist with the interventions until the US war-making juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks which, judging by her hyperbolic rhetoric, will probably happen some time in her first term.

    Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka–The “dollar system”) But will bloodthirsty Hillary follow his advice?

  • Mugabe Orders Arrest Of "Rats We Call Athletes" After Zimbabwe Wins No Olympic Medals

    It appears Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe was banking on a precious metal inflow from Rio to fix his nation's ailing economy as he has ordered the arrest of all 31 Zimbabwean Olympic athletes arrested and detained for daring to return home with no medals.

    Zimbabwe which is one of the countries in the Olympics without a medal presented a team of 31 athletes. The closest any of the athletes came to win a contest was at the 8th position.

    As PMNews Nigeria reports, Mr. Mugabe who is incensed with the team’s performance told the Police Chief to arrest all the team members and detain them.

    “We have wasted the country’s money on these rats we call athletes. If you are not ready to sacrifice and win even copper or brass medals (referring the 4th and 5th positions) as our neighbors Botswana did, then why do you go to waste our money” he said.

     

    If we needed people to just go to Brazil to sing our national anthem and hoist our flag, we would have sent some of the beautiful girls and handsome guys from University of Zimbabwe to represent us.”

     

    He added that, the money invested in the team to represent the country could have been used to provide amenities and build schools.

     

    This situation is like an impotent man who is married to five women, what is the essence? I will make sure we share the cost across board for all of them to pay back to government chest even if it takes 10 years to recoup, now it turns out to be a soft loan we have given them to go and visit Brazil as tourist, they are useless” he concluded.

    While we doubt Mugabe ever cared much for the Olympic spirit, with this one act (and we are still having trouble believing Mugabe actually did this) Zimbabwe's dictator has doomed his country to having no future olympians at all.

    When (or if) any of these Zimbabwean athletes get out of jail, maybe it's time to emigrate to Singapore?

    Infographic: Some Athletes Are Chasing Huge Gold Medal Bonuses | Statista

  • Japanese Government Squanders Pension Funds On Failed Stocks As Losses Reach $130 Billion In Past Year

    Nearly two years ago we wrote about how the largest pension fund in the world had been hijacked by political hacks in what would be a futile effort to prop up stocks in the "first failed Keynesian state, Japan."  The post came in response to Japan's Government Pension Investment Fund announcing that it would slash its fixed income portfolio to double its target allocation to domestic and foreign equities, in essence, going outright long Central Banks.       

    Once upon a time, the world's biggest government pension fund, Japan's $1.1 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund, or GPIF, was apolitical, and merely focused on preserving the people's wealth.

     

    Then everything changed, and with the reckless abandon of a junkie on a crack cocaine binge, aka Abenomics, the GPIF management was kicked out, and its entire mandate was flipped from preserving wealth, to gambling on #Ref! P/E stocks, in hopes of recreating the wealth effect of the super-rich (the only problem: Japan has reached its breaking point and the higher the USDJPY, and thus the Nikkei rises, the more the BOJ directly destroys its economy with an already record number of bankruptcies due to the plunging Yen getting recorder).

     

    Worst of all, the GPIF became nothing short of the latest political pawn in what is now the the first failed Keynesian state, Japan.

     

    Unfortunately, for Japan, and its tens of millions of pensioners, the only news here is simple: the entire country is now held hostage by Japan's last-gasp attempt to prove Monetarist and Keynesian policies work. Because, said otherwise, "Abenomics better work, or else all your pensions are toast."

    Then, last month after the GPIF reported it's biggest fiscal year loss since the "great recession", a mere 5.3 trillion yen ($53 billion), we asked whether the pension fund had finally learned it's lesson.  Would fund managers finally resort back to their original goal or preserving retiree wealth or continue in their failed efforts to prop up Japanese stocks.  Alas, we concluded that maintaining the status quo was the most likely path forward.  

    So with Abenomics careening off the cliff and headed for a traumatic death, and with Kuroda having become the laughing stock of central bank circles, has Japan finally learned its lesson? Will the GPIF rotate out of money-losing stocks and back into bonds which are currently trading at record high prices? According to Morgan Stanley, the answer is not a chance, for the simple reason that as a result of an upcoming asset rebalancing, the GPIF will have no choice but to buy even more money-losing stocks.

    Which brings us to today and the announcement of further staggering losses on the $1.3 trillion portfolio of the GPIF.  Today the pension announced it lost 5.2 trillion yen ($52 billion) in 2Q 2016, or roughly 4% of their 129.7 trillion yen ($1.3 trillion) in assets.  Not to rub it in too much, but that brings the rolling 4Q losses to an aggregate of nearly 13 trillion yen or $130 billion.

    Japan Pension

     

    As Bloomberg points out, GPIF held 21 percent of investments in local stocks at the end of June, and 39 percent in domestic bonds. Overseas equities made up 21 percent of assets, while foreign debt accounted for 13 percent. Alternative investments were 0.05 percent of holdings, down from 0.06 percent at the end of March. GPIF targets allocations of 25 percent each for Japanese and overseas stocks, 35 percent for local bonds and 15 percent for foreign debt.

    Therefore, GPIF returns are not terribly surprising given that ~21% of assets, or $275BN, are allocated to Japanese equities which haven't performed all that well over the past year.  In fact, Japanese stocks are down about 22% in the past 12 months which represents about $60BN of losses or 4.5% of GPIF assets.  

     

    TOPIX

     

    In case you're the "hopelessly optimistic" type, the Wall Street Journal points out the GPIF has no intentions of admitting failure and reverting back to a reasonable asset allocation model that might have some hope in preserving pensions for Japan's retirees.  No, as deputy director-general of investment strategy, Shinichiro Mori, points out, the GPIF will maintain the status quo as "stock markets are on a recovery trend.

    Shinichiro Mori, the GPIF’s deputy director-general of investment strategy, said that in the current quarter, strong U.S. jobs data for June helped stock markets and Brexit fears have subsided.

     

    The markets have since restored stability, and I believe stock markets are on a recovery trend. In the meantime, the exchange rate, the dollar/yen rate, is still flat. We are going to carefully monitor its movements going forward,” Mr. Mori said.

     

    Mr. Mori said it would be hard to achieve the target for investment return by investing primarily in domestic bonds because their yields are low and there is a risk of bond prices dropping from current high levels. The benchmark 10-year Japanese government bond yielded minus 0.075% in Friday afternoon trading. Bond yields and prices move in the opposite direction.

     

    “In the short term, there is greater volatility in return rates for our portfolio, but since we invest for the long term, it’d be easier to achieve the investment goal required for the pension system” with the current allocation, Mr. Mori said.

    Well, if at first you don't succeed…

  • Bill Gross: Yellen's Economy "May Never Walk Normally Again, This Is Not Capitalism"

    It took the headline scanning algos several minutes to read Yellen’s speech, which the kneejerk reaction was to deem as more hawkish than expected, before they stumbled on the key section we pointed out earlier, and which unleashed a surge of buying because it hinted at even more potential QE in the future (under a different Fed chair):

    On the monetary policy side, future policymakers might choose to consider some additional tools that have been employed by other central banks, though adding them to our toolkit would require a very careful weighing of costs and benefits and, in some cases, could require legislation. For example, future policymakers may wish to explore the possibility of purchasing a broader range of assets.

    This section catalyzed such an aggressive buying impulse that it required Stan Fischer’s post-speech interview to pour cold water on the market’s enthusiasm, saying “Yellen’s comments are consistent with a possible September hike.”  After all, as even Bullard admitted earlier, the Fed is perilously close to admitting stocks are in a bubble.

    However, it was too late to appease one recently converted Fed critic, Bill Gross, who slammed Yellen’s suggestion that she could launch further asset purchases as the equivalent of “providing a walker or a wheelchair for an ailing economy.”

    “She is opening the door to creating even greater asset bubbles as have the BOJ and ECB and SNB by purchasing corporate bonds and stocks,” Gross wrote Friday in an e-mail response to questions. “This is not capitalism. This is providing a walker or a wheelchair for an ailing economy. It may never walk normally again if monetary policy continues in this direction.”

    In addition to slamming Yellen – as virtually everyone else has in recent weeks, including all the major banks and even the Fed’s own mouthpiece at the WSJ, and as this site has done since 2009 – Bloomberg added that according to Gross, Yellen’s comments didn’t take a September rate hike off the table, especially if job growth is healthy. “To the extent that next month we see a decent job growth number, then I think for sure or close to for sure, you know, in September we’re going to see a Fed hike of 25 basis points,” Gross said in an interview on CNBC. “The market hadn’t expected that.”

    This is particularly true if, as many have speculated, Yellen is now forcing rate hikes just so the economy stumbles, and she has the political cover to unleash even more easing; easing which as her own text warns, may include a “broader range of assets.” In other words, the sooner the Fed hikes, the faster it will follow the BOJ and the ECB in monetizing stocks and corporate bonds, respectively.

  • China's Great Divide: A New Cultural Revolution?

    Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    The only question left for China (and every other debt/bubble-dependent nation) is what socio-political consequences will manifest when the credit bubble finally bursts?

    In Asia, it's generally seen as unpatriotic to criticize one's country in public, even if you disagree with its direction and leadership. The cultural norm is to maintain the "face" of one's country by hiding its ills from outsiders.

    This reticence is especially evident in China, which suffers from the memory of being subjugated by the Western imperialist powers in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

    As a general rule, you will rarely hear any profound criticism of China unless you are considered a trusted friend; giving China a black eye in public is frowned upon, even by its domestic critics.

    For this reason, the majority of the Western media has very little grasp of what worries Chinese people. Recently, I have heard fears of a Second Cultural Revolution being expressed in private.

    There is a Great Divide between generations in China: on the one side is the older generation that remembers the Maoist era with some nostalgia and the terrible adversities of the Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976). On the other side is the young educated, prosperous generation which has only known consumerist prosperity and personal advancement.

    The ideals of the old communes are an abstraction to the young generation, as are the terrible costs of the Cultural Revolution.

    A resurgence of devotion to Mao has caught authorities off-guard; they can't very well suppress public displays of secular worship of the Party's founder, but raising Mao's revolutionary ideals from the dustbin of history implicitly challenges the Party's current leadership.

    The older generation resents the young consumer-obsessed generation, and some would like to purge China of the excesses of wealth and consumerism.

    It's not too difficult to see how rising unemployment (China's Hidden Unemployment Rate) and China's enormous wealth inequality could spark a new Cultural Revolution that would target Party leaders who have benefited from the state-managed neoliberal capitalism that has greatly enriched the leaders and their family dynasties.

    In effect, a return to the party's Maoist roots would open divisive fissures in the Party and the nation. Farfetched? Perhaps not as much as the conventional sugar-coated media representation would suggest.

    The status quo solution (in China, the U.S., Japan, the E.U., etc. etc.) to a weakening bubble-dependent economy is to inflate another even bigger bubble. If debt reached extremes that imploded, the solution is to expand debt far beyond the levels that triggered the implosion.

    If fudging the numbers triggered a loss of confidence, the solution is to fudge the numbers even more, so they no longer reflect reality at all.

    If the masses protest their powerlessness, the solution is to push them further from the centers of power.

    And so on.

    This blowing new bubbles to replace the ones that popped works for a while, but at the expense of systemic stability. Each new bubble requires pushing the system to new extremes that increase the risk of instability and collapse.

    In other words, the stability of the new bubble is temporary and thus illusory.

    The processes used to inflate the new bubble suffer from diminishing returns. The nature of stimulus-response is that overuse of the stimulus leads to diminishing responses. This is a structural feature that cannot be massaged away.

    Goosing public confidence in the status quo with phony statistics and rigged markets works splendidly the first time, less so the second time, and barely at all the third time. Why is this so? The distance between reality and the bubble construct is now so great that the disconnection from reality is self-evident to anyone not marveling at the finery of the Emperor's non-existent clothing.

    The system habituates to the higher stimulus. If the drug/debt has lost its effectiveness, a higher dose is needed. This is the progression of serial bubbles. Then the system habituates to the higher dose/debt, and the next expansion of debt must be even greater.

    This dynamic can be visualized as The Rising Wedge Model of Breakdown, which builds on the well-known Ratchet Effect: the system is greased for easy expansion of debt, leverage, employees, etc., but it has no mechanism to allow contraction. Any contraction triggers systemic collapse.

    The only question left for China (and every other debt/bubble-dependent nation) is what socio-political consequences will manifest when the credit bubble finally bursts?

    The answer will arise from the unique interplay of history, social norms and central-state actions in each nation-state as the crisis deepens. In China, the two revolutions–the Communist victory of 1949 and the now-suppressed Cultural Revolution of 1966 – 1976– will both loom large–perhaps far larger than the current regime would like.

    This essay was drawn from Musings Report 28. The Musings Reports are emailed weekly to subscribers ($5/month) and major contributors ($50+ annually). If you'd like to support this blog, please consider subscribing. My new book is #9 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 26th August 2016

  • How Long Will It Take For The ECB To Own All Sovereign Debt Of Spain, Germany, France?

    Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

    Huky Guru on Guru’s Blog posted a chart that answers the question: How Long Will it Take For the ECB to Own All Sovereign Debt of Eurozone Countries?
     

    ECB QE How Long

     

     

    At the current rate of purchase of sovereign bonds the ECB will have have purchased all sovereign debt issued by Spain in 9 years and Germany in 8.8 years.

     

    Bond Market Distortion

    Distortion in the corporate bond market has picked up since the ECB has started buying corporate bonds.

    Bond Spreads Eurozone

     

    The above chart shows a comparison between the yields of bonds eligible to be purchased by the ECB and bonds with the same rating in the same sector that are not eligible for the ECB.

    Corporate bond yields have collapsed across the board since the ECB’s announcement, but even more so for eligible bonds.

    #SellYourBondsToDraghi

  • Picking Up the UK Tab

     

     

     

     

    Picking Up the UK Tab

    Posted with permission and written by Jeff Thomas, International Man (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

     


     

    Back in the late 90’s, I began saying, “I’ll give the EU twenty years.” At that point, the EU seemed to be going great guns, but I believed that it was an ill-conceived concept that wouldn’t stand the test of time.

     

    There were several reasons for my view. First, I didn’t believe that those countries that were entitlement-focused, such as the Greeks, would ever be as fiscally responsible as, say, the Germans, so the Germans (and other countries where there was a responsible work ethic) would end up subsidizing the Greeks (and to a lesser extent, Spain, Portugal, etc.)

     

    Second, culturally, there was so great a divide between, say, the Austrians and the French, that they could never substantially agree on the union’s laws and directions.

     

    Third, the countries of Europe have been at war with each other countless times over the centuries. They might agree to trade cooperation, but they would never agree to having a former enemy dictate policy to them. And it was baked in the cake that some members would have a louder voice than others and so, would seek to dominate.

     

    In recent years, we’ve watched the EU stumble repeatedly. Invariably, Brussels has arrogantly assumed that it can dictate to all EU members, and offers few apologies for doing so. The individual countries’ leaders then do their best to explain to their own voters why Brussels should be able to behave like an oligarchy, and the voters understandably have become increasingly angry.

     

    Eventually, the wheels were sure to come off the trolley and, with the UK Brexit vote, we’ve witnessed the first major blow to the survival of the EU.

     

    Whilst the “leave” vote has been acknowledged, we should expect to see politicians placing stones in the road to Brexit, in addition to creating repeated delays. It would also not be surprising to see demands for a recall or even a nullification by the UK Supreme Court.

     

    In the midst of this, we’re already seeing the predictable back-pedaling by those politicians and pundits who, up until the vote, were warning that a Brexit would spell unmitigated disaster for Britain. Most of them are now speaking instead of “working on crafting a successful settlement”. (After all, when the sky has failed to fall, they won’t want the public to remember that they ranted like veritable Chicken Littles prior to the vote.)

     

    But, in one sense, the Brexit will unquestionably spell disaster – not to Britain, as was claimed, but to Brussels.

     

    Britain was never fully married to the EU; she was more a “woman on the side,” but in this case, it was the woman that was picking up the tab for the affair. In 2015 alone, the UK paid £13 billion into the EU budget, whilst EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. The UK’s “net contribution” was therefore about £8.5 billion – a loss of 65% of its investment. Not money well-spent, considering the trade restrictions heaped on the UK by Brussels.


    The £8.5 billion loss, of course, went to support the net-receiver members of the EU, such as the ever-unapologetic Greece.


    Most of the above will be common knowledge, but here’s a few pertinent questions that no one seems to be asking – at least not publicly:


    At what point does the UK cease to pay into the EU?


    Well, Brussels and those UK politicians that support the EU oligarchy concept will wish to delay that eventuality as long as they can. Consequently, we shall witness a struggle within British politics as politicians attempt to appear as though they’re honouring the voters’ edict, whilst finding repeated excuses to delay the Brexit. On the surface, it might not seem that they’d receive significant push-back, but, for those Britons who voted “leave” and, indeed for many who voted “remain,” the idea of Brussels demanding continued annual payment, whilst kicking the UK for choosing to leave, will result in the great majority of Britons becoming more than a little cross. (If we’re going to split the sheets, let’s get on with it. Any discussion of alimony should be a non-starter to say the least.)


    Who’s going to pick up the tab when that flow of revenue ends?


    Well, now, that really is a puzzler. A large part of the reason why the UK had to be such a significant net-contributor was that most full EU members couldn’t scrape up their “fair share.” Even most of the larger members, such as France, are broke. They can no longer pay their domestic bills, let alone take on more major EU funding.


    When all else fails, it typically falls to Germany (the country that was really responsible for the EU’s creation in the first place) to pick up the tab. And it wouldn’t be surprising if Mrs. Merkel were to attempt to sell the idea to the German people that her “Fourth Reich” must come up with the cash, or her dream will fall apart.


    Interestingly, Mrs. Merkel enjoyed an increase in popularity after the Brexit vote, after having lost a great deal of support as a result of the refugee crisis. However, once the German people learn that they may be hit with yet another EU bill, her ratings may head south again. She’s up for a fourth term in 2017 and it’s uncertain whether the German people will know by that date how the EU hopes to share out the former UK portion of the EU tab.


    Will that impact the continuation of the EU?


    The bill will most assuredly go to the remaining net-payer members and, whoever gets handed the tab, the voters in these countries will most assuredly be asking themselves whether they’re facing diminishing returns. Certainly, Germany, France and the UK are presently taking the greatest shellacking. Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Denmark and Finland are also net-contributors. But all the other 19 members are net-receivers.


    Certainly, the politicians in these countries share in the EU power and will want to stay in, but their voters who, increasingly, are feeling the squeeze of the unacknowledged Greater Depression may assert themselves at the polling stations, demonstrating that they’re not willing to throw good money after bad.


    In the end, the conceptual problems with the EU’s existence may be outweighed by the economic ones. But of one thing we can be fairly certain: should the EU bite the dust in the coming years, the demand for its demise will come from the bottom up, not the top down.

     

     

     

    Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

     

     

     

    Picking Up the UK Tab

    Posted with permission and written by Jeff Thomas, International Man (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Trump Vs. Hillary Summarized

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption.

    We don’t know much about Trump, and anti-Trump propaganda rules in the place of facts.

    But we know many facts about Hillary. We know about her violation of classification laws and the refusal of the Democratic administration to do anything about it. The Democrats prefer to control the White House than to enforce the law, another nail in the coffin in which the rule of law in the US lies.

    We know from their words and deeds and material success that the Clintons are agents for Wall Street, the Big Banks, the military/security complex, Israel, agribusiness, and the extractive industries. Their large personal fortune, approximately $120 million, and the $1,600 million in their foundation, much of which came from abroad in exchange for political favors, attests to the unchallengable fact that the Clintons are agents for the oligarchy that rules America, indeed, that rules the American Empire from Australia and Japan, through North America and Western and Eastern Europe to the Russian border.

    We know that Hillary, like Bill, is a liar.

    We know that Hillary is a warmonger.

    We know that Hillary made the most irresponsible statement ever uttered by a presidential candidate when she declared the President of Russia to be the “new Hitler,” thereby raising tensions between the nuclear powers to a higher level than existed during the Cold War.

    We know that Hillary is allied with the neoconservatives and that her belief in the neocons’ ideology of US world hegemony is likely to result in war with Russia and China.

    All we know about Trump is that the oligarchs, who sent America’s jobs overseas, who flooded the country with difficult-to-assimilate immigrants, who destroyed public education, who bailed out Wall Street and the “banks too big to fail,” who sacrificed American homeowners and retirees living on a fixed income, who intend to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, who have given the public killer cops, relentless violations of privacy, the largest prison poplulation in the world, and destroyed the US Constitution in order to increase executive power over the American people, are violently opposed to Trump. This opposition should tell us that Trump is the person we want in the Oval Office.

    Some claim that it is all a charade and that Trump is playing a role in order to elect Hillary. American politics are so corrupt that anything is possible. However the ruling elites and their puppets seem to be genuinely concerned about Trump’s challenge to their control, and they have united against Trump. They have used their money to buy up “progressive” websites paid to bring the print and TV anti-Trump propaganda onto the Internet, thus joining the Internet presstitutes with the print, TV, and NPR whores who are working overtime to demonize Trump and to elect Hillary.

    The entire power structure of our country is behind Hillary. Both Democratic and Republican political establishments and both ideologies, neoliberals and neoconservatives, are united behind Hillary.

    How much more evidence do Americans need in order to know that a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?

    Apparently, Americans remain captives of their insouciance. According to news reports, a majority of voters still haven’t a clue about the consequences of voting for Hillary. Polls report that Hillary is well in the lead. Are these real polls or just another presstitute lie to discourage Trump supporters? Why vote when they have already lost?

    The propaganda assault against Trump, vicious as it was, did not succeed during the Republican primary. Despite the media condemnation of Trump, he swept the other Republican candidates aside effortlessly.

    The current media demonization of Trump might fail as well. Indeed, it is so transparent that it could elect him.

    All that is required is for enough Americans to awake from their insouciance to recognize that it is the enemies of their own lives, their own living standards, and their own liberty who are violently opposed to Trump.

    If Americans cannot reach this realization, they have no future, and neither does the planet Earth.

    The ruling oligarchy hates Trump because he disavows war with Russia, questions the purpose of NATO, opposes the offshoring of Americans’ jobs, and opposes the uncontrolled immigration that is transforming the United States into a multi-cultural entity devoid of unity. The oligarchs are replacing the United States with a Tower of Babel. Oligarchic power grows exponentially among the disunity of diversity.

    In other words, Trump is for America and for Americans.

    This is why the oligarchs and their whores hate Trump.

    The imbecillic Americans who vote for Hillary are voting for war and their own immiseration.

    Possibly, a vote for Trump is the same. However, in the case of Trump we do not know that. In the case of Hillary we most certainly do know it.

    Of course, it could matter not how Americans vote. Those who program the electronic voting machines will determine the vote, and as the establishments of both political parties totally oppose Trump, the programmed machines can elect Hillary. We know this from our electoral history. The US has already experienced elections in which exit polls show a winning candidate different from the candidate selected by the electronic machines that have no paper trail and no way of affirming the vote.

    If Hillary gets into the Oval Office, nuclear war is likely before her first term is over. A vote for Hillary is a vote for nuclear war.

    If you look at the forthcoming election realistically, you have no alternative but to conclude that the entirety of the presstitute media and American Establishment prefers the risk of nuclear war to the risk of losing control of the government to the voters.

    That Americans permitted the rise of unaccountable power tells us all we need to know about the dereliction of duty of which United States citizens are guilty. The American people failed democracy, which requires accountable government. The American government has proven that it is not accountable to the US Constitution, to US statutory law, to international law, or to voters.

    If the result of Americans’ dereliction of duty is nuclear war, the American people will be responsible for the death of planet Earth. One would hope that with responsibility this great on their shoulders, the American people will reject the unequivocal war candidate and take their chances on holding Trump accountable to his words.

    Note: I just heard a NPR report that young people were deserting the Republican Party, had turned leftwing and were flocking to Hillary. So now in America the leftwing candidate is a warmonger and agent of Wall Street! Amazing.

  • CNN Cancels Dr. Drew's Show One Week After He Voiced "Grave Concern" For Hillary's Health

    One week ago, board-certified medicine specialist, TV personality and CNN employee Dr. Drew Pinsky broke the mold of conformity, when he said that he is “gravely concerned” about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health, pointing out that treatment she is receiving could be the result of her bizarre behaviors.

    Appearing on KABC’s McIntyre in the Morning, Pinsky said he and his colleague Dr. Robert Huizenga became “gravely concerned….not just about her health but her health care,” after analyzing what medical records on Hillary had been released. Pinsky pointed out that after Clinton fainted and fell in late 2012, she suffered from a “transverse sinus thrombosis,” an “exceedingly rare clot” that “virtually guarantees somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system.” “What’s wrong with her coagulation system, has that been evaluated?” asked Dr. Drew.

    Pinsky described the situation as “bizarre,” and said that Hillary’s medical condition was “dangerous” and “concerning”. Dr. Drew also went on to add that it was a sign of “brain damage” when Hillary had to wear prism glasses after her fall.

     

    Just as stunning as Pinsky’s assessment which promptly went viral and led to the immediate takedown of the original interview webpage by KABC-AM radio, was that it came from an employee of HLN, which is part of the pro-Clinton CNN network.

    As such it is probably not surprising that earlier today, just one week later, CNN executive vice president Ken Jautz announced Thursday that “Dr. Drew and I have mutually agreed to air the final episode of his show on September 22.”

    “Dr. Drew and his team have delivered more than five years of creative shows and I want to thank them for their hard work and distinctive programming,” Jautz said in a statement. “Their audience-driven shows, in particular, were innovative and memorable TV. And Dr. Drew has been an authoritative voice on addiction and on many other topical issues facing America today.”

    “It has been a privilege working at HLN,” Pinsky said in a statement of his own. “My executive producer Burt Dubrow and our outstanding staff and contributors were consistently exceptional. I am very excited to stay within the CNN Worldwide family as a contributor.”

    There was no mention of the Hillary fiasco in the official parting statement; it was deemed redundant.

    HLN will air reruns of “Forensic Files” and episodes of CNN originals in the “Dr. Drew” 7 p.m. ET time slot.

  • Pokemon Go Claims First Fatality; Incites Stampede; But DAU Drop Leaves Hope For Humanity

    A few weeks back we wrote about how Pokemon Go had claimed its first fatality in the United States.  Now, Japan mourns its first victim, as Yukiko Nakanishi was tragically lost to the addictive game.  Nakanishi was crossing the road when a truck struck and killed the 72 year-old hairdresser from Kitayama City.  Meanwhile, Keiji Goou, the truck driver, was arrested by police admitting that he “wasn’t looking ahead properly because [he] was playing Pokemon Go.”  Per the Tokyo Reporter:

    Tokushima Prefectural Police on Wednesday arrested a male truck driver in Tokushima City after one woman was killed and another seriously injured due to an accident caused by his playing of the popular game Pokemon Go while he was behind the wheel.

     

    Keiji Goou, 39, was arrested on reckless driving charges for allegedly hitting two women while playing Pokemon Go on a road in the Katanokamicho area at around 7:25 p.m. on Tuesday, Jiji Press reports (Aug. 24). One woman died in the incident while the other was seriously injured.

     

    Goou has admitted to the charges, telling police, according to the Tokyo Broadcasting, he “wasn’t looking ahead properly because I was playing Pokemon Go.”

     

    Police named the woman who died as Yukiko Nakanishi, 72, a hairdresser from Kitayama City.

    Apparently police in Japan have cited 1,000 Pokemon Go players for traffic infractions and recorded 79 Pokemon Go-related traffic incidents in just the past year.

    Meanwhile, Pokemon Go players in Taiwan have apparently completely lost their damn minds.  The video below recently surfaced on YouTube and allegedly shows a stampede of people running to catch a "Snorlax" (if that actually means anything to anyone reading this). 

     

    If all of this leaves you questioning, as we do often, the future of humanity then fear not as Bloomberg reports that the Pokemon Go hysteria may finally be on a down slope.  After launching in early July, daily active users of Pokemon Go seemingly peaked just a couple of weeks later around 45mm users and has been steadily declining ever since. 

    Pokemon Go DAU

     

    Meanwhile, after surging a mere 2 trillion yen in the first 2 weeks of July, Nintendo's shareholders have finally realized that profits, not mass hysteria, actually drive valuations…well, in the long-run anyway…unless you're the Fed… then the mass hysteria can stretch into the long-term…but that's a story for another post. 

    Nintendo

  • "Things Are Worse" – Dollar Stores' Startling Admission: Half Of US Consumers Are In Dire Straits

    If there was any confusion about how the lower half of the US consumer class is doing these days, it was quickly lifted following today’s distressing earnings calls of dollar store titans, Dollar General and Dollar Tree.

    Discount retailer Dollar General said it was cutting prices on its most popular items such as bread, eggs and milk, intensifying a price war among already commoditized products with retail giant Wal-Mart Stores to win back falling market share. It shares fell the most on record, plunging by 18% after the company missed on revenue, blaming aggressive competition, lower food prices and reduction in SNAP, or food stamp, coverage in 20 key states.

    It’s larger ultra-discount rival Dollar Tree Inc also reported lower-than-expected sales, sending its shares down 10%, the biggest dollar drop decline since going public in 1995.

     

    Dollar General, whose product selection prices are already among the lowest in the country, cut prices by 10% on average on about 450 of its best-selling items across 2,200 stores during the quarter, CEO Todd Vasos said on a conference call. It’s just the beginning: quoted by Reuters, he said the company expects to extend the price reductions to more product categories and markets.

    One factor for the declining operations is the aggressive cost-cutting by retail giant, Wal-Mart, which recently reported better than expected results. It now appears WMT solid performance was mostly on the back of margin reductions and major cost-cuts in an attempt to win market share from its lowest-priced competitors.  As Reuters notes, Wal-Mart’s strategy of cutting prices has helped the world’s largest retailer to boost sales in the latest two quarters.

    “Wal-Mart’s been doing better lately, lowering prices, and that’s been a concern that (it) could impact dollar stores,” Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbrough said. “Historically, it hasn’t as much but maybe we are seeing something different here.” Retailers are also grappling with a drop in grocery prices, further cutting into margins. Dollar General said prices for milk were down about 8% and for eggs over 50 %.

    But the biggest factor by far impacting the performance of both dollar stores was the sharp, adverse turn in the purchasing power of the lower half of US consumers.

    Both Dollar General and Dollar Tree said pressures on their core lower-income shoppers contributed to the same-store sales misses that both retailers reported. On today’s conference call, Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos said that he was surprised to admit that while on the surface things are supposed to be getting better, the reality is vastly different for low-income US consumers:

    I know that when we look at globally the overall U.S. population, it seems like things are getting better. But when you really start breaking it down and you look at that core consumer that we serve on the lower economic scale that’s out there, that demographic, things have not gotten any better for her, and arguably, they’re worse. And they’re worse, because rents are accelerating, healthcare is accelerating on her at a very, very rapid clip.

    Making matters worse, he added that the company’s core consumers base, 65% of which is comprised of lower-income shoppers, has been impacted by the recent reduction or elimination in foodstamps: “now couple that in upwards of 20 states where they have reduced or eliminated the SNAP benefit, and it has really put a toll on [the core consumer].”

    He elaborated that the reduction in foodstamps benefits promptly filtered through the entire business model, and culminated with Dollar General being forced to cut prices to remain competitive.  This is what he said:

    That SNAP benefit reduction and/or elimination happened in April. That was the kickoff, and you could see it immediately in the numbers. So I believe that those are the things that are affecting her today. Again, our core customer, and by the way, we’ve seen this play out before. If you dial the clock back to October of 2013 and coming into November of 2013, when the last large SNAP benefit reduction happened, it happened almost exactly the same way on our comps and in how we saw traffic. Obviously, we’re up at a little higher level at that time, but rest assured, that our traffic slowed tremendously then, very similar to as it did now.

     

    The difference here is we’re going to take aggressive price action to get that consumer back in the store. She needs a little motivation to get back in. We need to help her stretch her budget for a time period until she figures it out. Our core customer is very resilient. They’ll figure it out over time, but they need a little help as they tend to now try to figure out how to make ends meet with less money during the month.

    Dollar Tree, which said that fewer than 5% of its customers were SNAP recipients, echoed its competitor when explaining the stress being felt by its own shopper base. As CEO Robert Sasser said on the call, “the consumer is still seeing a lot of pressure on cost increase with rent and just food and healthcare and taxes and all the things. So we see them as still being under pressure. I think that’s the number one issue that we see out there.”

    But back to the Dollar General call, where analysts were incredulous and were wondering if the deterioration in spending may have been the result of, wait for it, the recovery and broader consumer improvement, leading to “trading-up” to higher price point competitors. The exchange was amusing:

    Q. I understood the issues with SNAP and deflation, but is there a piece of this that’s just related to the consumer job – labor market getting better, so that consumers spending a little bit better and they’re trading up? Is that not possible?

     

    Vasos: I am not going to say, it’s not possible, but we have not seen that in our data. Once again, remember that over 60% to 65% of our sales and consumer base is on that lower demographic area that – of the economic scale. And when you keep that in mind, her life hasn’t gotten any better. And that’s really that customer that we’re serving the most, and that we’re intent on making sure has enough money and enough products inside her house to be able to feed her families.

    And then there are soaring healthcare and rental costs:

    [The] core consumer, I tell you, has gotten no better as far as her economic well-being. Matter of fact, she tells us, while we’re out in the stores or even through all of our panel data that we do, that while things haven’t gotten a lot worse as far as income coming in, other than the recent SNAP decrease, my expenditures are going up at a very rapid rate.

     

    Healthcare is one of the big ones, because most of our consumers, while she may be working, doesn’t have healthcare, and we all know that she’s having to now pay for this healthcare or be taxed on it, right? So that is starting to really play against that low-end consumer right now, and it will continue to play against her. You couple that with those rents that we talked about, those increased rents are real, and in many parts of where we serve our customer, the affordability and availability of rental units are getting more and more scarce, which is driving up prices. And we’re seeing that because most of our core customers cannot and do not own their own homes. 

    The punchline:

    And when we’re out in stores and we drop prices like we do, I can tell you, I’ve been out in stores in the middle of the aisle and heard customers come up to our store manager in tears and thanking them for being there and thanking them for the prices that we offer in a real convenient nature for her, where she can walk to the store, because she can’t afford anything else. When you hear that, that really brings home where this core customer is.

    We wonder if this particular tearful customer would also be accused by the president of peddling fiction.

  • Risks Of Loose Money – Exposing The Link Between Monetary Policy And Social Inequality

    Submitted by Claudio Grass via GoldandLiberty.com,

    It has been almost eight years since former U.S. President George W. Bush warned the world that “ without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold.” The government’s response to the crisis was a USD700 billion rescue package that would prevent U.S. banks from collapsing and encourage them to resume lending, which was soon to be followed by a series of Quantitative Easing (QE) packages injecting money into the economy. The rationale of government intervention was to boost spending, restore confidence in the market and revamp economic growth to everyone’s benefit – but did it succeed in doing so?

    QE: Faith-based monetary policy

    With QE still ongoing (albeit tapered), it is no longer part of a “rescue” package – it has now become the new normal – despite a complete lack of positive results. Since end-2007, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded from about USD890 billion to more than USD4.5 trillion! And yet, U.S. growth rates have remained in the vicinity of 2% since 2010 (see chart below). Europe is no different. The European Central Bank (ECB), which first embarked on QE in March 2015, raised the monthly amount for asset purchases from EUR60 billion to EUR80 billion, and expanded the range of assets to include corporate bonds – but despite that, the growth outlook remains dim with 1.4% in 2016, and 1.7% in 2017 (source: Bloomberg). So why are governments still clinging to an approach that simply doesn’t deliver?

    gdp_growth_US_2007_2015

     

    “All present-day governments are fanatically committed to an easy money policy, ” Ludwig von Mises observed in 1949 in “Human Action”, and to this day, little seems to have changed. Ever since governments, represented by their central banks, monopolized the production of money, and accordingly fractional reserve banking – our markets have never been free from government intervention. Monetary expansion happens all the time, not just in crises. In fact, the world has grown accustomed to this monetary policy, the new normal – and here is why:

    “To increase liquidity”, they say, “unemployment is high” or “economic growth rates are lower than expected”, and “inflation is too low”. But as we see in the chart below, the economy hasn’t really improved now, has it?

    real_rates_gdp_growth_2006_2014

    The false promises of QE – a monopoly only has one winner

    Even though Keynesians and other opponents of free market economics say there is no such thing as a “trickle-down effect”, the very assumption of QE is that it will trickle down to revamp the economy by boosting spending. But with low growth rates, weak currencies, and zero-to-negative interest rates, one wonders: who stands to gain from this monetary policy direction?

    Our economies have been dominated by the financial sector. Compared to the 1960s, the share of the financial sector has more than doubled from 4% to about 10% today, according to Forbes. This can be attributed to the closure of the gold window back in 1971, where the American administration looked for an easy way to finance its warfare-welfare state. The American citizen was deluded into thinking that the higher spending is because of the better performance of the economy, when in reality the government is printing its way out of the debt burden with an unbacked currency. However, inflation does not affect everyone equally.

    There are those who are wealthy and well-connected to the banking system who benefit from inflation, because they are the first to receive the newly-created money. The lower you go down the socio-economic pyramid, the more adverse the effects, as money begins circulating and loses value. The fiat money system in a way protects a certain strata of society: the financial sector (and those connected to it) and central banks. Everyone else, is impoverished by the system, and what is worse, becomes dependent on it.

    Also, you will find that those familiar with the system may know what to do to hedge against the risks of any deterioration in the economy and its currency. But others, like middle class professionals and the working class, they just don’t have access to the intricate higher levels of the financial markets. They are more likely to go to the bank to deposit their savings. But even then – the system hits them once again with negative interest rates.

    Our system penalizes saving and encourages reckless spending

    On the surface, negative interest rates imposed by central banks aim to encourage lending and stimulate spending. But in reality, because banks are required to pay for keeping their reserves at the central depository, they will end up charging money for accounts, lower interest rates on savings, and possibly even deny opening accounts for lower income clients. These will ultimately discourage depositors with limited means of income from keeping money in banks altogether and thereby increase the number of the “unbanked”, which in the U.S. amounts to about 7% of households (about 25 million people). And what if banks do not actually pass on the negative rates on the deposit side? Then, the ironic outcome is that they will end up charging more on loans, by introducing higher fees even on credit cards, or interest rate floors on variable loans, as already seen in German banks (Bloomberg). The whole idea of imposing this policy to make loans easier and cheaper has completely boomeranged and created the opposite effect.

    And so, what we are looking at is a flawed system that penalizes saving and encourages reckless spending and printing money. Although we all appear to be stuck in the same environment that combines negative interest rates and price inflation, we have the lower strata of society that is doomed to lose, as they end up spending more, discouraged by negative rates, and instead accumulate debt to keep up with the increasing prices. And then we have the “winners”, who know how to take advantage of the system and thrive in it. Doesn’t that look like entrapment to you? All this is “justified” by a government monopoly on money production. Conversely, are we to assume that a free market environment, free from government intervention, would ensure social equality? The fact is that, realistically, there is no such guarantee, nor was there such a utopian promise ever made. But as my friend Philip Bagus said in a recent interview:

    “We should distinguish between morally justified and unjustified inequality. When someone gets rich because he is productive and satisfies the wishes of people in a cheaper and better way than his competitors, we should applaud him. The resulting income inequality is justified. The problem starts if someone earns an income due to government intervention such as licenses, other regulations, or simply tax transfers. The resulting income inequality is unjustified. Getting richer at the expense of others through the use of the fiat monetary system, which represents a government monopoly and banking privileges, is unjust.”

    The longer we wait, the worse the hit

    The truth is, that our government officials have not solved the problem. They merely prolonged the downfall and generally poisoned the investment environment. If they had really addressed the root causes, they would have left the bubble explode. Yes, it is a harsh experience to endure. Bush wanted to spare his citizens from a great deal of misery – true, but the economy has not exactly flourished since then. In fact, our monetary policy direction has been prolonging the slowdown since 2008. The longer we wait, the worse the hit we will take. We are going from one bubble to another and are just postponing the inevitable. In a normally functioning business cycle we have a boom and bust. Yes, not everyone suffers equally from the bust: the working class is the most vulnerable to recessions. But under our current system, which has stripped them from their savings, they are exposed to greater risks than ever before.

  • Jackson Hole Conference Schedule And List Of Attendees Released

    The Kansas City Fed has released the schedule of its two day Jackson Hole symposium which, officially kicked off with dinner on Thursday night, hosted by dissident regional Fed president, and dissenter, Esther George (she voted against Yellen’s decision to keep rates unchanged in March, April and July). The highlight is tomorrow’s 10am ET Janet Yellen speech titled “The Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Toolkit.”

    The speech is important because no matter what Yellen says, the market is virtually assured to surge as Citadel’s momentum ignition algos are greenlighted by the NY Fed trading desk.

    Note the symbolic bear in the glass cage on the photo below.

    Key highlights: Chair Yellen to give speech Friday morning; panel discussion Saturday with Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, European Central Bank Executive Board Member Benoit Coeure and Bank of Mexico Governor Agustin Carstens

    Outline of the program (all times Eastern): 

    Thursday:

    8 p.m. – Opening Reception and Dinner

    Friday

    • 10 a.m. – Fed Chair Janet Yellen delivers opening remarks on “The Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Toolkit”
    • 10:30 a.m. – Adapting to Change in Financial Market Landscape: authors Darrell Duffie and Arvind Krishnamurthy (Stanford), discussant Minouche Shafik, deputy governor at Bank of England
    • 11:55 a.m. – Negative Nominal Interest Rates: author Marvin Goodfriend (Carnegie Mellon), discussant Marianne Nessen, head of monetary policy at Sweden’s Riksbank
    • 12:55 p.m. – Evaluating Alternative Monetary Frameworks: author Ulrich Bindseil, director of general market operations at European Central Bank, discussant Jean- Pierre Danthine (Paris School of Economics) and Simon Potter, executive vice president at Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    • 3 p.m. – Luncheon address by Christopher Sims (Princeton)
    • 4 p.m. – Conference adjourns for the day

    Saturday

    • 10 a.m. – Central Bank Balance Sheets and Financial Stability: author Jeremy Stein, Robin Greenwood and Sam Hanson (Harvard), discussant Randall Kroszner (University of Chicago)
    • 11 a.m. – Structure of Central Bank Balance Sheets: author Ricardo Reis (Columbia), discussant Laura Veldkamp (New York University)
    • 12:25 p.m. – Overview panel: Bank of Mexico Governor Agustin Carstens, ECB Executive Board Member Benoit Coeure, Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda
    • 2:15 p.m. – Lunch
    • 4 p.m. – Conference adjourns

  • At least 1 Dead, Multiple Injured In Major Explosion At Belgian Sports Complex

    A powerful explosion went off just after midnight local time at the Plaine Chalon sports facility in Chimay, Belgium, partially destroying the building and burying an unknown number of people under the rubble, local media report. At least one person is reported dead and four were injured (two seriously) after the building collapsed, Belga News Agency reported citing emergency services spokesperson.

    Photos appearing to show the aftermath of the explosion have surfaced on the social media. Half of the building has crumbled as seen on the photo posted by Vince Crate, a local resident.  Footage from the scene shows a heavy police presence.

    While the cause of the explosion remains unknown, local law enforcement sources told BNO News it appears to a gas explosion. There is no indication of terrorism.

    Rescuers are working at the site, and more people are believed to be trapped under the rubble.

     

     

     

    Plaine Chalon

    Plaine Chalon Sports Complex in Chimay, Belgium


Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 25th August 2016

  • Four More Mega-Banks Join The Anti-Dollar Alliance

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    That was fast.

    Yesterday I told you how a consortium of 15 Japanese banks had just signed up to implement new financial technology to clear and settle international financial transactions.

    This is a huge step.

    Right now, most international financial transactions must pass through the US banking system’s network of correspondent accounts.

    This gives the US government an incredible amount of power… power they haven’t been shy about using over the last several years.

    2014 was one of the first major watershed moments when the Obama administration fined French bank BNP Paribas $9 billion for doing business with countries that the US doesn’t like– namely Cuba and Iran.

    It didn’t matter that this French bank wasn’t violating any French laws.

    Nor did it matter that only months later the President of the United States inked a sweetheart nuclear deal with Iran and flew down to Cuba to attend a baseball game with his new BFFs.

    BNP had to pay up. A French bank paid $9 billion because they violated US law.

    And if they didn’t pay, the US government threatened to kick them out of the US banking system.

    $9 billion hurt. But being kicked out of the US banking system would have been totally crippling.

    Big international banks in particular cannot function if they don’t have access to the US banking system.

    As long as the US dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency, major banks must able to clear and settle US dollar transactions if they expect to remain in business.

    This means having access to the US banking system… the gatekeeper of the US dollar.

    But having watched BNP Paribas get blackmailed into paying an absurd $9 billion fine to the US government, the rest of the world’s mega-banks knew instantly that their heads could be next ones on the chopping block.

    So they started working on contingency plans.

    Blockchain technology provided an elegant solution.

    Instead of passing funds through the US banking system’s costly and inefficient network of correspondent accounts, blockchain technology provides an easy way for banks to send payments directly to one another.

    I cannot understate how important this technology is.

    Blockchain may very well be what neutralizes the US government’s domination of the global financial system.

    And while there’s been a lot of momentum in this direction (hence yesterday’s letter to you), even I’m surprised at how fast it’s moving.

    Today, four of the world’s largest banks announced a brand new joint venture to create a new financial settlement protocol built on blockchain technology.

    Deutsche Bank from Germany, UBS from Switzerland, Santander from Spain, and Bank of New York Mellon have joined together to launch what they’re naming the very un-sexy “utility settlement coin”.

    Like Ripple, Setl, Monetas, and several other competing technologies, Utility Settlement Coin has the potential to end the reliance on the US banking system for cross-border payments and financial transactions.

    Banks will be able to send payments to one another directly without having to transit through the Wall Street financial toll plaza.

    (Global consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimates that the cost of clearing and settling international financial transactions at up to $80 billion annually.)

    This has enormous implications, especially for US banks.

    The Federal Reserve, for example, has already warned that financial technology could pose stability risks to the US financial system.

    And they’re right.

    If foreign banks are able to transact directly with one another without having to go through the US banking system, then why would they need to park trillions of dollars in the United States?

    They wouldn’t.

    Adoption of this technology could cause a gigantic vacuum of deposits out of the US banking system.

    US banks would take a big hit. And the US government would have far fewer foreign buyers to sell its ever-expanding piles of debt.

    Make no mistake, the adoption of this technology is a game-changing development with far-reaching implications. And it’s happening very quickly.

    If these mega-banks can hit their milestones, they’ll launch commercially in eighteen months.

    Mark it on your calendar– that may be the end of peak US financial dominance.

  • Most Millennials Have Less Than $1,000 In Savings, Live Paycheck-to-Paycheck

    The majority of millennials are living paycheck to paycheck.

    A recent survey of millennials by HowMuch.net found that 51.8% of those aged 18-34 have less than $1,000 held between bank accounts and cash savings.

    As Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, this echoes previous data we’ve seen – not just on millennials, but Americans in general. For example, we know that 14% of Americans have “negative” wealth. We also know that 62% of Americans don’t have emergency savings that could cover a $1,000 hospital visit or a $500 car repair.

    Taking that into consideration, let’s dive deeper into this more recent millennial data…

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

     

    YOUNGER VS. OLDER MILLENNIALS

    The broad survey data can be further divided into “younger” and “older” millennial segments: those aged 18-24, vs. those between 25-34.

    Based on the survey question, an intuitive expectation would be that younger millennials are much more likely to have less than $1,000 in savings. After all, many of the people in this group would still be in school, and many are struggling withstudent debt.

    However, the difference is far less than one may expect. While it is true that 57.6% of the younger demographic has less than $1,000 in savings, the older group is not much better off with almost half (47.1%) of them being in the same boat. This shows that many millennials in their late 20s and early 30s are still not able to generate substantial savings.

    MALE VS. FEMALE MILLENNIALS

    There is also a significant divide between male and female millennials here, with 56.7% of females having less than $1,000 in savings. Compare this number to the male percentage of 46.5%, and it is clear there is a substantial divide between genders.

    Lastly, males are also more likely to have a substantial amount stored away in their bank account. According to the survey, 21.5% of males have more than $20,000 of savings, while only 11.9% females can say the same.

  • Globalism Is A Barbaric Relic – Voluntary Tribalism Is The Future

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    I have been writing rather extensively about the ideology of globalism in recent months, primarily because the battle lines between sovereignty and global centralization have never been more defined than they are in 2016.  In the past, globalists have often hidden the true motives of their cult; namely the goal of erasing national borders and all remaining vestiges of self governance.  Normally, they would only pronounce the great advantages of globalization while dancing around the fact that millions of people will not accept it.  Today, however, the globalists have come out in direct confrontation with supporters of sovereignty.

    After the Brexit referendum, a new tone appears to have been set.  The elites have now entered the mainstream media to state in essence that yes, they are globalists, they want total centralization and they are here to fight a philosophical and/or physical battle with those they call “populists” (also known as conservatives and sovereigns).

    When they have discussed globalization in previous years, it has always been presented as some kind of natural progression of events rather than an agenda.  The first secret of elitist propaganda is their constant assertion that globalism is “inevitable;” that it is foolish to fight against it because it is the unavoidable future evolution of mankind.  The fact is that if globalism is so inevitable, the elites would not need to expend trillions in capital and decades of energy trying to fool the masses into accepting it.  If globalism is inevitable, couldn’t the elites simply lay back in their pool-side cabanas, sip their dry martinis and just watch it all unfold on its own?

    Instead, the elites have foisted globalism upon the shoulders of the public, and are by some indications preparing for outright war in order to force us “populists” into compliance.

    The second secret of elitist propaganda is their strategy to disguise centralization as decentralization.  For instance, the new globalist claim is that a shift away from a system in which the dollar is the world reserve currency into a system in which a basket of currencies becomes the world reserve is a move towards a “multi-polar world.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

    In reality, the basket currency system the elites are pushing for falls under the umbrella of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights.  Meaning a switch away from the dollar into the SDR will result in even MORE centralized power for the elites.  That is not a multi-polar world; it is a uni-polar one.

    It is schemes like this that expose the great weakness of globalism as an ideal — the elites cannot accomplish it without using deception and force against innocents.  Such a philosophy is a failure by default.

    The third secret of globalist propaganda is that they present the system as if it is a “new” idea. This is yet another lie. Globalism is merely another expanded form of centralization (or collectivism), and centralization has been the prevailing tool of cultural control for ages.  If anything, the freely elected governments and voluntary tribalism of constitutional Republics is the newest and most advanced social concept in all of human history.  Such systems present the potential for lasting decentralization, as long as participants remain vigilant to co-option by globalists.

    Sadly, the people of America and the rest of the West have NOT been vigilant for quite some time, and today our experiment in sovereignty is being  twisted, eroded and overrun.

    Some seem to find new hope in the rise of conservative activism like the U.K.’s Brexit movement.  As I explained in my pre-referendum article 'Brexit — Global Trigger Event, Fake Out Or Something Else?', these movements are a step in the right direction, but they have a tendency to underestimate the globalist strategy.

    I suspect according to the evidence outlined in the article linked above, as well as the behavior of elites ever since the U.K. referendum passed, that a plan is underway to ALLOW conservatives and sovereign activists marginal victories.  Ultimately, in order for the elites to achieve the long-game of total centralization, they need to fully demonize and destroy their philosophical opponents.  That is to say, they need to make conservatives and freedom fighters out to be historical monsters, and themselves out to be the heroes of the day.  The ONLY way for the elites to win is to fool the masses into accepting and even demanding globalization while casting out conservative principles as dangerous or evil.

    But how would they make this possible?

    It’s simple, really.  They have already set the stage for an international economic and political crisis of epic proportions.  Why not let conservatives and sovereigns take over as captains of an already sinking ship, then blame them when there aren’t enough lifeboats to save the passengers?

    Following this line of thinking was how I was able to correctly predict the success of the Brexit vote, it is the reason why I have consistently argued that the Fed will continue to raise interest rates in 2016 despite multiple signs of a recessionary downturn, and why I believe Donald Trump will be the next president.

    Once instability has run its course, and once the damage is done and the “populists” are blamed, the elites plan to swoop in with globalism as the fix-all.

    The question then arises, if this is the strategy being implemented by the globalists, what can be done about it?

    As with most conundrums, the problem is often the source identifier of the solution.  That is to say, if centralization and the elites behind it is the problem, then decentralization and the removal of those elites from power is the most effective solution. If forced globalization is leading to the ruination of man, then voluntary tribalism may be the cure.

    The issue actually has more to do with individual psychology than geopolitics.

    Human beings have two inherent psychological qualities that can work together, or they can conflict; the need for individual liberty, and the need for community.

    We are social creatures.  We can accomplish great feats by working together, but the ideas for these feats are always born in the imaginations of individual minds.  Without the group, the success of the individual can be greatly hindered.  Without individual minds, the success of any group is impossible.

    The elites would have us believe that individual success and community success are mutually exclusive; that we cannot have both.  This is simply not true.

    Globalists assert that if the individual focuses on his own success, then he cannot focus on the success of the group.  This “conceited” self interest, they claim, will sabotage society as a whole and lead to humanity’s destruction. Therefore, under globalism, the individual must sacrifice his freedom of choice and association; he must sacrifice his right to apply his labors how he wishes, so that the group can supposedly thrive.

    I would assert the opposite.  Because all ideological groups are abstractions and not cultural facts, they are completely dependent on the success of the individual in order to thrive.  While the individual may need help from others, he must be allowed to CHOOSE who those people are.  He also must be able to CHOOSE how his ideas and efforts are realized.  Otherwise, the ideas have no steward, no protector.  Under globalism/collectivism, ideas immediately become the property of the group if they are even acknowledged at all, and the group does not think; the group is not capable of thinking.  The group only has merit as long as the individuals within it have merit.  The group is not real.  And so, under the control of a vaporous collective, good ideas usually die.

    With globalism as the dominant ideology, individual accomplishment falls and thus, the system itself will eventually fall.

    This does not mean that the solution is to end all group interaction or organization so that individuals can go off to to form their own one-man, mini-nation states.  If that is what an individual wishes to do then that is all well and good, but failure is just as likely in that scenario as it would be under globalism.  Instead, the answer may be a return to tribalism, of a voluntary variety.

    Our inherent needs for individual freedom as well as community interaction can in fact work together.  The group does not need to supplant the individual to succeed, each member of the group just needs to share the same goals and understand the merits of those goals.

    If a person does not understand or respect the goals of that group, then he can easily leave, or refuse to join.  As long as it is unacceptable for any group to use force to compel an individual to participate, then there can be no loss of individual liberty.  Under this model, we could see the rise of numerous tribes, and tribes within tribes.  Some of them fleeting, some of them long lasting.  Of course certain universal truths would have to be respected.

    The most common argument against tribalism, whether voluntary or not, is the argument that it will lead to so many conflicting interests that chaos and violence is inevitable.  Wars over resources and property will erupt, some claim, or society will falter into a dog-eat-dog survival of the strongest Mad Max scenario.

    First, I would like to point out that globalization and centralization have not solved any of these problems.  Globalism only seems to lead to more efficient war and death, rather than less war and death, and the sides are less defined.  Under the global elites, people are constantly pitted against each other over false narratives and false flags.  We become pawns that are sacrificed to further their objectives.  I hardly see how this is a superior system.  The only wars ever worth fighting are against centralizing tyrants.

     

    Second, while tribal conflict is surely possible due to philosophical differences, the promotion of individual freedom, rather than the collective, as the essential element of society makes violent opposition far less likely.

     

    Freedom is a universal inborn psychological construct.  Almost all people have a sense of it and its usefulness.  In fact, most fundamental moral principles including freedom are shared by people regardless of their cultural backgrounds.  The only places in which freedom is not respected are places in which centralizing elites have propagandized and threatened the citizenry.  Look at almost any totalitarian system and you will find under scrutiny that globalists helped give birth to these monsters from behind the scenes.  When those elites and their influence are removed for a time, there is usually a natural wellspring resurgence of respect for liberty within that society.

     

    Men and women will organize and rally around freedom without being lied to or threatened.  There are not many ideologies that can make the same claim.  Globalism certainly can’t.

     

    Third, the next objection from skeptics will be that a handful of controllers under globalism would be preferable to tens of thousands of tyrants lording over thousands of fiefdoms.  Again, these people just don’t seem to grasp the notion of voluntary community or the effectiveness of individual rebellion.

     

    I would rather face a thousand minor tyrants with minor armies than a tiny cabal of tyrants with a global army.  The difference being that it is far easier to erase a tyrant with a hundred men in my way than it is to erase a global tyrant with hundreds-of-thousands of men and a massive surveillance apparatus in my way.  In a world where individual liberty is paramount and the people are armed, minor tyrants would be so terrified to pursue power they would likely be dissuaded altogether.  The minimal protection they might muster would never be enough to stop every single bullet flying in their direction.

    The idea of voluntary community is so foreign to the public today that it would probably need a catastrophe before such a system is ever adopted.  But, since the global elites have already taken it upon themselves to create the catalysts for an economic and political crisis, we might as well take advantage and rebuild from the ashes with voluntary community in mind.

    The elites never let a good crisis go to waste, maybe we should use the same strategy.

    This, of course, requires that the liberty minded not only survive the catastrophe, but also fight back and remove the elites from the picture.  There can be no voluntary tribes with the globalists in control of the mechanisms of power.  They are themselves, in effect, a bastardization of a tribe that has been allowed through lack of vigilance to subversively and systematically destroy all other tribes.  They have convinced much of the world through chicanery that their tribe is the ONLY tribe with merit.

    The propaganda only works to a point, however.  During any breakdown in normal social order, people invariably create their own social order, and they usually do this by forming small tribes.  Families come together, neighborhoods come together, towns come together and so on, and they do this voluntarily, without being aggressively compelled by others.  The natural default of human beings is freedom and tribalism; two things which do not necessarily have to conflict.  Our natural default has never been to pursue globalism or utter collectivism at the expense of the individual; those kinds of machines are products of the treachery of a power-mad minority.

    In the end, globalism is doomed to crash in a ball of flames, but not before the globalists attempt to take everyone else down with them.  It would behoove us to start constructing our tribes now, rather than after the situation has become grim in the absolute.  Through localized production, alternative trade models, local organization for mutual aid and defense, and the principles of liberty, America could become a network of tribes within a tribe; a self reliant system built around redundancy rather than interdependency.

    The globalists?  Well, they will try to stop us.  But at least at that point the sides will be drawn more clearly.  I cannot think of a better war to fight than a war to stop the barbaric trespasses of the global elites.  And when it is all over, I look forward to a more complex and “chaotic” society where collectivist streamlining is abandoned for a wild west of voluntary associations.  A land where tribes roam free.

  • China's "Answer To LendingClub" Plunges Most On Record After Regulator Imposes Peer-To-Peer Caps

    Over the years, China has valiantly struggled to convince the international public it will end its debt addiction any minute now, with the Politburo vowing year after year that it would if not delever in the immediate future, then surely limit the issuance of household loans. So far, every such attempt has been a failure, for one simple reason: as goes China’s debt, so goes the most important asset in China’s economy, its housing stock.

    So while there are ample reasons to be skeptical, overnight China’s Banking Regulatory Commission unveiled its latest attempt to halt the country’s relentless debt load when it imposed limits on lending by peer-to-peer platforms to individuals and companies in an effort to curb risks in one part of the loosely-regulated shadow-banking sector. An individual can borrow as much as 1 million yuan ($150,000) from P2P sites, including a maximum of 200,000 yuan from any one site, the CBRC said in Beijing on Wednesday. Corporate borrowers are capped at five times those levels.

    The regulator added, in what we doubt was an attempt to reassure industry watchers, that China had found problems in 1,778 online lending platforms, accounting for 43.1% of total.

    China’s authorities are rightfully concerned about defaults and fraud among the nation’s 2,349 online lenders. In December, the country’s biggest Ponzi scheme was exposed after Ezubo, which until then had been China’s largest P2P lender, defrauded more than 900,000 people out of the equivalent of $7.6 billion and promptly folded (the response was hardly enthusiastic, as we revealed in a clip from February.)

     

    The measures will probably leave about 200-300 P2P platforms by this time next year, said James Zheng, chief financial officer of Lufax, the top lending platform in China. “That’s okay because they’re cracking down on all the bad guys,” he said at a conference in Hong Kong. “What doesn’t kill will make you stronger. That’s the case for us.” Good luck.

    Under the new rules, P2P lenders are barred from taking public deposits or selling wealth-management products and must appoint qualified banks as custodians and improve information disclosure. 

    “The P2P business is not very strictly regulated yet, but you can see the regulator is taking a step forward,” said Xu Hongwei, chief executive officer of Shanghai-based Yingcan Group, which tracks the industry. Products offered by P2P platforms in China can include anything from loans for weddings, guaranteed against the cash gifts that couples expect to receive, to high-yield lending for risky property or mining projects.

    As Bloomberg notes, China’s P2P industry brokered 982 billion yuan of loans in 2015, almost quadruple the amount in 2014 and an approximately 10-fold increase from 2013, according to Yingcan. P2P firms attracted more than 3.4 million investors and 1.15 million borrowers in July, with loans extended at an average interest rate of 10.3 percent, according to Yingcan. Still, despite its torrid growth, P2P lending is still a tiny fraction of the overall loan market, and certainly of the broadest Total Social Financing universe, which infamously saw $1 trillion dollar in aggregate new loans created in the first quarter of 2016, providing a global credit impulse, which has since faded.

    In any case, it appears that in this particular case, China is eager to halt this problem before it becomes too big. In April, China’s cabinet launched a campaign to clean up illicit activities in Internet finance, focusing on areas such as third-party payments, peer-to-peer lending, crowdfunding and online insurance. It suspended the registration of all new companies with finance-related names.

    And we have our doubts that this latest “debt cap” will last, because earlier today, Peer 2 Peer lender Yirendai, the company which Bloomberg has dubbed “China’s answer to LendingClub” plunged 22%, the most on record since its December 2015 IPO, on massive volume, following yesterday’s imposed P2P limits. For a sense of scale, YRD created some $680 million in loans in Q2, up 118% Y/Y, with net revenue more than doubling to $110 million, or 140% Y/Y. 

    Needless to say, the company acts, and is priced like, a growth stock. The problem, as the chart below shows, is that the growth suddenly stopped.

    Furthermore, if the company is indeed China’s answer to the recently devastated LendingClub, this is just the beginning, as the bubble has now popped with a little help from the government.

    So will the CBRC relent, and lift the caps? It depends on just one thing, the only thing that the politburo is more worried about than asset bubbles – social unrest.

    If enough people protest, get angry or downright violent as a result of the collapse in P2P stocks, and eventually, the entire industry, or simply are unable to obtain loans elsewhere should the industry falter, then Beijing will promptly undo what it has done. Until then, however, keep an eye on risk levels in China, where suddenly the most permissive marginal source of lending – and this risk asset upside –  was just advised ordered to go into a state of near hibernation.

  • University of Chicago Tells Millennials to Suck It Up, "We Do Not Condone 'Safe Spaces'"

    In a refreshing and stark contrast to other universities that have seemingly tripped over themselves to accommodate every silly request from America's pampered Millennials in their never ending quest for "safe spaces," the University of Chicago has sent the incoming class of 2020 a letter making very clear that they will find no "safe spaces" in their intellectual journey at Chicago.  The full letter is presented below but here are a couple of the best comments for your reading pleasure:  

    You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement.  At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.

     

    Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called “trigger warnings,” we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual “safe spaces” where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

    Just when we thought all hope had been lost, an establishment of higher learning finally steps up to interject some rational thoughts into the public discourse surrounding freedom of expression.

     

     

     

    The letter also directs students to a note it had previously written on freedom of expression…

    The full letter can be reviewed in its entirety at the end of this post, but below are a couple of the gems that we particularly liked:

    Education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.”

     

    Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.

     

    In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.

    For Millennials getting ready start at University of Chicago might we suggest some reading material (here) that we shared a few months back that might help you cope in the absence of "safe spaces" at your new home…

    Safe Space

    No matter where you go in life, someone will be there to offend you. Maybe it’s a joke you overheard on vacation, a spat at the office, or a difference of opinion with someone in line at the grocery store. Inevitably, someone will offend you and your values. If you cannot handle that without losing control of your emotions and reverting back to your “safe space” away from the harmful words of others, then you’re best to just stay put at home. Remember, though: if people in the outside world scare you, people on the internet will downright terrify you. It’s probably best to just accept these harsh realities of life and go out into the world prepared to confront them wherever they may be waiting.

     

  • Demographic HomeMageddon Underway… Will Last Until At Least 2035

    Submitted by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

    91% of all US home buying is done by those aged 20-69yrs/old, according to NAR data.  In 2015, Millennials (20-35yrs/old) made up 35% of home purchases, Gen X (36-50yr/olds) bought 26%, Boomers (51-70yr/olds) 31%, and the Silent Generation (70+yrs/old) 9%.  I'm no great fan of the NAR, but this makes basic sense as most homebuyers need an income to be homebuyers and most 70+yr/olds are retired and have the lowest average incomes of all the above groups.

    Here's the very big problem for residential real estate… the chart below shows that over 70% of all the population growth among potential home buyers (20+yrs/old) from 2017–>2030 will be among the 70+yr/olds (chart shows average annual growth for the two groups from 2000–>2016 (left) and 2017–>2030 (right)).  This is simply unprecedented in US history.

     

     

    To put it in a broader context, the chart below shows annual growth in the 20-69yr/old population (red line) vs. annual growth in the 70+yr/old population (blue line) since 1980.  That unprecedented, impending crossover in the lines means everything for real estate and the economy in general.

     

    The impending nosedive in the growth of potential buyers vs. surge in elderly (those more likely to downsize or out-right sell than buy) should be quite disconcerting considering:

    • Home prices are at or near '07/'08 bubble peaks meaning any new investments require far more cash down to achieve a positive cash flow

    • Mortgage rates can effectively go no lower and a marginal increase is probable (unless the Fed reinitiates QE and implements NIRP)

    • Present lending standards are far more stringent than during the '07/'08 fog-a-mirror NINJA free for all

    • The dollar is likely to continue appreciating making foreign buying continually more expensive…and less likely (unless the Fed reinitiates QE and implements NIRP)

    • Rents and rent to income ratios are off the charts to new records well above '08…maintaining the pace of rent appreciation is highly unlikely and rent declines may be the more probable course.

    Plus, add in the pace of new housing creation continues ramping up (still only half way to '08 levels but still far more than can ultimately be absorbed with the changing dynamics).  With so few new buyers, a growing quantity of new homes, and so many likely sellers…a very simple question must be asked, who will buy all those houses and at what price?

  • 5 Factors That Could Turn America Into Another Collapsed Empire

    Authored by Todd Buchholz, originally posted op-ed at MarketWatch.com,

    Nations are just as likely to unravel after periods of prosperity as afte periods of depression

    Have you ever met an Ottoman? Or a Habsburg? Neither have I.

    Like a chopped-up Magritte painting, all that is left of the Habsburgs is a homburg hat. Yet in the 1800s, the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires controlled a huge chunk of the modern world. One in 10 Americans can trace his or her heritage to Habsburg lands, which spanned most of middle Europe from Poland down to Dracula’s castle in Transylvania.

    Many people have written about poor countries that have fallen apart. But rich nations fall apart, too. In fact, nations are just as likely to unravel after periods of prosperity as after periods of depression. The 2016 presidential campaign appears so bitter precisely because so many Americans worry that the “other” party’s candidate will annihilate the nation.

    I have found five forces that undermine nations after they achieve economic success – and they are biting down on the U.S. today. We have little time to spare to renew the nation. Whichever candidate wins in November better come up with tough and effective solutions.

    Falling birthrates

    As countries grow rich, people have fewer babies. (The average American women now gives birth to just 1.89 children.) To keep up their lofty standard of living, citizens need new workers to serve them, whether as neurosurgeons in hospitals or as manicurists. This requires immigrants. But immigrants can splinter the dominant culture. So countries face either declining relative wealth or a fraying cultural fabric. Great empires of the past, from the Roman to the Venetian to the British, have faced this challenge — and failed to surmount it.

     

    Globalized trade

    Nations cannot grow and stay rich without trading. Countries that fold themselves into a self-contained bubble grow fetid, like a badly aerated terrarium. Or a dank prison, which pretty much describes North Korea. South Koreans, who believe in trade, are 17 times richer, live 10 years longer, and stand several inches taller than their neighbors. South Korea produces super-sharp Samsung flat screens, fine Hyundai cars and charismatic K-pop singers.

     

    But there’s a downside to trade. It shakes the customs and character of the nation. Donald Trump has skillfully tapped into this anxiety and is right to ask whether trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are vigorously negotiated to boost the incomes of typical Americans, or simply to boost the ego of the president.

     

    Rising debt loads

    As countries grow richer, they build bigger bureaucracies and inflate their debts. Here’s a puzzle I call “The Paradox of Theft:” As a family grows wealthier, it is less likely to fall into deep debt, default and bankruptcy. But the opposite is true of individual countries — wealthier nations may pile up proportionately more debt than poorer nations.

     

    Amid the Great Recession of 2010, developing countries like Mexico and Russia had smaller debt burdens than Japan, the U.S. and the eurozone. Why do we borrow more? Because we can! And because today’s politicians aren't held responsible for the debts they leave for our children and grandchildren.

     

    Eroding work ethic

    When a rich nation shatters, people don’t go hungry. They just stop waking up early. The proportion of adults who want to work has been sliding over the last 17 years. In West Virginia, only half of working-age adults have a job. Between 2000 and 2013, disability claims across the country surged 43%. Even though jobs have grown less dangerous, the chances of a judge approving a disability claim has jumped 50% since 1980.

     

    We are seeing a structural shift: Millions have decided they just don’t care much for the idea of showing up for work in the morning and staying on the job until the end of the day.

     

    To prod the unemployed back to work, I propose they receive a signing bonus if they accept a new job before their unemployment compensation payments run out.

     

    The challenge of patriotism in a multicultural country

    Unless rich nations discover and embrace their national characters, they won't survive. In many schools, the Pledge of Allegiance and “My Country ’Tis of Thee” have been pushed aside in favor of self-esteem chants. Characters like Columbus, the Pilgrims and George Washington have been disdained as pillagers, rather than as symbols of exploration, religious freedom and courage.

     

    To help ensure that all learn America’s story and values, all immigrants and any U.S. student applying for a federal loan be required to get their passports stamped at no fewer than five historical monuments or museums around the country.

    Is it too late?

    Should the U.S. and European nations simply hold a “going out of business sale” while the wealthiest individuals sneak off to private islands or to New Zealand? The odds are against us, as the Spartans, Romans, Ottomans, and Habsburgs would attest — if they were still around.

    But as Bill Murray said in Stripes: “We’re not Watusi. We’re not Spartans. We’re Americans, with a capital ‘A”…that means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re the mutts.”

    And we can win again.

  • France To Deploy 3,000 Troops To Schools: "The Threat Is Real" Education Minister Says

    Two weeks ago we reported that as part of its proactive effort to tackle future terrorist attacks, the French government announced that starting in September, French 14-year-olds would receive lessons how to survive a terrorist attack on their schools, following a spate of Islamist killings in recent months.  It appears that was not enough, because earlier today the France interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve announced France would deploy about 3,000 reserve troops, train school authorities and ramp up school anti-terror drills in case of attacks, its education and security ministers announced on Wednesday, a week before the start of a new academic year.

    The threat is high, it is real,” Education Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, said during a joint news conference in Paris alongside Cazeneuve. “This is not about ceding to panic or paranoia,” she added quoted by Reuters.

    About 12 million students are expected to head back to school across France from on Sept. 1. All students aged 13-14 will be adding basic life-saving measures to their portfolio of skills, in case they need to provide assistance to classmates in a worse-case scenario. Right now, only 30% of students are trained, the Education Minister said in a Wednesday press conference, according to AP.

    Around 500 school administrators will be trained every year at the national gendarme training center to manage crisis centers and act as liaisons with security officials, while some 1.2 million students in the fourth year of secondary school are expected to be trained in first aid. In addition to training students and staff stepping up to the plate, security forces have been ordered to be particularly vigilant around schools, and some 3,000 gendarme reservists will be deployed to provide reinforcement for local authorities, including police, Reuters reported.

    “Throughout the year, particular attention will be put around schools. Active surveillance around schools, high-schools and universities will be reinforced by roving patrols,” Cazeneuve said. RT adds that the government has decided to provide 50 million euros ($56.2 million) to local councils to help them pay for security equipment such as video door phones and new alarm systems.

    As previously reported, anti-terror drills in schools will also be increased to three per academic year, up from the current requirement of two drills per year. During those drills, students will be taught how to hide or escape. At least one drill will include a mock assailant entering the premises. Children aged two to six should not be told of any attacks or dangers during the drills, but will be taught to hide and keep quiet through games.

    The French announcement comes at the same time as Germany is deciding whether to put “troops on the streets” to protect the population from terrorism. While a formal decision has yet to be announced, Europe’s distinct creep toward increasing militarization of society continues.

  • Largest Saudi Bank Crashes To Record Low

    Despite the exuberant rebound in the price of oil – and the hope that this means something other than an over-financialized commodity being short-squeezed by rumors – all is not well across the oil producers of the world. Having noted the record surge in default protection for Saudi Arabia (ahead of its looming debt deal)…

     

     

    We note that National Commercial Bank's stock price has collapsed to record lows.

    h/t @pierpont_morgan

    This is Saudi Arabia's largest bank, and is often used as a proxy for the royal family's wealth.

    Interestingly,just as we were surprised to see Saudi CDS "stabilizing" amid record demand for protection, NCB CDS has tightened dramatically in the last few weeks – as the stock has crashed…

     

    If we were the tin-foil-hat-wearing types, we might suggest that every effort is being made to put lipstick on Saudi's credit pig before the looming debt deal is done.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 24th August 2016

  • Is The EU Volcano About To Erupt?

    Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

    I am wondering if the EU volcano is about to erupt.

    My rationale is Matteo Renzi, Francois Hollande, and Angela Merkel met on a volcanic island near Naples, specifically chosen as a symbolic mark of their joint resolve to stay the course with the EU after the UK voted to leave.  

    Big Three

    Europe is the Solution Says Hollande

    Please consider EU Leaders Pledge Brexit Will Not Weaken Bloc.

    The leaders of Germany, France and Italy declared they would not allow Britain’s departure from the EU to propel the bloc into reverse as they discussed plans to deepen intelligence co-operation and bolster a pan-European investment plan.

     

    At a summit on the Mediterranean island of Ventotene, they pledged to address some of the bloc’s most urgent problems by reinforcing European defence, overcoming a refugee crisis and spurring economic growth.

     

    “We think that Europe is not the problem. It’s more the solution,” said Italian premier Matteo Renzi at a press conference with German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president François Hollande on the flight deck of an Italian aircraft carrier.

     

    Almost two months after Britain voted to the leave the EU, the summit was cast as an opportunity for the three largest founder members of the union to declare their common commitment to European integration.

     

    The volcanic island near Naples was specifically chosen for the meeting, the leaders’ second since the Brexit referendum, as a symbolic mark of their joint resolve to stay the course with the EU after the UK voted to leave.

    Pure Ignorance

    Earlier today a reader commented …

    To think that EU is only a economic construction is pure ignorance, The main objective was (and still is) TO AVOID MILITARY CONFLICTS in the most violent continent in the last 3 centuries. This has been successful.

     

    Analyzing EU with “nannycrats” and other silly notions denotes only the lack of culture, lack of meaningful readings and shortsighted view of the writer.

    I know full well what the mission of the EU is. The problem is two fold.

    1. Mission creep: The nannycrats did not stick to the mission.
    2. The Euro: The euro is fatally flawed as a currency.

    I fully embrace freedom of movement, within the EU, for the right reasons.

    I do not embrace open invites to terrorists, from elsewhere. Nor do I embrace open invites from elsewhere for economic reasons.

    The results speak for themselves, and the volcano is arguably ready to blow its top.

    Volcano Offers Perfect Symbolism

    • Beppe Grillo’s eurosceptic Five Star Movement party is in a dead heat with Matteo Renzi in Italian polls.
    • Marine Le Pen eurosceptic National Front party is leading or in second place France.
      The Eurosceptic AfD party is on the rise in Germany.
    • Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party, a right-populist group with an anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic platform, is in the lead in a presidential re-run in Austria.
    • Spanish separatists in Catalonia threaten to break away from Spain and are in open defiance in Madrid.

    Brexit happened because of inane nannycrat rules and also because of Merkel’s blatantly stupid open arms welcome of outsiders for political and economic reasons.

    Termite Infestation

    Europe is more splintered now in many ways than it was before the adoption of the Euro.

     

     

     

    Anger is visible everywhere. The volcano is ready to blow.

  • TRoLL MaGaZiNe

    TROLL MAGAZINE

  • Illinois Warns Of "Crippling Tax Hikes", "Devastating Impact" If Largest Pension Fund Admits Reality

    Defined Benefit Pension Plans are, almost by definition, a ponzi scheme. Current assets are used to pay current claims in full in spite of insufficient funding to pay future liabilities: classic Ponzi.  But unlike wall street and corporate ponzi schemes no one goes to jail here because the establishment is complicit.  Everyone from government officials to union bosses are incentivized to maintain the status quo – public employees get to sleep better at night thinking they have a “retirement plan,” public legislators get to be re-elected by union membership while pretending their states are solvent and union bosses get to keep their jobs while hiding the truth from employees.  

    We even published a note several weeks ago titled “Establishment Tries To Suppress “Dissident Actuaries” Explosive Report On Public Pensions,” which pointed out that the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries killed a report that would have warned about the implications of lowering long-term expected returns on pension assets.  Apparently the truth was just too scary.

    Similarly, Janus’ Bill Gross has been warning of the unintended consequences of low interest rates for years, and reiterated his concerns to Bloomberg recently:

    Fund managers that have been counting on returns of 7 percent to 8 percent may need to adjust that to around 4 percent, Gross, who runs the $1.5 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund, said during an Aug. 5 interview on Bloomberg TV. Public pensions, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest in the U.S., are reporting gains of less than 1 percent for the fiscal year ended June 30.

    Two weeks ago, we decided to take a look at what would happen if all federal, state and local pension plans decided to heed the advice of Mr. Gross. As one might suspect, the results were abysmal.  We conservatively assume that public pensions are currently $2.0 trillion underfunded ($4.5 trillion of assets for $6.5 trillion of liabilities) even though we’ve seen estimates that suggest $3.5 trillion or more might be more appropriate.  We then adjusted the return on asset assumption down from the 7.5% used by most pensions to the 4.0% suggested by Mr. Gross and found that true public pension underfunding could be closer to $5.5 trillion, or over 2.5x more than current estimates.  Others have suggested that returns should be closer to risk-free rates which would imply an even more draconian $8.4 trillion underfunding.  

    Pension Underfudning

    The result which we dubbed an “Unsolvable Math Problem“, is the reason why so few pension funds have dared to address this issue face on.

    However, to our surprise perhaps because they realize just how near to the end really is or for other unknown reason, certain pension funds are finally taking notice, and action. In early August, Richard Ingram of Illinois’s largest pension fund announced that he would be taking another look at long-term return expectations noting that “anybody that doesn’t consider revisiting what their assumed rate of return is would be ignoring reality.”  Ingram’s Illinois Teachers’ Retirement System is only 41.5% funded and currently assumes annual returns of 7.5%, down from 8% in 2014.

    And right here we get an example of precisely why US pensions are a legal ponzi, because the moment one person is willing to do the right thing, and evaluate the situation soberly, someone else promptly steps in, realizing that if just one card is removed from the house of cards, the whole thing collapses.

    Enter Illinois governor Bruce Rauner, who warned that should his state’s largest public pension fund do what it should have done long ago, it would put a big dent in the state’s already fragile finances and lead to “crippling” pension payment hikes, Reuters reported today.


    Bruce Rauner and his wife Diana

    According to a Monday memo from a top Rauner aide, the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) board could (or rather, should) decide at its meeting this week to lower the assumed investment return rate, warning that this move “would automatically boost Illinois’ annual pension payment.”

    “If the (TRS) board were to approve a lower assumed rate of return taxpayers will be automatically and immediately on the hook for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in higher taxes or reduced services,” Michael Mahoney, Rauner’s senior advisor for revenue and pensions, wrote to the governor’s chief of staff, Richard Goldberg.

    As a reminder, the TRS already lowered its assumed rate of return once, back in 2014, and as a result of the even bigger underfunding hole created by the lower assumed rate of return, the state’s pension payment increased by more than $200 million, according to the memo.

    It is about to do it again, only this time it would have to cut the discount rate far lower, if it wishes to be even remotely realistic: recall Gross’ suggestion is to lower the expected return to 4% (or even lower).  However, as we reported two weeks ago, the TRS hole is already gargantuan and about to get even bigger. Illinois’ fiscal 2017 pension payment to its five retirement systems was estimated at $7.9 billion, up from $7.617 billion in fiscal 2016 and $6.9 billion in fiscal 2015, according to a March report by a bipartisan legislative commission. The country’s fifth-largest state’s unfunded pension liability stood at $111 billion at the end of fiscal 2015, with TRS accounting for more than 55 percent of that gap. The funded ratio remains just under 42%, implying that any rate reductions will push the already frigthfully low funding ratio even lower.

    And this is where the politicians come in.

    An impasse between the Republican governor and Democrats who control the legislature left Illinois as the only state without a complete 2016 budget, however a six-month fiscal 2017 spending plan was passed in June.

    Still, Mahoney has cautioned that “unforeseen and unknown automatic cost increases would have a devastating impact” on Illinois’ ability to fund social services and education.

    What Rauner’s senior advisor is essentially saying, is that if the TRS does what the Fed and other central banks are forcing it to do, our political careers may be over, and that could be just the beginning.

    And here is the punchline: one of Rauner’s top Republican legislative allies, Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, urged the TRS board to delay a vote Friday to give the public time to weigh in on its possible actions. “This issue is important enough at the very least to put the TRS board on notice we don’t want them taking any action that could cost taxpayers $200 to $300 million without appropriate scrutiny,” she said. The action in question, Radogano is demanding the TRS not take, is to lower its return expectations from the ludicrous 7.5% to something realistic; instead she is suggesting the fund pretend all is well, and avoid the day of reckoning for at least a few more years, ideally until she has quit as Senate Minority Leader, at which point the TRS can by all means go ahead and admit just how terrible its underfunding truly is.

    Translation: please keep your heads stuck in the sand, and dare not admit the reality of near-zero returns in the new normal, but instead keep the projected return rate at 7.5%, or else you will not only admit just how much bigger the underfunding hole truly is, but the resultant surge in public anger following the broad rise in taxes coupled with cut to pensioner benefits could lead to millions of furious voters sweeping all of Illinois’ current career politicians right into the unemployment office.

    Incidentally, this is precisely the fight that countless ponzi schemes, pardon pension funds, across the US will be forced to go through in the coming months, unless somehow the Fed funds a way to guarantee 8% returns every year, or else sending inflation soaring, and wiping out the fund’s liabilities.

    Since neither is likely to happen for a while, the biggest losers will once again be taxpayers and pensions recipients, who this time will be forced to pay – literally – because their public fiduciaries lied to them, and because other fiduciaries are hoping the lies will continue for at least a few more years.

  • Children Of The American Police State: Just Another Brick In The Wall

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,

    We don’t need no education

    We don’t need no thought control
    No dark sarcasm in the classroom
    Teachers leave them kids alone…
    All in all it’s just another brick in the wall
    All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.
    —Pink Floyd, “Another Brick in the Wall”

    The nation’s young people have been given front-row seats for an unfolding police drama that is rated R for profanity, violence and adult content.

    In Arizona, a 7-year-old girl watched panic-stricken as a state trooper pointed his gun at her and her father during a traffic stop and reportedly threatened to shoot her father in the back (twice) based on the mistaken belief that they were driving a stolen rental car.

    In Oklahoma, a 5-year-old boy watched as a police officer used a high-powered rifle to shoot his dog Opie multiple times in his family’s backyard while other children were also present. The police officer was mistakenly attempting to deliver a warrant on a 10-year-old case for someone who hadn’t lived at that address in a decade.

    In Maryland, a 5-year-old boy was shot when police exchanged gunfire with the child’s mother—eventually killing her—over a dispute that began when Korryn Gaines refused to accept a traffic ticket for driving without a license plate on her car.

    It’s difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the police state into the mix, it becomes near impossible to guard against the growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.

    The lesson being taught to our youngest—and most impressionable—citizens is this: in the American police state, you’re either a prisoner (shackled, controlled, monitored, ordered about, limited in what you can do and say, your life not your own) or a prison bureaucrat (politician, police officer, judge, jailer, spy, profiteer, etc.).

    Unfortunately, now that school is back in session, life is that much worse for the children of the American police state.

    The nation’s public schools—extensions of the world beyond the schoolhouse gates, a world that is increasingly hostile to freedom—have become microcosms of the American police state, containing almost every aspect of the militarized, intolerant, senseless, overcriminalized, legalistic, surveillance-riddled, totalitarian landscape that plagues those of us on the “outside.”

    If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools with his individuality and freedoms intact, you should count yourself fortunate.

    Most students are not so lucky.

    From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment he or she graduates, they will be exposed to a steady diet of

    • draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior,
    • overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech,
    • school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students,
    • standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking,
    • politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them,
    • and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

    Clearly, instead of making the schools safer, we have managed to make them more authoritarian.

    Young people in America are now first in line to be searched, surveilled, spied on, threatened, tied up, locked down, treated like criminals for non-criminal behavior, tasered and in some cases shot.

    It used to be that if you talked back to a teacher, or played a prank on a classmate, or just failed to do your homework, you might find yourself in detention or doing an extra writing assignment after school.

    That is no longer the case.

    Nowadays, students are not only punished for minor transgressions such as playing cops and robbers on the playground, bringing LEGOs to school, or having a food fight, but the punishments have become far more severe, shifting from detention and visits to the principal’s office into misdemeanor tickets, juvenile court, handcuffs, tasers and even prison terms.

    Students have been suspended under school zero tolerance policies for bringing to school “look alike substances” such as oreganobreath mints, birth control pills and powdered sugar.

    Look-alike weapons (toy guns—even Lego-sized ones, hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, even fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in hot water.

    Consider that by the time the average young person in America finishes their public school education, nearly one out of every three of them will have been arrested.

    Moreover, just as militarized police who look, think and act like soldiers on a battlefield have made our communities less safe, the growing presence of police in the nation’s schools is resulting in environments in which it’s no longer safe for children to act like children.

    Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers have become de facto wardens in elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepper spray, batons and brute force.

    Now advocates for such harsh police tactics and weaponry will tell you that school safety should be our first priority.

    What they might fail to mention in their zeal to lock down the schools are the lucrative, multi-million dollar deals being cut with military contractors to equip school cops with tasers, tanks, rifles and $100,000 shooting detection systems.

    Indeed, the militarization of the police has been mirrored in the public schools, where school police have been gifted with high-powered M16 rifles, MRAP armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military gear. One Texas school district even boasts its own 12-member SWAT team.

    What we’re grappling with is not merely a public school system that resembles a prison and is treating young people like prisoners but also a profit-driven system of incarceration has given rise to a growth in juvenile prisons and financial incentives for jailing young people.

    It has been said that America’s schools are the training ground for future generations.

    Instead of raising up a generation of freedom fighters, however, we seem to be busy churning out newly minted citizens of the American police state who are being taught the hard way what it means to comply, fear and march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

    As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s getting harder by the day to convince young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law.

    With every school police raid and overzealous punishment that is carried out in the name of school safety, the lesson being imparted is that Americans – especially young people – have no rights at all against the state or the police.

    The bottom line is this: if you want a nation of criminals, treat the citizenry like criminals.

    If you want young people who grow up seeing themselves as prisoners, run the schools like prisons.

    But if you want to raise up a generation of freedom fighters, who will actually operate with justice, fairness, accountability and equality towards each other and their government, then run the schools like freedom forums. Remove the metal detectors and surveillance cameras, re-assign the cops elsewhere, and start treating our nation’s young people like citizens of a republic and not inmates in a police state.

  • TIME Argues "Trolling" Demands Formal Policing Of The Internet

    Via The Daily Bell,

    How Trolls Are Ruining the Internet, Joel Stein … Troll Culture of Hate, TimeThey’re turning the web into a cesspool of aggression and violence. What watching them is doing to the rest of us may be even worse  …  This story is not a good idea. Not for society and certainly not for me. Because what trolls feed on is attention. And this little bit–these several thousand words–is like leaving bears a pan of baklava.  It would be smarter to be cautious, because the Internet’s personality has changed. – TIME

    TIME magazine has written yet another horrible article, this one basically calling for the Internet to be controlled and censored because of too many “trolls.”

    It’s not clear why there are more of them now than before. The only reason the article gives is that “mores” are being stripped away by anonymity and “aggression and violence” are “seeping from our smartphones into every aspect of our lives.”

    This doesn’t make much sense but TIME often doesn’t seem to make a great deal of sense. Smartphones have been around for years but TIME has only decided now, apparently, that trolling is a big enough problem to warrant a major article.

    And it’s one, eventually, that TIME suggests ought to be dealt with by civilian policing. You’d think the Internet itself provides enough ways, for the most part, to deal with all but the most persistent harassment. But TIME doesn’t see it that way.

    TIME is actually a little late to the party. The article actually builds on reports (here) that London’s Metropolitan Police are setting up a £1.7 million “Twitter squad” to fight social media trolling. Some £500,000 is funding a Home Office Online Hate Crime “hub” as well.

    More:

    Once it was a geek with lofty ideals about the free flow of information. Now, if you need help improving your upload speeds the web is eager to help with technical details, but if you tell it you’re struggling with depression it will try to goad you into killing yourself.

     

    Psychologists call this the online disinhibition effect, in which factors like anonymity, invisibility, a lack of authority and not communicating in real time strip away the mores society spent millennia building.

     

    … The people who relish this online freedom are called trolls, a term that originally came from a fishing method online thieves use to find victims. It quickly morphed to refer to the monsters who hide in darkness and threaten people.

     

    Internet trolls have a manifesto of sorts, which states they are doing it for the “lulz,” or laughs. What trolls do for the lulz ranges from clever pranks to harassment to violent threats.

    The article goes on to mention “doxxing” –  which is “publishing personal data, such as Social Security numbers and bank accounts.”

    Also something called “swatting,” –  “calling in an emergency to a victim’s house so the SWAT team busts in.”

    So we can see the article is conflating words with actions. Trolling, it is implied includes the theft of data and false reports of an emergency. Additionally, some of the examples of trolling seem aimed at men and women whose belief structures seem to be emphatically politically correct.

    No matter. Toward the end of the article, we get to the argument that the Internet needs official policing.

    As more trolling occurs, many victims are finding laws insufficient and local police untrained. “Where we run into the problem is the social-media platforms are very hesitant to step on someone’s First Amendment rights,” says Mike Bires, a senior police officer in Southern California who co-founded LawEnforcement.social, a tool for cops to fight on-line crime and use social media to work with their communities.

     

    “If they feel like someone’s life is in danger, Twitter and Snapchat are very receptive. But when it comes to someone harassing you online, getting the social-media companies to act can be very frustrating.” Until police are fully caught up, he recommends that victims go to the officer who runs the force’s social-media department.

    This excerpt mentions Twitter, which (controversially) has been relatively aggressive about punishing users it deems abusive. In some cases, lifetime bans are levied. Of course, it’s not just Twitter. Facebook and Google (via YouTube) monitor user communications on an ongoing basis.

    This is ironic, however, because both Facebook and Google are basically CIA-supported and funded facilities (here and here). One can make the argument within this context that the Internet’s largest providers are basically part of the US’s military-industrial complex.

    Thus the same groups that fight interminable overseas conflicts wounding and killing millions are also concerned with “trolling.”

    Certainly some “trolling” may be extremely malicious and even dangerous. But it obvious as well that the Internet has given people an independent voice along with important, alternative points of view. And this is obviously – and increasingly – disturbing to those who control society from behind the scenes.

    Conclusion: The idea is to generate yet another faux reason to regulate and police information technology. Britain has already begun, and TIME apparently wants to ensure that the US won’t be far behind.

  • Chicago Violent Crime Spreading To The "Safe" North Side Neighborhoods

    Chicago’s violent crime problem seems to be spreading to the historically safe “north side” neighborhoods.  The spike in crime on the north side comes as Chicago’s police department has diverted more officers to the city’s violent south and west side neighborhoods to fight extreme levels of violence there.  As reported by local Chicago news station WGN, violent crime is up 61% in the Loop this year with Near North Side up 50%, Lincoln Park up 42% and Edgewater up 44%.

    WGN also reports that officers have seemingly lost control of Chicago’s streets as they’re growing increasingly hesitant to confront people out of fear of being humiliated by the next viral arrest video.  Meanwhile, local gangs are reported to be offering incentives to “cop killers.”

    Officers are reportedly more hesitant to confront people engaging in criminal activity, for fear of having their arrests posted on viral video.

     

    Some local gangs are said to be offering incentives to cop killers.

    Per data collected by HeyJackass!, while crime on the north side is elevated it’s still no where near the level of violence reported in the city’s infamous south and west side neighborhoods like Austin, Englewood and Garfield Park. 

    Chicago By Neighborhood

     

    Chicago experienced a violent weekend with over 50 shootings and 7 homicides reported in just 2 days. 

    Daily Homicides

     

    With 470 homicides expected by the end of August, Chicago is well on its way to eclipsing the 508 homicides committed throughout all of 2015.

    Chicago YTD Homicides

  • The US Has A Huge Rate Of Whites In Incarceration (But Nobody's Talking About It)

    Submitted by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Data provided by PrisonStudies.org is helping shed light on America’s incarceration problem, demonstrating that only the small archipelago of Seychelles, located in the Indian Ocean off East Africa, has a higher incarceration rate than the U.S.

    But when studied carefully, the rates demonstrate yet another trend: America’s white prison population has been increasing in recent years while the number of blacks in prison has been dropping — and nobody is talking about it.

    According to the Prison Policy Initiative, America holdsmore than 2.3 million people in 1,719 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 942 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,283 local jails, and 79 Indian Country jails.” And while the racial disparities in the American justice system are well reported — especially considering one in every five people in jail is arrested for breaking drug-related laws — we are seldom asked to review imprisonment rates among other ethnic groups.

    Data provided by the U.S. Department of Justice shows 0.5 percent of white U.S. residents were in prison in December 2013, placing the rate of incarceration among whites in America at 466 per 100,000 citizens.

    When compared to the incarceration rates of other countries without regard for other ethnic groups, the rate of white prisoners in America is still higher than most. At 466 per 100,000 citizens in jail, America still has a place in the top ten list of countries with the largest prison population in the world if only the white population is taken into account.

    Despite the trend, the media seldom discusses the high incarceration rate among whites.

    In an article published earlier this year by the Washington Post, Keith Humphreys writes that [t]here’s been a big decline in the black incarceration rate [in America], and almost nobody’s paying attention.

    In the article, Humphreys suggests that as the overall number of prisoners drops, the biggest winners are members of the black community. But hidden in plain sight is the new trend: the growth of incarceration rates among whites, both female and male.

    According to the Washington Post article, the rate of incarceration among white women went from 34 per 100,000 in 2000 to 53 per 100,000 people in 2014. Among the black female community, 205 out of 100,000 were imprisoned in 2000 while nearly half that number (109 per 100,000) were imprisoned in 2014.

    Among the black male population, 3,457 inmates per 100,000 people were imprisoned in 2000 while in 2014, there were 2,724 black inmates per 100,000 people. In 2000, there were 449 white inmates per 100,000 citizens while in 2014, the rate increased slightly with 465 inmates per 100,000.

    Though rates of incarceration among the black population are still higher than other groups, the number of white prisoners has grown considerably over the past 15 years, prompting experts in the area to attempt to identify the causes behind the shift.

    To Pew Charitable Trusts’ Adam Gelb, the director of the organization’s public safety performance project, “changes in drug use and enforcement over the past 15 years” could be responsible for this demographic shift.

    Methamphetamine, prescription opioid and heroin epidemics have affected whites more than did the crack cocaine epidemic,” reported the Washington Post. In the 1980s and 1990s, incarceration rates among blacks increased because of the crack cocaine epidemic, a phenomenon that may be repeating itself now among whites.

    But whether blacks, Latinos, or whites go to jail more often is far from the most important point one should take from the data at hand. Instead, one should look into how the drug war has been exploited by law enforcement, placing a great number of low-level, nonviolent offenders in jail — at times for life — over drug-related laws.

  • "In Preparation For Crisis" Germany Considers Bringing Back Military Service

    If ordinary Germans were not traumatized enough by this weekend’s shocking official announcement that they should prepare to stockpile several days of food and water “in case of an attack of catastrophe” as part of the country’s revised “Civil Defense Concept”, then the latest news from German press agency DPA, which cites a confidential document prepared by the government according to which the government is considering “bringing back nationwide conscription in times of crisis”, such as situations in which the country needs to “defend NATO’s external borders,” will surely put them over the edge.

    “An attack on German territory that would require conventional defence is unlikely,” the document said. However, civil defence measures are necessary because a “major security threat in the future cannot be ruled out,” it added.

    The German government abolished compulsory military service in 2011, arguing that there was no longer a geopolitical need for it. Even before then, many young men had avoided military service by opting to perform non-military service, such as working in care homes or in hospitals.

    However, it appears that the government is now quietly considering its reintroduction under the controversial Civil Defense Plan, which is due to be discussed by the German cabinet on Wednesday, and focuses on fulfilling Germany’s obligations to defend NATO’s external border. However, as DPA adds, the proposal to revive military service is not readily apparent and can only be found buried in a section entitled “Civil support for the armed forces.”

    According to DPA, Germany is considering new security strategies after two terrorist attacks and a mass shooting last month, as well as tensions between the NATO military alliance and Russia about the 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent military involvement in eastern Ukraine.

    “Quick and reliable delivery of mail especially important for the Bundeswehr (in particular, call-up papers and notices of performance in times of reintroduction of conscription) is ensured under Post- and Telecommunications Safety Act,” the draft reads according to the German press agency.

    Adding to the unexpected militarization of German society, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said earlier this month that the Bundeswehr would undergo training with federal police in preparation for deployment in domestic counterterrorism operations.

    Should the government decide that there is sufficient grounds for it, conscription can be easily reintroduced as it is specifically authorized in the German constitution and can be returned with a simple law approved by the parliament, according to Die Zeit

    Apart from conscription, the German Interior Ministry’s paper also mentions the obligations of civilians and civilian organizations to assist the Bundeswehr in other ways, particularly by helping “recruitment organizations and accommodation infrastructure.” Some of the military’s support functions could also be outsourced to civilian companies, such as “a limited provision of catering for the troops during operations,” the paper reportedly says. In other words, should war break out German GDP will soar.

    However, then the document goes far beyond modern-day military outsourcing tasks and discusses other proposals resembling war-time measures. Cited by RT, in times of crisis, the draft reads, the federal government can ensure “nutritional emergency preparedness” by imposing tax obligations relating to cultivation, processing, distribution and sale of food products.” The plan also includes the abovementioned suggestion to ration food and water in case of crisis.

    As we reported on Sunday, the proposed “Civil Defense Concept” is the first time since the Cold War that the German government has considered such measures, but the plan was devised as early as 2012, according to Germany’s FAZ newspaper.

    The German cabinet will review and decide on the “defense concept” plan tomorrow, at which point – if endorsed – we will likely have more details on how Germany is preparing for war crisis.

  • How The Fed's Facebook PR Campaign Went Terribly Wrong

    Over the weekend we reported that just days after the Fed’s launched its first Facebook page last Thursday, in an attempt to mollify the masses with this odd public relations gambit in which the Fed tried to pass off as “one of the people”, the result was… “not what it had expected.” Overnight, even American Banker chimed in, reported that “when the Federal Reserve Board finally launched its own Facebook page last week, the response was as swift as it was predictable. The page was quickly overrun by critics, who angrily denounced the central bank as a tool of Wall Street and accused it of working against the American public. “The Federal Reserve is the root of all problems in the United States,” Luke Peets, a libertarian, wrote in a response that earned nearly 500 likes on its own and was typical of the commentary on the page.”

    Ironically, while the Fed racked up “likes” for the page,  topping 11,000 by Monday afternoon leading many to wonder just which Bangladeshi clickfarm Janet was printing money for to burnish the Fed’s image, the comments it received were universally negative, leaving some – like this website for example – to wonder how long it would be before the central bank would decide to retreat.

    Amusingly, American Banker pointed out something spot on: just like everything else it does, the Fed had zero real world experience when it came even to its first foray into FaceBook, which also explains why this PR attempt was such a debacle:

    The Fed’s move surprised more than internet trolls, however, but also social media experts, who questioned what the central bank was trying to accomplish and its overall commitment to social media. To some, the page appeared to take a particularly clueless approach.

     

    All of the postings — eight by deadline — were either press releases, speeches by officials or general explainers on the nature of the Fed system. Essentially, the Fed is using Facebook as one more way in which it releases its standard public relations material.

     

    That fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Facebook, which is a social network designed for interaction and conversation — not the simple spouting of PR.

    The Fed is “checking a box,” said Frank Eliason, the head of customer experience for Zeno Group and formerly head of global social media at Citigroup. ” ‘We were told we should be in social media.’ This is the biggest mistake I see.” Perhaps just like the Fed “was told” to lower rates to zero and print money 7 years ago, and realize in retrospect that all those “conspiracy theorists” who had slammed its policy as destructive and clueless, had been spot on.

    Meanwhile, the farce continued:

    Social media experts universally faulted the Fed for failing to respond to any comments it received. No one expected the central bank to take on trolls opposed to, say, the existence of the Fed itself. But failing to even generally respond is a big mistake, they said.

     

    “They are not responding at all from what I can see,” said Jennifer Abernethy, president of Socially Delivered, a global social media management concierge firm, and the author of “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Social Media Marketing.”

     

    “They don’t need to respond to everybody, but at the end of the day, post some kind of response,” Abernethy said. “They need to see if they can turn it back around and get it to be more of a conversation.”

    Sadly they can’t, because in this particular case it really is the Fed, alone, against the entire world, and any additional response would lead to an even more aggravated battering by the commentariat.

    “That may be its most egregious error, experts said — and a sign that the Fed’s social media strategy will be a failure.” By just posting press releases and speeches, the Fed may be inadvertently reinforcing critics’ views of the institution.

    Considering how many times the Fed itself has admitted that its critics were right, this shouldn’t really be a surprise.

    “You really want to come across as one with the community rather than ‘I’m speaking at you,’ ” Eliason said. ” ‘Let me teach you about the Federal Reserve’ — that’s not being one with the community. It’s sending a message that we view ourselves as above. It’s playing into the stereotype of what people think.”

    Frank… it’s not a stereotype.

    And for those who missed all the fun on Sunday, here is a great video summary courtesy of Mile Maloney.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 23rd August 2016

  • Dispelling The Norwegian Housing Myth

    Submitted by Alexander Grover in Oslo, Norway

    Recently, Dagens Næringsliv published an article where an economist from DnB (Norway’s largest bank) stated that Norway is not in a housing bubble although conditions resemble one and prices can still fall.  The article bases the current prices on the following assumptions:

    • High population growth
    • High development in household incomes and expectations
    • Good conditions on the labor market
    • Low-interest rates and high credit supply

    The article continues, differentiating the Norwegian housing market from the American one, basically stating that a socialist country with lots of benefits can handle higher debt levels than a capitalist one. It fails to acknowledge the impact of the eroding oil foundation on the long term economy.

    My previous article discusses and questions the above in detail. To further emphasize that housing’s best days are behind us, let’s take a look at prices in dollar and commodity terms:  

    Oslo Apartment Prices in Dollar Terms

    Regarding universal currency, this bubble already popped in 2013, now trying to stage a recovery. However, the long-term USDNOK rate will depend on oil prices, trade balances and interest rates.

    Housing Prices in Gold Terms          

    Gold is considered both the universal commodity and currency since it does not perish, easy to assay and disconnected from the Central bank’s hysterics.  In gold terms, the bubble burst back in 2007.

    Real Interest Rates

    As long as real rates are negative (and becoming more so), the economy is out of balance (since mid-2012), eroding the currency value and creating asset bubbles.  When people stop losing from saving at a bank and Norway finds an alternative to the oil industry, the economy can be considered stable.  Since my last article, the gap between inflation and benchmark rates have widened (from ca. -3.3 to -3.9), putting more pressure on the NOK and bringing us closer to a day of reckoning: uncontrollable inflation or an asset price correction via sudden and decisive rate hikes. 

    Source: Norges Bank and SSB

    Conclusion        

    Nevertheless, even though recent inflation figures make Norway reluctant to cut rates, they may do so, maintaining the illusion. House prices may increase in NOK terms, but they won’t buy much when sellers realize a profit. Remember, there are other investments than housing: dividend yielding stocks in companies with high equity ratios, precious metals, education and your own business.

  • Marc Faber Rings the Alarm Bell, Predicts a 50% Near Term Correction in Stocks

     

     


    Marc Faber Rings the Alarm Bell, Predicts a 50% Near Term Correction in Stocks

    Written by Nathan McDonald (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)


    Volatility is the name of the game. Stocks are acting up, but standing strong. Oil is propelling higher and the US dollar is falling. Turmoil around the world has never been higher and an ominous shadow is lurking in the background, ready to strike.

     

    The situation that we now face is ultimately going to end in a collapse of epic proportion. The financial world is now a ticking bomb that is just waiting to explode – I know this, you know this and even if the masses don’t, they can feel it in their bones.

     

    The only ones that don’t seem to be aware of this dangerous situation are the elites who are currently profiting off of this heightened turmoil and their mainstream media mouthpieces who couldn’t be more happy to assist in the destruction of the Western financial world. After all, it would make for a good story, right?

     

    Unfortunately, I am not alone in this assessment of the current global situation. Marc Faber, a prominent voice in the financial community and the editor of the Gloom, Boom and Doom report has taken an ultra bearish view of the current economy.

     

    A recent CNBC article, highlights a recent interview they had with Marc Faber this past week, and states the following:

     

    The notoriously bearish Marc Faber is doubling down on his dire market view.


    The editor and publisher of the Gloom, Boom & Doom Report said Monday on CNBC’s “Trading Nation” that stocks are likely to endure a gut-wrenching drop that would rival the greatest crashes in stock market history.

    “I think we can easily give back five years of capital gains, which would take the market down to around 1,100,” Faber said, referring to a level 50 percent below Monday’s closing on the S&P 500.


    The S&P 500 is sitting at 2,184.29 at the time of writing! This would be a truly stunning collapse of the markets. One that would send the financial world plummeting out of control. Contagion would spread and the credit markets would utterly and completely seize up.

     

    What is equally as shocking as this claim of monumental collapse is the fact that Marc Faber believes this will happen in the near term future! This isn’t some far fetched 5-10 year prediction that no one will remember he made down the road. No, this is a bold statement from a man who accurately predicted the 2008 crisis and many of the drastic events that have unfolded in modern times.

     

    Marc Faber is just one more expert that is ringing the alarm bells. Sadly, the mainstream media continue to dismiss the experts who are trying to warn the masses, stating that we are conspiracy theorist and nothing more. Even though we have been proven right in our predictions time and time again, causing the trash can to nearly overflow with tin foil hats.

     

    I don’t know if the collapse is in the near term such as Marc Faber believes, but I know that it could occur at anytime. Whether it be a week, a month, or years from now, wouldn’t you rather be prepared? The risk is simply too great to not be.

     

    Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

     

     

     

    Marc Faber Rings the Alarm Bell, Predicts a 50% Near Term Correction in Stocks

    Written by Nathan McDonald (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

  • Follow The Money Trail For Source Of "Russian Threat" Paranoia

    Submitted by Neil Clark, originally posted op-ed via RT,

    You’d have to have been locked in a wardrobe if you live in the West not to have heard ominous phrases like “The Russian threat”, “Russian aggression in Europe” and “Russia set to invade Poland/Estonia/ Ukraine/Finland.”

    Certain people are trying to scare us witless about Russia and the “threat” the country apparently poses. The hysteria reminds one to the build up to the Iraq war, when we were warned every day about the “threat” of Saddam’s deadly WMDs, which – surprise, surprise – turned out not to exist.

    Now, we can talk for hours about grand, highfalutin theories in the field of geopolitics and international relations in attempts to explain why this is happening.

    But “follow the money” trail is all we really have to do. Ask yourself who benefits financially from all this scaremongering and then you’ll understand it.

    This week, The Intercept revealed how US defense contractors have been telling investors that the so-called “Russian threat” was good for business.

    Retired Army general Richard Cody, vice-President of the US’s seventh largest defense contractor, L-3 communications, bemoaned the fact that "when the old Cold War ended” defense budgets went south.” Now though a “resurgent Russia” meant an "uptick was coming.”

     

    There was a similarly upbeat message from Stuart Bradie, chief executive of CBR, who talked of the "opportunities" the current situation presents.

     

    The case for higher defense spending to counter the “Russian threat” has been made by a series of think-tanks. And guess what? The most hawkish of these lobbyists – sorry, “think tanks” – receive sizable funding from US defense contractors!

    The Intercept cites the examples of the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council.

    But there’s plenty others too. Back in February, I wrote about a “non-partisan” US policy institute called the Center for European Policy Analysis. The CEPA issued a paper attacking Russian media outlet Sputnik for giving a voice to "anti-establishment protest politicians" who were critical of NATO.

    And who funds the “non-partisan” CEPA? Recent donors include the US Department of Defense, Boeing, Raytheon Company, Textron Systems, Sikorsky Aircraft, Bell Helicopter and the Lockheed Martin Corporation.

    What’s happening in Europe today is the same that’s been happening in the Middle East for years.

    The US creates chaos, then goes in to sell countries in the region the latest military hardware to “protect” them from the chaos. It’s quite a racket and clearly modeled on the extortion schemes of the Mafia. Countries that don’t want to pay up, like Yugoslavia in 1990s, are likely to get bombed.

    Consider how the crisis in Ukraine started. The US spent billions of dollars in a “regime change” op to topple the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych and replace it with a pro-US puppet administration. We even heard the State Department’s Victoria Nuland – after she had handed out cookies to anti-government protestors in the Maidan – discussing who should and shouldn’t be in the new “democratic” Ukrainian government, with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.

    When the people of Crimea predictably said “Nyet” to the State Department’s operation, and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia in a referendum, Russia was cast as the “aggressor” who had “invaded” the Ukraine. The US would have known that its regime change op in Ukraine would cause chaos and increase tensions with Russia. And that’s exactly why they did it!

    To counter the new Russian “threat” not just to “democratic” Ukraine, but to other countries in eastern Europe, we’re told we need a big increase in NATO “defense” spending. And who does that benefit? Why, US defense contractors!

    Last year, as I reported here, Poland picked US-made Patriot Missiles – manufactured by Raytheon and Airbus military helicopters for a $5.53bn military upgrade.

    In November 2014, “threatened” Estonia purchased 80 Javelin missiles from the US at a cost of 40m Euros. In February, we heard that the country would be spending 818m euro on new weapons and equipment by 2020.

    As Charlie Chaplin commented in his classic 1947 black comedy Monsieur Verdoux, "Wars, conflicts, it’s all business!"

    By any objective assessment it's NATO – not Russia – with its build up of arms and soldiers on the borders of Russia, which threatens the peace of Europe. But anyone who points this out, and mentions the military alliance’s relentless Drang nach Osten, threatens the profits of US defense companies and is attacked as an “appeaser” or “Kremlin stooge” by those with a vested financial interest in keeping tensions high.

    Consider the hysterical attacks on British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his recent, very sensible comments on NATO and Russia. Corbyn was asked in a leadership television debate: "How would you as Prime Minister react to a violation by Vladimir Putin of the sovereignty of a fellow NATO state?"

    He replied: 

    You’d obviously try to avoid that happening in the first place. You would build up a good dialogue with Russia to ask them, support them in respecting borders. We would try to introduce a demilitarization between Russia and Ukraine, and all the other countries down on the border between Russia and Eastern Europe. What we cannot allow is a series of continuous build-ups of troops on both sides which can only lead to great danger in the future. It’s beginning to look awfully like Cold War politics at the present time. We’ve got to engage with Russia, engage with demilitarization in that area, in order to try and avoid that danger happening… I don’t wish to go to war, what I want to do is achieve a world where we don’t need to go to war, where there is no need for it. That can be done.

    As Carlyn Harvey, writing in The Canary, points out: "For millions of citizens around the world, this (Corbyn’s anti-war stance), is great news. But for those intent on maintaining the politics of power and the lucrative industries that support that, Corbyn’s vision is nothing short of a disaster.”

    Corbyn is portrayed by the endless war lobby as a “dangerous extremist” because if other western politicians followed suit, and promoted disarmament and dialogue, instead of confrontation and war, defense profits would take a big hit.

    It was a US President, Dwight D Eisenhower, who first warned us about the US military-industrial complex, back in 1961: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.”

    No one could accuse Ike, the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War Two, of being a “pinko” or a “Kremlin stooge.” But the situation is much worse today than it was back in Eisenhower’s day.

    Neocons have embedded themselves in the corridors of power. They claim to be interested in spreading “democracy,” but the reality is that the neocon movement is all about money and profits. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the US politician who railed against détente with the Soviet Union in the 70s, was, with very good reason, nicknamed the “Senator for Boeing.”

    Thirty years later, the first post-launch meeting of the Henry Jackson Society discussed how to get smears about the anti-war academic Noam Chomsky being a “denier” of the Srebrenica massacre into circulation.

    For some people it seems, the old Cold War never ended.

    How much longer will the citizens of the world put up with a situation in which warmongers with ties to the military-industrial complex are allowed to stoke up international tensions? The next time you read or hear someone issue stark warnings about the “Russian threat” – and why NATO needs to hike its spending to deal with it – just follow the money trail.

    It’s likely to be revealing.

  • Meet The Hedge Fund Puppetmaster Behind The US Presidential Election

    In the world of hedge funds, few have achieved as much consistent success and profitable returns as Jim Simon’s Renaissance Technologies, the multi-billion fund which unleashed and popularized quant investing, and whose legendary “Medallion” fund, run mostly for fund employees, has been the object of LP lust for years. However, just as notable is that Jim Simons, who Forbes calculated recently is the 50th richest person in the world and who made $1.7 billion last year alone, is not only a prominent Democratic donor, but has been one of the most generous sponsors of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

     

    A recent analysis by the WSJ calculated that, of the $48.5 million donated by hedge funds to the Hillary presidential campaign, Renaissance, and mostly Jim Simons, is the second most generous with $9.5 million, a runner up only to Saban Capital Group with $10 million, followed by such Democrat stalwarts as Paloma Partners ($8.1 million), the Pritzker Group ($7.9 million), and of course Soros ($7.9 million).

    To be sure, Simons’ appreciation of Clinton has been duly noted in the past, most recently by the Observer:

    Mr. Simons’ Rennaissance Technologies has begun pouring millions of dollars into Hillary Clinton‘s campaign, as the hedge fund has donated over $2 million to Ms. Clinton so far this election cycle. Euclidean Capital—also owned by Mr. Simons—has given the Clinton campaign over $7 million in contributions, and the figures are likely to increase as Ms. Clinton slowly transitions her attention from Democratic Primary opponent Bernie Sanders to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Renaissance Technologies was called out by Senator John McCain in 2014 for evading nearly $6 billion in taxes by disguising day-to-day investments as long term investments, and in 2015, Bloomberg ran an article describing how the firm lobbied the U.S. Labor Department for special tax evading privileges.

    More recently, Jim Simons spoke to CNBC and said that “if you compare the presidential candidates using the Sharpe ratio, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is ‘not a good investment.'”

    “Now even if those two candidates had the same expected return — which I doubt — but even if Trump’s was as good as Hillary’s, his volatility is so enormous that his Sharpe ratio is terrible,” Simons said. “So as an investment, Trump is not a good investment, no matter what you might think of his potential return. He’s just a wild man,” he said.

     

    Simons said that he is a supporter of Clinton, who he said would “make a fine president.” When asked what a Trump presidency would mean for the U.S. outlook, Simons said “it wouldn’t be good for the country.”

    Yet while Simons’ unabashed support for Clinton, both ideological and financial, and criticism of Trump is very public, what is perhaps less known is that Rentec’s Co-CEO, billionaire Robert Mercer, is the man who is now  pulling the string behind Donald Trump’s entire campaign.

    It did not start off that way. Robert Mercer began the presidential campaign by throwing millions, some $13 million to be exact, in financial donations at the person who was Trump’s final challenger, Ted Cruz, through a SuperPac run by Kellyanne Conway, Keep the Promise, before the republican’s campaign was extinguished by Donald Trump.

     

    Much more importantly, Mercer is the person who secretly instigated last week’s bloodless putch inside the Trump campaign, which saw the surprising overthrow of Paul Manafort as Trump’s campaign chairman (who subsequently resigned from the campaign due to allegations of undisclosed links to Ukraine lobbying and potential corruption which also implicated the consultancy firm of Tony Podesta), and the appointment of Breitbart’s Steve Bannon and Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. Here are the details:

    Mr. Mercer, co-chief executive of the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, has longstanding ties to both people elevated to top posts in the campaign on Wednesday. He and his daughter, Rebekah, had recommended both Breitbart News chairman Stephen Bannon and Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who already worked for the campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. The Mercers met privately with Mr. Trump at a fundraiser last weekend at the East Hampton, N.Y., home of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, according to a person at the event.

    And just like that the man who Rentec’s founder, Jim Simons, said “is not a good investment” because his “Sharpe ratio is terrible”, has become the investment of RenTec’s CEO.

    Top Trump donors said the staff reshuffling showed the Mercers’ widening role in the campaign and was a potential setback for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who had sought to tailor Mr. Trump into a more traditional political figure. The expansion of a billionaire donor’s sway in the campaign follows more than a year of Mr. Trump criticizing major donors on the trail and casting his rivals as “puppets” for accepting the backing of super PACs.

    It’s not just Bob: it’s a family affair:

    Doug Deason, whose family was also a top contributor to the Cruz super PAC network, said Ms. Mercer and Ms. Conway worked together closely. “She and Kellyanne had a great working relationship and did a really good job of spending their dollars wisely,” he said. He called Ms. Mercer “very driven and very focused.”

    As for Mercer’s relationship with Steve Bannon, Trump’s new right hand man, it also has a simple trace: money. “Mr. Mercer has also funded Mr. Bannon’s employer Breitbart News, a conservative media outlet that delights in bashing the GOP establishment, and a nonprofit organization, the Government Accountability Institute, that was co-founded by Mr. Bannon, who runs it. Mr. Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, is listed as a board member for the organization in 2014 tax filings.”

    Here another curious link emerged: “The Trump campaign recently hired Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm owned in part by Mr. Mercer that offers “psychographic” analysis related to the personalities and values of voters.”

    And while the emergence of the true puppetmaster behind Trump’s campaign is fascinating, we were more curious to dig deeper into the potential influence of Renaissance not on just one, but both candidates. We were not surprised by what we found.

    According to OpenSecrets, for the 2015-2016 period, Renaissance is not just generous; it happens to be the most “generous” financial contributor in the world, ranking 1 out of 16,867 tracked contributors.

    As a result, in the ranking of top contributors, RenTec is higher than such iconic names as Tom Steyer’s Farallon, Elliott Management, and Soros.

    Broken down by recipients

    … we find that while the biggest recipients of cash is the Cruz-supporting Keep the Promise SuperPAC, whose effectively only donor was Robert Mercer, the second biggest recipient is the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA SuperPAC, where the top two donors are Jim Simons and George Soros.

     

    But what we find most fascinating is the dramatic ramp up in campaign spending by RenTec not just over the past two elections cycles, but most notably the current one, which is already bigger in one year than all previous contributions in RenTec’s entire donation history combined

    … but the republican-democrat split. It’s effectively identical.

    Why this recent surge in political spending, and why the attempt to fund not just one both both presidential candidates’ campaigns? Some answers can be found in recent articles, such as “How RenTec Made More Than $34 Billion In Profits Since 1998: “Fictional Derivatives“, “Renaissance Said Probed by Senate Panel on Tax Maneuver” and “Senate Report: Tax Move Helped Hedge Funds Save Billions“, however not even the utmost determination to perpetuate a beneficial tax avoidance regime can explain this unprecedented level of campaign funding or, in the case of Mercer, micromanagement and orchestration.

    Perhaps the answer is far simpler: having learned that the best way to make virtually unlimited profits in the markets is to be as close to cornering them as possible (or being first, or cheating), RenTec’s executive team has applied the same philosophy to the presidential race, because if you are the primary source of strategy and/or cash for both presidential candidates, you are by definition, “perfectly hedged.” And, by that same definition, you are about to buy yourself a presidential election.

  • Top 25 Corporate Pension Plans Alone Are Underfunded By Over $225 Billion

    Massively underfunded public and private pensions, and all the risks inherent therein, have been a frequent topic of conversation for us recently.  Today, Tobias Levkovich at Citigroup published a report pointing out just how dire the situation is for the S&P 500's largest corporate pension funds.  The study found that pensions of just the companies in the S&P 500 alone were over $375BN underfunded at the end of 2015 with the top 25 underfunded plans accounting for over $225BN of the underfunding.  Moreover, Citi pointed out that pensions don't seem to be participating in the massive equity rally that has grown ever so "bubbly" since 2009 (and issue we explained in detail here: "Pension Duration Dilemma – Why Pension Funds Are Driving The Biggest Bond Bubble In History").

    Pension under-funding continues to be a major issue for S&P 500 constituents as very respectable equity market gains over the last seven years have not substantially alleviated pension pressures. The S&P 500 has appreciated by more than 200% at the end of 2015 since the low in March 2009 but the aggregate underfunded status of $376 billion in December 2015 is now 22% higher than the $308 billion under-funding peak seen in December 2008 (see Figure 1). While the funding status in 2013 recovered by more than $225 billion versus 2012 alongside strengthening equity market performance and a higher discount rate, this trend reversed in 2014 and only improved moderately in 2015. Specifically, the slightly higher discount rate contributed to the progress in 2015’s pension funding status, not higher equity prices.

    Per the table below, S&P 500 corporate pensions went from being fully funded in 2007, in aggregate, to $375BN underfunded in just 8 years.  The primary problem, of course, is the Fed's low interest rate policies which are crushing both sides of the pension equation.  Pension assets have basically stagnated since 2007, up less than 10%, as pensions struggle to "find yield."  Meanwhile, lower yields on corporate bonds have driven discount rates through the floor causing the present value of liabilities to skyrocket over 40% over the same period. 

    After dipping in 2014, the discount rate rose modestly in 2015, causing pension obligations to ease but pensions remain severely underfunded. The present value of corporate pension obligations is heavily influenced by interest rates and thus lower yields typically cause deterioration in funding status. While forecasts for higher yields in the future should lead to decreased concerns over the underfunded status of US pensions, Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) accounts remain significantly under-funded as corporations attempt to shift these costs onto individuals, but that may take some time.

    Pension

     

    Citi points out that all ten S&P 500 sectors remain underfunded, with Energy continuing to be the least funded sector. The pension review found that only 30 companies within the S&P 500 were fully funded at year-end 2015, with nearly half of the overfunded companies coming from the Financials sector.

    Pension

     

    Finally, Citi points out that pensions have been pulling assets out of equities and moving into fixed income, a phenomenon they attribute to pensions being "unwilling to allocate assets towards stocks after two major equity pullbacks in the past 15 years."  But, as we've suggested before (see "Pension Duration Dilemma – Why Pension Funds Are Driving The Biggest Bond Bubble In History"), the problem is less likely due to fear of historical equity volatility and more related to a desire to match asset and liability duration.

    Pension funds appear unwilling to allocate assets towards stocks after two major equity pullbacks in the past 15 years clobbered pension programs leaving allocators and consultants relatively risk averse with LDI (liability driven investing) taking over the mindset. Moreover, current ERISA requirements call for companies to keep enough short-term cash and equivalents available to pay out current pension liabilities. Fortunately, corporate cash flow, free-cash flow, earnings and cash holdings are at or near record highs making required cash contributions to pension funds a much more manageable expense for S&P 500 constituents. Note that the funding status at 81.5% declined from the 87.8% level seen in 2013, which was the best reading in the past eight years, but remained markedly better than 2012’s 77.3%, which was the weakest point since 1991.

     

    S&P 500 constituents’ pension plan allocations to equities edged down to 42.4% in  2015 from 44.5% in 2014, the lowest level we have seen in the past nine years (see Figure 4). Interestingly, bond mutual funds saw a reversal of flows, as released by ICI, which saw more than $25 billion flow out of bond funds last year (vs inflows of roughly $58 billion so far this year), while US pension funds increased their fixed income allocation by almost one percent to 44.8% (see Figure 5).

    Pension Equity Allocation

     

    Citi Fixed Income Allocatin

     

    Equity markets have largely dismissed pension underfunding issues as they reach higher highs everyday.  That said, at some point the pension underfunding issue will deteriorate to a level that will be too large to ignore requiring either massive cuts in benefits for 1,000s of employees or taxpayer funded bailouts.  We suspect we know which will be the more palatable to our elected officials. 

  • Idiocracy Director: It's Kind Of Scary How Quickly The Movie Became A Documentary

    Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

    For years, fans of the 2006 cult film Idiocracy have lamented society’s drift toward the fictional reality in which farmers and leaders water their crops with sports drinks but can’t figure out why they won’t grow.

    Earlier this year, the film’s screenwriter, Etan Cohen, tweeted, “I never expected #idiocracy to become a documentary.”

      Now, Mike Judge, the film’s director, has weighed in on the growing similarities between his satirical, dystopian United States set hundreds of years in the future — and present-day America.   In the film, an “average Joe” from the Army participates in an experiment gone wrong that leaves him hibernating for centuries. When Joe Bowers awakens, he learns the intelligence of the general population has deteriorated so severely that he is one of the most intelligent people alive — so intelligent, in fact, that he is celebrated for suggesting people use water to nourish their crops.

    Judge, the creative mind behind Beavis and Butthead, Office Space, and HBO’s Silicon Valley, told the Daily Beast “it’s a tad bit scary” how closely the film and real world now parallel each other.

    Three or four years ago, I started getting comments about it, people discovering it, and it just keeps building. Now every other Twitter comment I get is about Idiocracy, and how it’s a documentary now,” he said.

    He even pointed to specific instances where life is imitating art, not just in America, but around the world.

    At first, I was just thinking, yeah, that’s nice to hear, but then very specific things, like Carl’s Jr. announcing that they were going to have a completely robotic, non-employee store — and it’s Carl’s Jr. in the movie.

    Indeed, Carl’s Jr. has moved to employ robots.

    Then there’s this thing called the Fellatio Café in Switzerland where you get blowjobs with coffee, and we had the Starbucks thing in there,” Judge said, referencing a scene from the film where Joe says he could use a coffee from Starbucks. “Yeah, well I really don’t think we have time for a hand job, Joe,” a character from the idiocracy tells him. They later pass a Starbucks and Joe learns they offer sexual services in addition to coffee.

    And then Donald Trump being in the WWF [World Wrestling Federation] before, and talking about his penis size. It’s just one specific thing after another! Judge continued, linking the Republican front-runner to the film’s President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Drew Herbert Camacho, the ex-porn star and five-time wrestling champion who leads the futuristic United States.

    In fact, earlier this year, Judge and Cohen planned to produce a series of spots with Terry Crews, who played Camacho, to subtly criticize Trump.

    As the Daily Beast noted, “they were simply waiting on 20th Century Fox, which owned the rights to the film, to sign off on the ads.” But as word got out that the spots were intended to mock The Donald, Judge says the project “kind of fell apart.”

    I wanted to put them out a little more quietly and let them go viral, rather than people announcing we’re making anti-Trump ads. Just let them be funny first. Doing something satirical like that is better if you just don’t say, ‘Here we come with the anti-Trump ads!’ Also, when Terry heard that announcement he wasn’t happy about it,” he said.

    When Daily Beast reporter Marlow Stern suggested notoriously right-wing Fox News might not have approved of the message, Judge replied, “Yeah. That’s the other thing. I think there was a roadblock there, too. I just heard that they were put on the shelf, so it looks like they’re not going to happen.

    Though America is still a few years off from watering its crops with Gatorade — because electrolytes — the 2016 election continues to confirm Americans are struggling to maintain their intellectual (and moral) integrity.

    It’s surreal. I didn’t want Idiocracy to get popular by the world getting stupider faster. I guess I was 450 years off! But yeah, it’s a tad bit scary! Judge added with a laugh.

    But as Donald Trump, his supporters, Hillary Clinton, and the characters in Idiocracy might say:

    I like money.

  • New Russia-China-Iran Alliance Could Push US Out Of Much Of The Middle East

    Submitted by Darius Shahtamasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

    When the current Syrian conflict first erupted in 2011 – and then enflamed in 2012 – a small minority of the American public probably wondered why President Obama was not intervening to help the Syrian people as he had done in Libya (they were likely completely unaware the president had already been interfering heavily in Syria since the conflict began). However, some pundits speculated that Obama would eventually intervene directly, and that this intervention would be the beginning of the end of the American empire as we know it.

    What started out as a seemingly hollow prediction has become as true a statement as any. First, American involvement began with funding, arming, and training violent rebels to try to overthrow the Syrian government. Then came attempts to misrepresent so-called “intelligence” to justify military intervention against Assad in 2013. And finally, like a dream come true, Washington was then able to capitalize  on the growth of ISIS in Syria, a growth predicted by their own security establishment in 2012, which then became an excuse to start bombing Syrian territory in 2014. By interfering so forcibly in the affairs of Syria, the U.S. has forced a number of countries  — notably Iran, China and Russia — to step up and strike back at U.S. efforts to destabilize the region.

    Since the beginning of the conflict, Iran has been heavily involved due to the fact Syria is an important ally to the Islamic republic, bound by a mutual defense agreementMuch to the anger of the U.S., just this week, Iran allowed Russia to strike Syrian territory from its Hamadan air base. Iran is supplying ground troops, advisement, and high level training to Syrian pro-Assad forces. They are also providing a credit line, and Iranian involvement is growing in tandem with the two nuclear powers also working in defense of the Syrian regime.

    Russia has a history of being involved in Syria, but following its direct military intervention last year, they have shown they can set up their own no fly zone within the country at any moment (note that the Russian intervention is arguably legitimate given that they have received authority from the Assad regime to do so). Despite this, they have continued to extend a hand to Washington to achieve their stated goals of defeating ISIS together.

    China has sided with Russia and Syria for some time now, using its veto power at the U.N Security Council level to block resolutions on Syria – after Russia and China were completely duped by the Security Council resolution on Libya in 2011. China has warned the U.S. against attacking Syria and Iran, and now, they have officially stated they are looking to join the fight on the side of the Syrian government, further complicating the issue from Washington’s standpoint.

    Unless the U.S. wants to confront these players directly, it has no choice but to accept that they have lost a war they directly and indirectly started through covert CIA operations that began in 2011 (and as some would argue, well before that). This isn’t a loss in the Iraq or Vietnam sense — which are arguably victories in the eyes of the elite class. Rather, the Syrian war is an operation that has left them with less influence in the region than when the Syrian crisis began (cue picture of John Kerry dining with Bashar al-Assad in Damascus in 2009).

    It will be back to the drawing board for Washington, whose only real move is to continue arming and funding fanatical jihadists or encourage Saudi Arabia and Turkey to deliver on their threat to send ground troops into Syria. This will only delay the inevitable, however, and eventually they will have to either admit they have completely lost influence in the Shia-Crescent region of the Middle East — which has, in turn, been snatched up by Russia and China — or directly confront these nuclear powers in an all-out war.

    Or they can just wait until Hillary is elected president.

  • As Predicted, Obamacare Is Absolutely Killing The Middle Class

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    The critics of Obamacare have been proven right.  The Obama administration promised that health insurance premiums would go down.  Instead, they have absolutely skyrocketed.  The Obama administration promised that Obamacare would not kill jobs.  Instead, firms are hiring fewer workers because of suffocating health care costs.  As you will see below, even the Federal Reserve is admitting this.  The Obama administration also promised that the big health insurance companies would love the new Obamacare plans and would eagerly compete with one another to win customers in the new health insurance marketplaces.  Instead, many of the big health insurance companies are now dropping Obamacare plans altogether.

    We witnessed the latest stunning example of this phenomenon just a few days ago.  It turns out that Aetna has been losing hundreds of millions of dollars on plans sold through the health exchanges, and now they plan to pull out of the program almost entirely

    Earlier this week, Aetna, which covers about 900,000 people through the health exchanges created under Obamacare, announced that it would dramatically reduce its presence those exchanges. Instead of expanding into five new states this year, as the insurer had previously planned, the company said that it would drop out of 11 of the 15 states in which it currently sells under the law.

     

    Aetna’s decision follows similar moves from other insurers: UnitedHealth announced in April that it would cease selling plans on most exchanges. Shortly after, Humana pulled out of two states, Virginia and Alabama. More than a dozen of the nonprofit health insurance cooperatives set up under the law—health insurance carriers created using government-back loans in order to spur competition—have failed entirely. While some insurers are entering the exchanges, even more are leaving.

    Another one of “the big five”, UnitedHealth, is going to lose more than half a billion dollars on Obamacare plans.  So just a few months ago they also announced that they would be dramatically scaling back their participation in the program.

    Because of the ridiculous costs, health insurance companies are either going to have to abandon the exchanges completely or they will have to raise rates substantially.

    Needless to say, the people that are going to ultimately feel the pain from all of this are consumers

    Customers who are now forced to obtain insurance or pay a hefty fine that grows more costly over time are being left in a difficult position. Americans are essentially stuck between a rock and hard place, either losing coverage entirely, or having to cough up money for a plan they can’t afford.

     

    Something has to give,” said Larry Levitt, a healthcare law expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.

    On the low end of the spectrum, tens of millions of poor Americans benefit from government programs that provide health care at little or no cost.

    On the other end of the spectrum, the very wealthy can afford to pay the ridiculously high health insurance premiums that we are seeing under Obamacare.

    So what this means is that the people that are being hurt the most by Obamacare are those that belong to the middle class.

    As I mentioned above, employers are now hiring less workers because of Obamacare, and that is very bad news for the middle class.  One recent study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York discovered that nearly one out of every five firms is “employing fewer workers” because of this insidious law

    According to a new survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 20.9% of manufacturing firms in the state said they were employing fewer workers because of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law known as Obamacare, while 16.8% of respondents in the service sector said the same.

    And middle class Americans that have to pay for their own health insurance are being hit with much higher bills these days.  According to one recent study, it is being projected that the average Obamacare premium will go up 24 percent in 2016…

    Now, courtesy of a new study by independent analyst Charles Gaba – who has crunched the numbers for insurers participating in the ACA exchanges in all 50 states – we can also calculate what the average Obamacare premium increase across the entire US will be: using proposed and approved rate increase requests, the average Obamacare premium is expected to surge by a whopping 24% this year.

    Even NBC News, which is about as pro-Obama as you can get, is reporting on the crippling premium increases that are devastating the middle class…

    Millions of people who pay the full cost of their health insurance will face the sting of rising premiums next year, with no financial help from government subsidies.

     

    Renewal notices bearing the bad news will go out this fall, just as the presidential election is in the home stretch.

     

    “I don’t know if I could swallow another 30 or 40 percent without severely cutting into other things I’m trying to do, like retirement savings or reducing debt,” said Bob Byrnes, of Blaine, Minnesota, a Twin Cities suburb. His monthly premium of $524 is already about 50 percent more than he was paying in 2015, and he has a higher deductible.

    All over the nation people are getting hit like this.

    Personally, my health insurance company wanted to nearly double the rate I was paying when Obamacare fully kicked in.  So I searched around and found another plan that was only about a 30 percent increase, but at least it wasn’t nearly double what I had been paying before.

    But when the time came to renew that plan, they wanted to jump my premium up another 50 percent per month.

    Those of us that are in the middle are being crushed by Obamacare.  We aren’t poor enough to qualify for government assistance, and we aren’t wealthy enough for these ridiculous health insurance premiums not to matter.

    Just about everything that Barack Obama promised us about Obamacare has turned out to be a lie.

    So where is the accountability?

    This is one of the big reasons why nearly one out of every five U.S. adults lives with their parents or their grandparents these days.  Many young adults cannot afford the basics of life such as health insurance, and so they have got to find a way to cut back expenses somewhere.  If that means moving back in with Mom and Dad, that is what some of them are going to do.

    I am astounded that our system of health care has become so messed up.  But this is just more evidence of how our society is falling apart in thousands of different ways, and I am not optimistic that things will be turned around any time soon.

  • Goldman Calls It For Oil: "OPEC Freeze Insufficient To Support Prices; The Price Rally Should Stall"

    Exactly 24 hours ago, we explained why – in our view – the oil rally was over, and gave four key reasons: i) after the biggest documented short squeeze in history, all the “weak hands” had been blown out and any incremental covering from here on out would be far more difficult; ii) an oil OPEC freeze will have no impact coming at a time when production by many cartel members is at all time highs, iii) the Niger Delta Avengers have agreed to a ceasefire meaning up to 300kbpd in Nigerian oil production would hit market shortly, and iv) the fundamentals suggest far more supply in the future, notably out of the US shale sector much of which has reorganized with cleaner balance sheets, which in the absence of rising demand (in fact demand out of China is falling) means lower price.

    Moments ago, Goldman energy analyst Damien Courvalin released a note titled “More worried about a thaw than a freeze”, in which he effectively confirmed everything we said yesterday, when the sellside strategist said that the “three remaining large sources of oil supply disruptions – Nigeria, Iraq and Libya – have all shown signs of increasing output since last Wednesday”, warning that “each country has the potential to move the global oil market back into surplus given our modest 230 kb/d expected deficit in 2H16″ and “as a result, we reiterate our view that the oil price and fundamental recovery remains fragile.”

    But worst of all, if only for the headline scanning algos, and Venezuela’s increasingly more desperate oil minister Eulogio Del Pino, Goldman now thinks that “while discussions of an OPEC freeze and a weakening dollar have been catalysts for the sharp reversal in oil prices this month, we believe neither will be sufficient to support prices much further. In our view, thawing relationships between parties in conflict in areas of disrupted production would be more relevant to the oil rebalancing than an OPEC freeze which would leave production at record highs and could prove counter productive if it supported prices further and incentivized activity elsewhere.”

    As for fundamentals, “supply continues to feature the cross currents of rising low-cost supply, declining high-cost production, and new project ramp up. In fact, marginally more bearish data recently than we had assumed suggests in our view that the recent price rally should stall.

    Precisely what we said yesterday.

    Here are the details:

    More worried about a thaw than a freeze, by Goldman’s Damien Courvalin

    Three remaining large sources of oil supply disruptions in recent months have all shown signs of increasing output since last Wednesday. In Iraq, flows from the Baghdad controlled northern fields resumed on Kurdistan’s pipeline to Ceyhan. In Libya, a vessel started to load crude from the Zueitina port, one of the three ports slated to reopen following an agreement between the UN-backed Government of National Accord in Tripoli and the Petroleum Facilities Guard, one of Libya’s armed brigades. Finally on Sunday, the Niger Delta Avengers announced that they had agreed to a ceasefire.

    There is potential for another large decline in production disruptions from Nigeria, Iraq and Libya

     

    Uncertainty on the sustainability and magnitude of these improvements remains large: the new Iraqi energy minister decided to resume flows on the pipeline and the political instability in the country or attacks on the KRG pipeline are significant risks to the recent recovery. In Libya, the vessel is only intended to draw from Zueitina’s oil inventories, with the port still closed and stated opposition by local tribes to a ramp up of the ports supply fields. In Nigeria, an NDA statement specified that it could resume “warfare” at any point and another militant group called Niger Delta Green Justice Mandate claimed an attack on Saturday with the government yet to comment on the ceasefire.

    Nonetheless, these latest developments are the most tangible since headlines of higher production from these countries started to intensify over the past two months with crude oil physically moving. Further, in each case, they suggest signs of easing tensions between the relevant parties. In Iraq, where production from Kirkuk fields is up by 70 kb/d, the energy minister was named with the support of the KRG. In Libya, the loading suggests a possible de-escalation between the PFG and forces loyal to a separate government in eastern Libya which had recently threatened to conduct attacks on the port. Finally, in Nigeria, this is the first ceasefire officially recognized by the NDA.

    We had conservatively assumed in our balances that only a combined 100 kb/d of these disruptions would reverse in 2H16 (with Nigeria starting from our estimated 1.3 mb/d level in July vs. the IEA’s 1.5 mb/d) with an additional 200 kb/d improvement in 2017. This left us expecting a 230 kb/d average supply-demand deficit in 2H16, however, these recent developments risk pushing the global oil market back into a surplus: Kirkuk production growth alone is scheduled to increase by 150 kb/d this week. We note that any upside to Nigeria production is likely to be slower than the 250 kb/d June increase as much of the production interruptions then were due to damages to onshore pipelines which could be quickly repaired where most of the current outage is due to damage to two offshore export pipelines which could take months to bring back online.

    We expect a shallow deficit in 2H16

    Even if flows fail to materially increase in each country, we reiterate our view that the oil price recovery is tenuous. Further, until we see enough evidence to raise our production forecasts in Libya, Iraq or Nigeria, we maintain our view that oil prices will remain in a $45-50/bbl range through next summer. As we argued in May, uncertainty on the forward supply-demand balances remains significant even as uncertainty on the industry’s cost structure is diminishing. We therefore believe that oil prices will need to reflect near-term fundamentals with a lower emphasis on the more uncertain longer-term fundamentals. Should disrupted production sustainably rebound by 500 kb/d more than we assume, for example, we estimate that 2017 WTI prices would decline to $45/bbl vs. our current $52.5/bbl forecast to generate an offsetting decline in US production.

    Accommodating a 500 kb/d recovery in disrupted oil production would require 2017 oil prices at $45/bbl

     

    Oil’s round trip not driven by incrementally better oil fundamentals

    While oil prices have rebounded sharply since August 1, we believe this move has not been driven by incrementally better oil fundamentals, but instead by headlines around a potential output freeze as well as a sharp weakening of the dollar (and exacerbated by a sharp reversal in net speculative positions). A deal to freeze production when OPEC and some non OPEC producers meet in Algeria on September 26-28 is possible in our view, after six failed attempts, as it would show signs of cooperation from Saudi’s new energy minister. But the possibility may not be high – Russia’s energy minister commented on August 8 that he did not see the basis for such a freeze (with legislative elections taking place before the meeting). Further, Saudi and Iran continue to focus on market share and therefore appear unlikely to unilaterally accept a freeze or implement a jointly agreed one. Ultimately, freezing production at current levels would leave 2H16 output from OPEC (crude) and Russia at 44.6 mb/d, 400 kb/d higher than our forecast as we assume a seasonal decline in Saudi volumes. Longer term, a production freeze would also likely prove self-defeating if it succeeded in supporting oil prices further with the US oil rig count up 28% since May. Finally, the correlation to the dollar has not been steady and oil fundamentals, as they did in May, can drive divergence in asset prices. Further, our FX strategists view the recent strength of the US economic data as leaving risks to the dollar skewed to the upside, not downside.

    A freeze at current level would keep the global market in surplus in 2H16

    On the fundamental side, supply continues to feature the cross currents of rising low-cost supply, declining high-cost production, and new project ramp up. In fact, marginally more bearish data recently than we had assumed suggests in our view that the recent price rally should stall. Saudi production reached a new record high in July at 10.7 mb/d with Reuters reporting that Saudi production could reach a new record in August, with large cuts to its OSP for September as well. Iraq has agreed to new contract terms with oil majors to increase its southern output by up to 350 kb/d next year vs. our current expectation for flat production into 2017. Finally, projects continue to ramp up in line with our expectations (i.e. TEN in Ghana and Goliat in Norway) or even beyond what we are assuming (i.e. ENI’s guidance on Kashagan for next year). On the demand side, the 1H16 trend continues to be of strong demand growth, which is now nearing 2 mb/d, driven by India and China, and we continue to expect a moderation in demand growth in 2H16. Demand continues to be revised upward with the August IEA data showing a broad based 100 kb/d increase in 1H16 demand growth. Additionally, the early 3Q16 data is pointing to a slowdown in growth in India and stable growth in the US in line with our expectation. With no evidence that demand growth is weakening sharply, supply will remain in our view in the driving seat in coming weeks.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 22nd August 2016

  • Brexit: Worst Case Scenario For EU; Armageddon Promise Now Exposed As Pack Of Lies

    Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

    Project Fear predicted economic meltdown if Britain voted leave. Where are the devastated high streets, job losses and crashing markets?

    In other Brexit news, Sweden warns the UK about cutting corporate taxes. How should the UK respond? Who is in control?

    What Happened to Promised Armageddon?

    The Guardian reports Brexit Armageddon was a Terrifying Vision – but it Simply Hasn’t Happened.

    Unemployment would rocket. Tumbleweed would billow through deserted high streets. Share prices would crash. The government would struggle to find buyers for UK bonds. Financial markets would be in meltdown. Britain would be plunged instantly into another deep recession.

     

    Remember all that? It was hard to avoid the doom and gloom, not just in the weeks leading up to the referendum, but in those immediately after it. Many of those who voted remain comforted themselves with the certain knowledge that those who had voted for Brexit would suffer a bad case of buyer’s remorse.

     

    The financial markets are serene. Share prices are close to a record high, and fears that companies would find it difficult and expensive to borrow have proved wide of the mark. Far from dumping UK government gilts, pension funds and insurance companies have been keen to hold on to them.

     

    City economists had predicted an immediate rise in the claimant count measure of unemployment in July. That hasn’t happened either. This week’s figures show that instead of a 9,000 rise, there was an 8,600 drop.

    Pack of Lies Clearly Visible

    Armageddon fears were purposely over-hyped from the beginning. Now reality has set in.

    Project fear backfired. People can easily see what liars David Cameron and the nannycrats in Brussels were.

    Project Remain: Where are the admissions “We were wrong?”

    Worst Case Scenario for EU

    That the UK has gone on as normal has to be one of the worst fears for the nannycrats in Brussels. There is life, not death after Brexit. What country will be next to figure that out?

    Some rough times are likely ahead for the global economy, including the UK. But in the long run, Brexit will be a good thing for the UK, which means it will be a bad thing from the point of view of Brussels.

    Sweden Warns U.K. Against Aggressive Tax Cuts Amid Brexit Talks

    The nannycrats are now worried that the UK will do something smart, like lower corporate taxes again.

    Today, Sweden Warns U.K. Against Aggressive Tax Cuts Amid Brexit Talks.

    The U.K. should avoid any drastic steps to cut corporate taxes, or similar measures, as it prepares to start talks on leaving the European Union, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Loefven said.

     

    If the U.K. wants some time to think about the situation, this will also give EU countries some time,” Loefven told Bloomberg after giving a speech in Stockholm on Sunday. “On the other hand, you hear about plans in the U.K. to, for example, lower corporate taxes considerably. If they, during this time, begin that kind of race, that will of course make discussions more difficult.

    Stellar Opportunity for UK to Set Example for the World

    By all means the UK should precisely make things more difficult.

    Everyone says, Brexit terms need to be negotiated. Actually, the UK can pick up its marbles and go home. Who could stop the UK from doing just that?

    On July 11, I wrote Stellar Opportunity for UK to Set Example for the World.

    In that post I proposed among other things a recommendation “The UK should preemptively stick it to the EU by slashing its corporate tax rate to 10%, lower than any country in the EU.”

    I was unaware at the time that UK chancellor George Osborne had already decided to cut taxes, but by a lesser amount than I suggested.

    Precise Way to Start Negotiations with EU Mules: Get France to Piss and Moan

    In a follow-up post I wrote Precise Way to Start Negotiations with EU Mules: Get France to Piss and Moan.

    Michel Sapin Pisses and Moans

    Sapin

     

    First Step in Training a Mule

    There’s an old saying “The first step in training a mule is to hit it as hard as you can in the head with a stick.”

    I don’t really advise that with mules, but it is the precise thing to do to EU nannycrats.

     

     

     

     

    Reflections on Clearness

    It’s clear that the UK can’t participate in the big decisions involving the EU’s future,” said Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister.

    Well, it’s equally clear the EU cannot participate in big decisions involving the UK’s future.

    And with his plan to cut corporate taxes, chancellor Osborne just hit nannycrat mules in Germany, France, and Belgium in the head with not a stick, but a brick.

     

    Trade War the Right Way

    The UK should preemptively stick it to the EU by slashing its corporate tax rate to 10%, lower than any country in the EU.

     

    Set Example for the World

    Shed of inane EU rules and regulations coupled with the freedom to do anything it wants, the UK has a golden opportunity to embrace the benefits of genuine free trade and growth via low taxes.

    I have often stated the first country that fully embraces free trade, regardless of what any other country does, will come out stunningly ahead.

    The UK now has that chance.

    Negotiation Progress

     

     

    I suggest the UK cram it straight down their throats by lowering taxes to 10% right now. This will set proper the negotiation tone  and inform the nannycrats in Brussels who calls the shots.

    France and Germany threatened to make things difficult for the UK. But as I have stated all along, the UK, not the EU, has the upper hand in these negotiations.

    Import/export math proves the point. The UK imports more from the the EU than it exports to them.

    For details, please see “No Cherry Picking” Says Merkel; Risk of Global Trade Collapse says Mish.

    The more the EU pisses and moans, the more successful Brexit will be for the UK.

  • Silver Is in a Different World, Report 21 August, 2016

    Measured in gold, the price of the dollar hardly budged this week. It fell less than one tenth of a milligram, from 23.29 to 23.20mg. However, in silver terms, it’s a different story. The dollar became more valuable, rising from 1.58 to 1.61 grams.

    Most people would say that gold went up $6 and silver went down 43 cents. We wonder, if they were on a sinking boat, tossing about in stormy seas, if they would say “that lighthouse went up 5 meters.”

    To our point last week, what would be the utility of a lighthouse that you measured from your boat which is going down and up, but mostly down? Would you wonder if lighthouses had another purpose, any other use? If you could make money betting against other sailors, on the lighthouse’s next position, would you care?

    “Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.” – Warren Buffet

    Of course, what Buffet doesn’t mention is that we’re forced to use paper certificates of government debt as if it were money. This debt is losing value as the government racks up ever more implausible amounts of it ($19.5T at the moment). Meanwhile, lenders are offered lower and lower interest rates to finance this growing monument to economic insanity.

    Surely anyone from Mars would be scratching his head at this, too.

    Unfortunately, Nixon’s gold default almost exactly 45 years ago to the day removed the extinguisher of debt. When you pay off a debt usinggold, the debt goes out of existence. When you pay a debt using dollar, the debt is merely shifted. So the debt grows—must necessarily grow—at an exponential rate.

    Also unfortunately, Nixon’s gold default also unhinged the rate of interest. It began to shoot the moon. It eventually peaked at an insane high (and historically unprecedented) level in 1981. Since then, it has been falling and now it keeps hitting insane low (and unprecedented) levels.

    You can get yourself out of the loop by buying gold, but you cannot effect the debt, interest rate, or banking system. You are disenfranchised. Instead, we have monetary policy administered the way the Soviet Union had food prices set by bureaucratic diktat.

    The problem is not that gold cannot have any utility. It had it, once. The problem is that the government has locked up gold’s utility. What’s left gold is just betting on the price action in the casino.

    Sooner or later, that price action is going to come to an ignominious end. Contra the Quantity Theory of Money, the value of the dollar will go to zero. This will not be because its quantity rises to infinity. It will be because gold owners no longer wish to risk holding dollars, for fear of counterparty default.

    About the best we can say is that today is not that day.

    Read on for the only the only true picture of the supply and demand fundamentals that ultimately drive the price action. 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 rose significantly 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

    Well, well, well. Look at that. The abundance of gold (i.e. the basis, the blue line) falling all week, and the scarcity rising. Indeed, we see now this pattern has been going since the end of June. The same pattern holds true for farther-out contracts.

    This means that someone, or millions of someones—do not get too caught up in the fallacy of famous market players—is buying physical gold metal. In that time, speculators have not been eager to buy more. So the net result is that the fundamentals have nearly caught up to the price.

    The Gold Price and Fundamental
    gold price and fundamental

    The gold market may not be screaming “buy” yet—today is not that day—but it’s no longer screaming “danger”.

    It is interesting to see that the speculators—who are really betting against the dollar, even if they don’t always know it—sometimes go their own way. Perhaps they see a central banker in the news, or the jobs report disappoints. Buy, buy!

    No animal species can survive by cannibalism—by members eating other members. And speculators cannot drive the market by continually buying from one another, giving them both profits (as they reckon it, in dollars) and ever-rising price. Eventually either the fundamentals change and the speculators are proven right. Or the speculators give up, or get flushed out. This time, the speculators are proven right. They put their dollars in harm’s way, particularly since the end of April when the softening fundamentals fell below the market price. They continued to fall all the way through late June. But the market price did not follow this trajectory.

    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    silver

    Silver is in a different world.

    We do see a falling basis and rising cobasis this week. However, it’s just tracking price. That is rising dollar price (i.e. falling silver price) corresponds with rising cobasis. As speculators reduce their positions, the price falls a bit.

    It has a long way farther to fall, before it catches down to the fundamentals.

     

    © 2016 Monetary Metals

  • Summary Of Recent Fed Statements: Spot The Common Theme

    Actually, scratch that: the one thing that becomes clear after skimming this selection of select statements by Fed committee members over the past few months, is that there is absolutely no common theme.

    Seven years after the crisis, the Fed not only continues to fly blind, but the degree of disagreement among members has never been greater. Which is helpful to know 5 days before Yellen’s Jackson Hole speech this coming Friday is expected to reveal a new, less “omnipotent” Fed, one which will push for more fiscal stimulus just so the Fed has more debt to monetize the next time it has to ease, since thanks to “r-star” we now know it can hike rates at most just 1-2 times before it is forced to resume easing by way of QE as the rate of ~1% will not be nearly enough to provide the needed stimulus economic stimulus to offset the next economic contraction.

    Source: Goldman Sachs

  • 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%.

    In short, the Vancouver housing bubble has poppsed, and  not surprisingly the “smart money”, which rode the bubble all the way up, has duly noticed, and wants out. Immediately.

    As Bloomberg reports, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan is quietly seeking buyers for a minority stake in its C$4 billion ($3.1 billion) real-estate portfolio in Vancouver, including office towers and shopping malls, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Cadillac Fairview, the real-estate unit of Canada’s third-biggest pension fund, is looking to raise about C$2 billion from the sale. Cadillac Fairview has hired CBRE Group Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada for the sale.

    According to Bloomberg, Cadillac Fairview is the latest pension group seeking to reduce its holdings in the Vancouver commercial market, where prices have reached record highs amid an influx of foreign cash even as new supply drives up vacancy rates. Ivanhoe Cambridge and the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan are seeking about C$800 million for their office towers in Burnaby, British Columbia, just outside of Vancouver.

    The Cadillac Fairview portfolio, which hasn’t yet started marketing, includes 14 properties in downtown Vancouver and Richmond, with some of Canada’s largest shopping centers, office towers, and historic buildings up for grabs. The assets include a portfolio of waterfront properties including Waterfront Centre, a 21-story tower on the harbor built in 1990; the 238,000-square-foot PricewaterhouseCoopers Place; and The Station, a historic property built in 1912 that serves as North America’s largest transport hub, currently pending approval for an added office tower.

    The liquidation has a whiff of panic as some of the country’s biggest retail assets are also in the mix, such as the Pacific Centre, a downtown retailer with 1.6 million square feet for which Cadillac Fairview submitted a proposal this year to expand. It’s the third-most profitable shopping mall in Canada, according to brokerage Avison Young, with C$1,599 in sales per square foot Bloomberg adds. The center also contains eight office towers of two million square feet, including 701 West Georgia and the HSBC building.

    In recent years, alongside the plain vanilla housing bubble, commercial real estate soared too, as demand for Vancouver offices sent prices of properties to record highs in recent transactions, including the purchase by Anbang Insurance Group – another notorious Chinese offshore buyer – of the Bentall Centre.

    Meanwhile, a warning sign had emerged even before the July property tax hike as the vacancy rate in the city rose to a 12-year high of 10.4% as of June 30 as tenants absorbed 1 million square feet of new space since the same time last year, according to Avison Young.

    It is only set to get worse, because in a rerun of what happened to the Alberta office market in early 2015 after oil cratered, additional space is set to flood the market, with six office towers under construction for delivery as soon as this year totaling about 802,700 square feet, and 10 buildings proposed for the city, including Cadillac Fairview’s Waterfront Tower, according to Avison Young’s mid-year 2016 report. Despite the vacancy, rental rates for the best quality assets in Vancouver are the highest in Canada and some U.S. cities such as Chicago and L.A. at about C$30 a square foot, Avison Young said.

    And so, Vancouver – after enjoying years of unprecedented upside in both residential and commercial real estate – is on the edge of full blown, freely falling hangover, just like the one the OECD prudently warned about three months ago, when it said that a “disorderly housing market correction” notably in Toronto and Vancouver, is the biggest threat to Canada’s economy, one which “would damp residential investment and private consumption, and could threaten financial stability.” One can now add commercial investment and consumption to that list as well. 

    In the coming months, if not weeks, we will find out just how accurate the OECD’s gloomy forecast was.

  • OPEC Ignites Biggest Short Squeeze In History: Hedge Funds Cut Oil Shorts By Most On Record

    Ever since the February crash, when oil tumbled to 13 years lows, and when OPEC started releasing tactical headlines at key inflection points about an imminent oil production freeze (which not only never arrived but has since seen Saudi Arabia’s output grow to record levels) which we first suggested were meant to trigger a short squeeze among headline scanning HFT algos, our suggestion was – as is often the case – dismissed as yet another conspiracy theory.

    Six months later, this conspiracy theory is now a widely accepted fact, and as Bloomberg reports tonight, “well-timed” OPEC talk of a potential deal to freeze output, has “forced bears” into a historic squeeze and helped push oil close to $50 a barrel, prompting West Texas Intermediate from a bear to a bull market in less than three weeks.

    “This is all courtesy of some very well-timed comments from the Saudi oil minister,” said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York hedge fund focused on energy. “They’ve been successful over the last year in jawboning the market, and this is the latest example.”

    And while one can debate whether OPEC’s “headline” leaks are timed to coincide with near-record short positions on WTI, one thing is certain: the past week saw the biggest crude oil short squeeze on record as money managers cut bets on falling prices by the most ever.

    According to Bloomberg, Hedge funds trimmed their short position in WTI by 56,907 futures and options during the week ended Aug. 16, the most in data going back to 2006. And, as one would expect following yet another record short squeeze similar to the one experienced earlier in the year, WTI futures rose 8.9% to $46.58 a barrel in the report week and closed at $48.52 a barrel on Aug. 19. WTI is up more than 20 percent from its Aug. 2 low, meeting the common definition of a bull market.

     

    Money managers’ short position in WTI dropped to 163,232 futures and options. Longs, or bets on rising prices, increased 0.1 percent, while net longs advanced 56 percent, the most since July 2010. 

    “This was a very short market so we were bound to get some covering,” said Stephen Schork, president of the Schork Group Inc., a consulting company in Villanova, Pennsylvania. “

    Schork added that we “probably won’t hear a lot from OPEC with prices up here, but if we get down to where we were a few weeks ago we can expect to hear more.”

    Ironically, even if OPEC does agree to a production freeze, it will be because its biggest members are already pumping at flat-out record levels, said Chakib Khelil, the group’s former president. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and non-member Russia are producing at, or close to, maximum capacity, Khelil said in a Bloomberg Television interview on Aug. 17. Saudi Arabia told OPEC that its production rose to an all-time high of 10.67 million barrels a day in July, according to a report from the group.

    Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said that the talks may lead to action to stabilize the market. What he means is that while Saudi Arabia production levels will be “frozen” at an all time high, a level beyond which it could not produce even if it wanted to, all of its peers will be locked into a substandard output rate, which is also why few if any of them will agree to the proposal to be discussed next month in Algiers.

    Meanwhile, as even OPEC tries to ignite HFT algo short squeezes (one wonders who OPEC’s financial advisor inthis regard is), US shale is rapidly coming back on line: as reported on Friday, there has been an upsurge in drilling as prices have climbed. U.S. producers added oil rigs for an eighth week, the longest run since April 2014, according to Baker Hughes Inc. data on Aug. 19. Even the traditionally conservative EIA increased its domestic output forecast for 2017 to 8.31 million barrels a day from 8.2 million projected in July, according to its monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook released Aug. 10.

    “In the U.S., DUC completion and the drilling of new wells are changing the production outlook,” Morse said. “We might see U.S. production rise next year instead of falling.”

    For those who trade based on flashing red headlines, and not Econ 101, rising production means falling prices, absent a comparable increase in demand, which however with China close to filling its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is about to enter freefall.

    Finally, now that virtually all weak hands have covered, it is time for the “flip” trade, as oil resumes its slide, and shorts once again pile on, just as Morgan Stanley forecast when it said that the mega short squeeze would finally end last week. Tomorrow we will find out if MS was correct.

  • Multipolar World Order: Economics Vs. Politics

    Submitted by Frederico Pieraccini via Stratgic-Culture.org,

    International tensions have in recent years often led to conflicts between nations, leaving countries to face complicated choices. The world is under constant change, and the most direct results are political instability over vast areas of the globe combined with economic, cultural and often military confrontations. The economic priorities of cooperation and development are increasingly being sacrificed on the altar of protection of geopolitical interests. It is a return to the past where strategic interests prevailed over the economic model prescribed by modern capitalism.

    Nations like Russia, China and Iran have in recent years accelerated their rise on the global arena, expanding vital aspects of this in such areas as energy supplytransit of goods, the type of currency used in trade, defense of national borders, the granting of use of airspace, militaryindustrial cooperation with other nations, the joint fight against terrorism, and a general defense of the principle of national sovereignty. Washington has tried in every way to prevent this growing multipolarity, desperately trying to prolong its two-decade-old unipolar world.

    It is in this general climate that Beijing, Moscow and Tehran have had to engage with Western economic reactions in the process of defending their strategic interests. As a result, we have increasingly witnessed in recent years a conflict between economic convenience and politically driven policy decisions. The most difficult challenge faced by these challengers of the status quo lies increasingly in the complicated question of how to manage a situation where geopolitical interests have to fit into a global financial system largely managed and manipulated by Europeans and Americans.

    Currently the international financial system, as I have written many times before, is an American affair. The dollar stands as the dominant currency in relation to other financial institutions, and the whole global economic system is mainly conducted through the American currency. But the paradigm is changing, especially in recent years, thanks to supra-national entities like the AIIB and BRICS. Inevitably the IMF’s currency basket will have to incorporate the yuan, starting the process of the slow erosion of the dollar's dominance. The IMF, after years of wasting time trying to delay this event, will welcome from the October 1st, 2016, Beijing as an integral part of the reserve-currency system. Of course one of the most critical aspects is still the private banking sector and how the SWIFT payment system will work, given that it currently lies within the Euro-American orbit. Altogether this blend of public and private sector produces a situation where it is easy to see that the global economic system and its rules are often decided in Washington (IMF, World Bank), New York (Wall Street, FED), London (LSE), Basel (BIS) and Frankfurt (ECB), excluding all the other nations. The financial system is dominated by central banks, international bodies and the huge conglomerate of private banks, all strictly of a North Atlantic orientation.

    It is easy to understand that nations not aligned with Western interests suffer retaliation, threats and damage from a financial system that is controlled by Euro-American interests.

    The pressure imposed on nations like Iran, Russia and China in recent years has increased significantly, jeopardizing global stability. The real possibility of proposing an alternative economic system that is not so easily manipulable by the West has allowed not only Beijing, but especially Moscow and Tehran, to respond in a very effective manner to Western geopolitical intimidation. The Western reaction to the development of the Iranian nuclear program, as well as the Crimean issue, demonstrated clearly the consequences that come with defending strategic interests.

    Initially it was Iran. With the acquired nuclear capability, Israel poses a direct strategic threat to the existence of the Islamic Republic. Tehran has decided to give priority to its own national interests by developing its own nuclear program. The objective is the production of a nuclear device to use as a deterrent, effectively creating a balance of power. Of course the decision sparked a vehement response from the West, and once the military option was discarded, an economic strangulation of the country commenced. Iran’s expulsion from the global banking system (SWIFT), as well as international sanctions, especially in 2007-2013, have had serious repercussions for the Iranian state in terms of profits from imports and exports, especially in the area of oil and gas.

    The economic burden has been high, the country facing difficulties financing internal growth. This pushed Tehran to try and change the situation to their advantage by bypassing impediments and penalties. This decision forged important partnerships, especially with Russia, China and India, and strongly contributed to the implementation of an alternative economic channel. Tehran's move was strongly appreciated in the region by small countries seeking opportunities for mutual gains. Important Chinese and Indian investments in the Islamic Republic, Moscow’s constant military exports to Iran, and the selling and buying of gas and oil in different currencies rather than the dollar created a context in which, for the first time, the international economic pressure fueled by Washington was not able to change the course of events.

    Iran, thanks to the assistance and financial support of its main allies, managed to render irrelevant the sanctions and banking restrictions imposed on it. It is this aspect more than any other that led to the nuclear negotiation process initiated by the West. Iran was found in the revolutionary situation of being able to pursue its strategic objectives (nuclear weapons as a deterrent to a nuclear Israel) without succumbing to economic pressure. The importance of this outcome can never be stressed enough. For the first time in a long time, a nation not aligned with Western wishes was able to defend its strategic interests without suffering the negative effects of an adverse international system, with its arsenal of speculation, penalties, or simply illegal actions like the removal from the SWIFT system.

    When confronting geopolitical and economic interests, it is hard not to mention the two giants such as China and Russia. Both countries, as global superpowers, necessarily need to constantly balance strategic objectives, often geopolitical, with international economic cooperation. The Ukrainian coup, with the reunification of Crimea, or the construction on the “Spratly Islands” in the South China Sea, are two forward-looking examples of how geopolitical interests have become a main priority for Beijing and Moscow. The power that China has accumulated in economic terms gives it a great advantage: Western nations are unable to apply economic aggression. This leaves China free to pursue its main political objectives, such as establishing security on its maritime boundaries, enforcing national integrity, and expanding its influence and commercial facilities across the continent, without fear of incurring economic punishment. The West is already unable to sanction China let alone apply any vetoes from the private banking sector, or even worse, a possible embargo. China is the factory of the world, and any economic pressure would end up producing unacceptable losses for the West.

    After years of disagreements over Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, all that Washington managed to do was obtain an irrelevant judgment from an international tribunal thousands of miles away from the disputed area. China pursues its claims without much caring for the actions and rhetoric of the West, focusing instead on ensuring its strategic focal points.

    The coup in Ukraine, and the subsequent reunification of Crimea, showed unequivocally how Russia’s nuclear weapons deter American aggression. The possibility of NATO actively participating in the war Kiev started against the east of the country amounted to zero, due to the conventional military power of the Russian Federation. Nevertheless in such a scenario, we cannot overlook the effect of sanctions, and the attempts of international isolation, that Russia is subjected to. Moscow, during the Ukrainian crisis, took the difficult but necessary decision to preserve its geopolitical interests at the expense of its economic interests. The stakes were too high to be able to give preference to financial calculations. Sevastopol and the Black Sea Fleet are fully part of the strategic deterrent that has saved the world from a possible confrontation between NATO and Russia in Ukraine. In such a scenario, even the collapse in oil prices has not affected Moscow’s decisions even as it is damaging to the Russian economy.

    Like with Iran, for Russia the choice to defend at all costs its national interests has forced a policy of “looking towards the east”. The multiple, all-encompassing agreements with Beijing have proven that Western economic power is increasingly frail and can be ignored.

    The events involving Iran, China and Russia are an epilogue in international relations. They convey an uplifting message to countries with less capacity to resist Western military aggression or withstand financial aggression. It is still too early to appreciate the effects of this change on small nations and their policies, since they are still reliant on assistance from their strong allies. In scenarios like this, the economic impact is not negligible and is often the decisive factor in balancing priorities. It is difficult to imagine a country that places geopolitical interest ahead of the nation's economy.

    Some recent examples of this Western arrogance can be seen in energy transit through pipelines. The Middle East suffered untold death and destruction in Iraq and Syria because of plans to disrupt the construction of a pipeline connecting Iran and Europe that passed through Syria and Iraq. A similar situation was seen in the discussed links between South Stream, North Stream or Turkish Stream. In this case all the transit countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia) had enormous problems fulfilling their agreements. Unfortunately, it is in such circumstances that Western economic blackmail reaches its peak, often managing to block or slow down such strategically important gas or oil corridors. Smaller countries are forced to give up important sources of development in order to avoid running the gamut of economic restrictions or even international sanctions.

    One way to resist international finance is through a national economic system that is in many respects highly independent. This is how the world should view the alternative international systems of the likes of the BRICS Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). In the near future, countries vulnerable to international speculative attacks will be able to embark on politically favorable projects through the AIIB or BRICS Bank. The multipolar future is not just for superpowers like China and Russia but also represents a huge opportunity to raise Third World countries up from unacceptable levels of poverty. The aim of Sino-Russian relations is nothing less than providing the necessary tools to other nations to resist international pressures from traditional financial channels (World Bank, IMF). Allowing these nations to pursue their own national strategic interests opens possibilities that only a multipolar world can offer.

    The transition from a unipolar to a multipolar reality has already changed many aspects of international relations. Military options for superpowers against one another have become a less viable option thanks to economic ties and the nuclear balance. Some of the ultimate tools to influence events, namely manipulation and financial terrorism, have less and less effect on superpowers and tend to actually favor the creation of an alternative economic system.

    The evolution of these events is easily predictable. With more integration of the world’s nations, the dollar's influence will gradually be reduced, but the decline of the United States’ unipolar moment will accelerate. The effects will be increasing international cooperation and a transformation that will guide our world toward a full multipolar age.

    A revolution that will change everything like nothing in recent history is taking place, forever altering the delicate balance upon which international relations hitherto rested.

  • Olympic Gold Medals Have Almost Zero Gold In Them

    The 2016 Rio Summer Olympic Games are already 51% over budget, with the total cost expected to be in the $4.6 billion range. With that in mind, Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes that the organizers have tried their best to cut costs.

    One area of compromise?

    The Olympic gold medals, which weigh 500g (1.1 lbs) and are 85mm (3.3 in) in diameter, are gold in name only.

    OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALS HAVE ALMOST ZERO GOLD IN THEM

    Today’s infographic comes from JM Bullion and it shows the real amount of metal in gold, silver, and bronze medals, along with the hypothetical cost of awarding solid gold to winning athletes.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist and JMBullion

  • The Fed Launches A Facebook Page… And The Result Is Not What It Had Expected

    While it is not exactly clear what public relations goals the privately-owned Fed (recall Bernanke’s Former Advisor: “People Would Be Stunned To Know The Extent To Which The Fed Is Privately Owned“) hoped to achieve by launching its first Facebook page last Thursday, the resultant outpouring of less than euphoric public reactions suggest this latest PR effort may have been waster at best, and at worst backfired at a magnitude that matches JPM’s infamous #AskJPM twitter gaffe.

    Here are some examples of the public responses to the Fed’s original posting: they all share a certain uniformity…

    We wonder how long the Fed pulls a “blogger Ben Bernanke”, and starts moderating, if not outright blocks, all Facebook comments.

  • "I Don't Give A Shit About Them" – Philippines President Threatens To Quit "Son Of A Bitch" United Nations

    While the US media is obsessing over what could happen to the US if the diplomatic debacle that is Donald Trump becomes president (as opposed perhaps to the pathological liar and State Department-for-hire that is HIillary Clinton), the Philippines has a living, breathing example of the worst that a person who has zero regard for the status quo or the establishment, can unleash. Or perhaps the best. We are talking about the country’s new president, Rodrigo Duterte, who most recently made headlines for calling the US ambassador to his country an “annoying, homosexual, son of a bitch“, yet whose policies, unorthodox as they may be, are working when after some 400 drug dealers were killed in the Philippine government’s “war on narco-politics”, reportedly another 500,000 turned themselves in.

    In Duterte’s latest outburst, the Philippine president has threatened that the country could leave the UN, after the organization urged the Philippines to stop executing and killing people linked to drug business and threatened that “state actors” could be punished.

    “Maybe we’ll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations. If you’re that rude, son of a bitch, we’ll just leave you,” Duterte told reporters in Davao, quoted by Bloomberg.

    “I don’t give a shit about them,” he added. “They are the ones interfering. You do not just go out and give a shitting statement against a country.”

    Calling the UN “inutile”, Duterte said the Philippines could invite China, African nations and other countries to create a rival international body. He went further, slamming the UN’s response to other global issues.

    Cited by RT, Duterte said “Look at the iconic boy that was taken out from the rubble and he was made to sit in the ambulance and we saw it,” Duterte said. The picture of Omran Daqneesh, a five-year-old Syrian boy has recently gone viral around the globe. “Why is it that [the] United States is not doing anything? I do not read you. Anybody in that stupid body complaining about the stench there of death?”

    The Philippine leader also slammed the US for its own human rights record, citing the string of shootings involving police and black men that have sparked protests in the U.S. “Why are you Americans killing the black people there, shooting them down when they are already on the ground?” he asked. “Answer that question, because even if it’s just one or two or three, it is still human rights violations.”

    The angry tirade at the news conference in Davao City came after the UN’s special rapporteur on summary executions, Agnes Callamard, urged the Philippines to stop extrajudicial executions and killings, saying “state actors” could be punished for the “illegal killings.”

    In many ways, Duterte’s response to the UN report is comparable to that by Turkey’s president Erdogan, who has not taken kindly to European (and US) criticism for cracking down on, firing or arresting nearly 100,000 people following July’s failed Turkish coup.

    Meanwhile, in the Philippines, about 900 people have been killed by unidentified attackers since May, when Duterte was elected, and another 665 died at the hands of security forces, according to the national police chief.

    Duterte, however, has vehemently denied these accusations, and said that the police only fired in self-defense, while he also lashed out at the UN. He shrugged off the prospect of repercussions that could follow as a result of his remarks.

    “I don’t give a shit about them. They are the ones interfering,” Duterte said. He also wondered whether UN officials were indeed threatening to jail him and repeated that he was ready to sacrifice his life and presidency for his country.

    Needless to say, Duterte has developed a reputation for being very outspoken. As such, we, for one, would be quite entertained by the prospect of an unfiltered and uncut real time summit between Duterte and Trump, should the latter be elected on November 8. We are confident millions of others would too.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 21st August 2016

  • For Sale: The World's First $1+ Billion Dollar House

    Exactly two years ago, we reported about what we dubbed at the time was “absolute bubble insanity” – a double skyscraper called the Tour Odeon, located in the French Riviera, which would house a 3,300 square-meter (35,500 square-foot) penthouse with a water slide connecting a dance floor to a circular open-air swimming pool. While the description was nice, it was the bottom line that was mindblowing: that appartment was priced to sell for more than 300 million euros ($400 million at the time) when it went to market the following year. That made it the world’s most expensive penthouse, according to broker Knight Frank LLP.

    Below are some images of the nearly half a billion dollar penthouse in question (including the water slide into the pool).

     

     

    And while we don’t know if and at what price the Odeon’s penthouse ended up selling for, we did predict that it was only a matter of time before this nearly half a billion price tag would be eclipsed by a full, round billion.

    Two years later, the forecast has come true: as the Mail reports, the most expensive house in the world has been offered for sale at a price of over €1billion ($1.1 billion), located yet again in the south of France. The address in the billionaire’s playground of Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, Les Cedres, is owned by Suzanne Marnier-Lapostolle, a member of the Grand Marnier dynasty who is supposedly seeking to “downsize.” 

    Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat has a population of just over 2000


    Cap Ferrat was named in 2012 as the second most expensive place to buy a
    home in the world after Monaco

    While the French economy is struggling under the weight of both a collapse in tourism as a result of a recent surge in terrorist attacks, and the destructive influence of a socialist government, Nice Matin on Friday reported that the former home of Belgium King Leopold II can be yours (assuming you are a multi-billionare, of course) for “one billion euros.”

    The former home of Belgium King Leopold II, Les Cedres

    The monthly gardening bill alone is said to be in the hundreds of thousands.

    What does $1.1 billion buy you in Nice these days? The 10-bedroom property, which comes with an Olympic size swimming pool, is located in a coastal enclave close to Nice. Its garden includes 35 acres of manicured lawns, 15,000 plants, and some 20 greenhouses containing rare tropical vegetation. The palatial home features a ballroom and also stables for up to 30 horses.

    Close neighbors include British composer Andrew Lloyd Webber and US tech tycoon Paul Allen.

    According to the French newspaper, Les Cedres was last owned by Suzanne Marnier-Lapostolle, part of the Grand Marnier liquor dynasty. However after the company was bought by Campari in March, the home was also transferred over by the Italian group.


    The swimming pool at Les Cedres pictured in September 1973

    Campari has decided to sell the home so the heiress is said to be downsizing and looking for a buyer who will care for a house that has been in the family since 1924. Some 15 professional gardeners are currently employed by her full time, and she hopes all will be kept on.

    But, as often happens in the rather insane world of multi-billionaires,  there are fears that speculators will move in, and build new hugely expensive properties in the gardens.

    Until that happens, however, finding a buyer may be tricky now that oligarchs from China, Russia and Saudi Arabia no longer are burning cash around the globe on real estate.

    A real estate agent in Moncaco, cited by the Mail, said that  “we have not received instructions to sell. These kind of properties tend to be marketed very discreetly.” Still, “despite France’s problems, there should be a buyer around. The billionaire market does not have much to do with countries – there will be international interest.”  It just won’t be coming from any Vancouver “flippers” any time soon: that particular housing bubble just burest.

    * * *

    Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, which currently has a population of just over 2000, has attracted celebrities and royalty from all over the world throughout its history. Regulars have included actors Charlie Chaplin and David Niven, writer William Somerset-Maugham, movie stars Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and Prince Rainier III of Monaco. The most high profile property transaction in the stretch of Riviera around Nice came in 2008, when Russian oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov offered 320 million to buy Villa Leopolda.

    The mansion in Villefranche-sur-Mer, next door to Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, was owned by Lily Safra, who had inherited it from her banker husband, Edmond Safra. Prokhorov pulled out of the sale following the 2008 financial crisis, leading to Mrs Safra successfully suing him to keep the deposit of £33million.

    A huge fan of the desirable coastal area, King Leopold II once owned the entire west side of the Cap Ferrat. In 1904 he purchased Villa Pollonnais, built in 1830, and its 15 acres of land and after extensive renovation renamed it Le Cedres.  The property was principally used as his holiday home. The man who designed the gardens of the Eiffel Tower and Champs Elysees was responsible for the impressive design of Le Cedres’ grounds and pool area.


    The man who designed the gardens of the Eiffel Tower and Champs Elysees was
    responsible for the design of Le Cedres’ grounds and pool area

    Cap Ferrat was named in 2012 as the second most expensive place to buy a home in the world after Monaco, with residents enjoying a pleasant climate and a popular yachting scene. That alone may be sufficient to find the world’s biggest fool, if not outright idiot. Sure enough, after Grand Marnier was bought by Italy’s Campari spirits group’s and they took ownership of the historic villa, Campari CEO Bob Kunze-Concewitz told Bloomberg he has already received approaches from Middle Eastern and North American buyers.

    And because nothing screams guillotines louder than one billionaire paying another billionaire more than a billion dollars for a seaside villa, we are confident the buyer’s identity will remain a well-guarded secret.

  • How Beverly Hills Billionaires Built A Water Empire In California With Taxpayer Money

    Beverly Hills Billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick control an agricultural empire in the Central Valley of California which Forbes values at $4.2BN.  According to an article recently published by Mother Jones, the Beverly Hills based couple bought their first acres of ag land in 1978 as an inflation hedge.  Within 20 years the Resnicks had grown to be the largest producer/packager of almonds and pistachios in the world with 130,000 acres of land in the Central Valley and nearly $5BN in annual sales.  You’re all probably familiar with some of their brands:

    Wonderful

     

    But 130,000 acres of permanent crops requires a lot of water…about 120 billion gallons a year, in fact.  At that level of consumption, Mother Jones points out that the Resnicks consume more water than all the homes in Los Angeles combined. 

    So in a state plagued by constant drought one might ask how the Resnicks built such a “thirsty” empire?  Well, at lease according to Mother Jones, they got a lot of help from taxpayers.

    Resnick Water Use

     

    The Resnicks received their first taxpayer-funded water windfall in 1995 when they were effectively “gifted” the Kern Water Bank by the State of California (i.e. taxpayers).  Ironically, the State had just purchased the Kern Water Bank 7 years prior for $148mm (in current terms) to serve as an emergency water supply for Los Angeles.  We guess the threats that had led the State to seek out an emergency supply of water disappeared over the course of those 7 years.

    As you might suspect, California taxpayers have always been a little suspect of the massive wealth transfer inherent in the Kern Water Bank deal.  As pointed out by the Los Angeles Times,
    the Kern Water Bank transfer has been the subject of decades of litigation with local water agencies and environmental groups that say “the Kern Water Bank transaction was essentially a gift of public property to private interests and therefore violates the state constitution.

    By giving this resource away, not only have we lost money on the deal, but we’ve lost a mechanism to use this water for the most beneficial purposes,” Adam Keats of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, the lead attorney on the lawsuit, told me recently.

     

    The storage facility is the Kern Water Bank, a complex of wells, pumps and pipelines on a 20,000-acre parcel of abandoned farmland southwest of Bakersfield. The water bank was initially part of the $1.75-billion bond-funded State Water Project, which provides water for 25 million Californians and irrigates 750,000 acres.

    To be fair, the Resnicks did have to make “concessions” before being gifted the water bank…fortunately for them they gave up a whole lot of nothing.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the Resnicks gave up “junior water rights” associated with the State Water Project which the Times pointed out were “from a portion of the State Water Project that will never be built and therefore has no value.”  In fact, according to lawsuit documents, the Resnicks likely saved money by forfeiting their State Water Project allocation because it saved them from paying annual dues to the project.   

    To add insult to injury, Mother Jones points out that the story doesn’t end there.  The land that came along with the Kern Water Bank gave the Resnick’s access to water from California’s State and Federal Water Projects which could be purchased at attractive rates.  According to an analysis by the Contra Costa Times, between 2000-2007, the Resnicks were able to pocket $30mm by buying State and Federal Water allocations at $28 per acre foot and then selling to the State of California (taxpayers) for as much as $196 per acre foot.  So if we understand correctly, the Resnicks were gifted a $150mm project courtesy of taxpayers and then made an incremental $30mm selling the water they were gifted by taxpayers back to those very same taxpayers.  Genius.

    Lest you thought there was something “fishy” going on, Lynda Resnick confirmed to Mother Jones that they have no political influence on water issues in California, saying:

    We have no influence politically—I swear to you.  Nobody has political influence in this. Nor would we use it.

    But as bad as that all sounds, at least from the perspective of California taxpayers, the current Resnick-supported, taxpayer-funded water grab by the Beverly Hills Billionaires puts the Kern Water Bank deal to shame.  Of course we’re talking about the “Delta Tunnels” project which is estimated to cost taxpayers up to $65 billion (this is a topic we recently wrote about in a post called “FishLivesMatter: California To Decide If Saving ‘Delta Smelt’ Is Worth $65 Billion Of Taxpayer Money“). 

    We’ll spare you all the gory details behind the project, but, in summary, when environmentalists effectively shut down water shipments flowing through the California Delta and into State and Federal Water Project canals in the northern part of the state the Resnicks, along with Governor Jerry Brown, floated the idea of building the “Delta Tunnels.”  The project contemplates building 30 miles of massive underground pipes to connect existing water canals to the Sacramento river in an effort to bypass the California Delta and all the environmental issues that come along with it.  The pipes could carry 67,000 gallons of water per second transporting the water to canals that would then flow to the Resnick’s farms in the southern part of the Central Valley.

    But the original launch of the “Delta Tunnels” got push-back as taxpayers saw it as just another taxpayer-funded case of corporate welfare benefiting wealthy Central Valley corporate farming interests, like the Resnicks.  So what do you do if you’re a billionaire with limitless influence and taxpayers balk at giving you $65 billion for a pet project?  Well you put together coalitions like the “Californians for Water Security” and you poll 100s of “focus groups” to figure which buzz words work best to sway the hearts and minds of taxpayers.  Turns out, buzz words like “water security” and “fragile water infrastructure” combined with fear tactics incorporating risks from earthquakes is way more convincing to taxpayers than “massive taxpayer-funded wealth redistribution to Beverly Hills Billionaire farmers“…that just doesn’t have as good a ring to it.

    Per Restore the Delta:

    Public Records Act documents received from the Santa Clara Valley Water District show how Stewart Resnick’s Paramount Farms led the charge to create Californians for Water Security. They spent piles of money on focus groups with people from urban water districts, led by ratepayer-funded water district officials, to discover public fears and create messaging to sell the tunnels. This week, they are continuing by running from business chamber to business chamber to scare them into supporting the tunnels, falsely making the earthquake threat in the Delta somehow greater than the threat to the water system in Los Angeles. They forget, however, that time and time again in California, the majority of people do not see issues in the same way that dated, out-of-touch business chambers do.

    So, with polling data in hand and an arsenal of buzz words from the focus groups, a new ad campaign was launched to convince Californians that they were going to die of thirst after the next earthquake wipes out California’s water infrastructure…that is, unless, the Resnicks get their $65BN.

     

     

    And wouldn’t you know it, shortly thereafter, Governor Jerry Brown also coincidentally re-branded the project the California Water Fix and the fight goes on.

    But we certainly don’t want to imply that the Resnicks have received all of these “perks” for nothing.  They have spent handsomely on political contributions over the years with funds flowing to Republicans and Democrats.  As Mother Jones points out, the Resnicks have contributed money to every Californian Governor since Pete Wilson (who just happens to have been the Governor during that “questionable” transfer of the Kern Water Bank that we discussed above…but contributions to him were “small” at only ~$240,000 according the Center for Investigative Reporting):

    They’ve given six-figure sums to every California governor since Republican Pete Wilson. They donated $734,000 to Gray Davis, including $91,000 to oppose his recall. Then they gave $221,000 to his replacement, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has called them “some of my dearest, dearest friends.” The $150,000 they’ve sprinkled on Jerry Brown since 2010 might not seem like a lot by comparison, but no other individual donor has given more. The Resnicks also have chipped in another $250,000 to support Brown’s pet ballot measure to fund education.

    Data from the Center for Investigative Reporting on the Resnick’s political contributions over the years seems to support the Mother Jones data.  While California Governors seem to have benefited the most from the Resnick’s generosity, the DNC/RNC, state senators, congressmen and mayors all collected their fair share of the pie. 

    Resnick

     

    Meanwhile, contributions have been spread out across the political parties.

    Resnick

     

    While it is unclear whether the Delta Tunnels will ever be built we’re quite certain that the best interests of taxpayers will not get in the way of whatever decision is ultimately made. 

  • Former Soviet Leader Gorbachev Has A Message The World Needs To Hear

    Submitted by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,

    In August of 1991, members of the Soviet Union’s government — who were also hard-line members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) — attempted to take control of the country. What many call a coup attempt failed in just two days.

    This month marks the 25th anniversary of the failed effort. During a conversation with Interfax, former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev spoke openly about the situation of the Soviet Union at the time. But he also seized the opportunity to take a stab at what many in America believe to be one of their country’s worst traits: foreign interventionism.

    When the collapse of the Soviet Union seemed imminent, Gorbchev told Interfax,

    I told the Americans: you are trying to impose your democracy on the people of different countries, spreading it around like coffee in bags, but we must give the people a chance to make their own choice.”

    The “one-legged solutions” imposed by American governments against other nations, Gorbachev added, are inevitable and beyond the president’s power. “Even President Obama,” the former Soviet president said, “democratically elected and enjoying in this regard a significant authority in the country, could not change this course.”

    His discontent seems to be rooted in how America reacted to the collapse of the Soviet Union, noting[t]hey did not want the Soviet Union to become a powerful democratic state.”

    According to Gorbachev, reforms and changes were already underway, and decentralization of the Soviet Union was only a matter of time. At the time, U.S. officials feared their country’s “policy of unilateral measures … [or] the policy of US domination in global affairs” would not work, Gorbachev added, prompting U.S. officials to push for a total collapse as opposed to letting the country take its own course.

    He continued:

    And then, when they made a bid for Boris Yeltsin, their goal was the same – to prevent the emergence of Russia as a powerful democratic state. Remember, when the [Soviet] Union collapsed, what was the West’s reaction to this tragic event? They said, ‘this is a gift from God.’ And when Russia was on its back, the US president openly applauded the Russian leadership of the time.”

    During the interview, RT confirms, Gorbachev admitted that the union’s downfall was not mainly due to foreign intervention. Instead, he declared, “the country’s authorities and he himself were late with reforms which were strongly needed.” Said reforms included the replacement of “the centralized government planning that had been a hallmark of the Soviet system with a greater reliance on market forces.”

    But Gorbachev defended his position by saying that, once the country was getting ready “to launch [reforms], reshaping the entire system of managing the [Soviet] Union … our opponents also knew that tomorrow would be too late” — meaning members of the Western world, including the United States. The former Soviet leader claimed they knew “there were contradictions, that the old shape of the Union no longer” met the needs of the country, and that the USSR “had to be reformed, decentralized, but not destroyed.”

    He also added that, by then, he thought “only a fool would try to break it all.” But once he allowed confidence to grow into arrogance, Gorbachev told reporters, things got out of his control.

    Twenty-five years after the failed coup, Gorbachev appears to admit that domestic intervention is just as bad as foreign intervention, providing those who are listening with a great opportunity to learn from his own mistakes as a statesman.

    While the Soviet Union had a long history of perpetrating crimes against humanity that are often hard to compare to any other brutal dictatorship in history due to their devastating outcome, it’s also important to consider that many may have learned from this tragic episode in history. As a result, many now have a better grasp of human nature and voluntary exchange.

    Hopefully, his words on the dangers of intervention — domestic or abroad — will resound with the Russian people, and maybe even with Americans.

  • America's "Humanitarian War" Against the World

    Via Strategic-Culture.org,

    The following  text is a point by point thematic summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky‘s presentation at the Science for Peace Conference, Academy of Sciences, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, 15-16 August 2016

    Introduction

    Historically, science has supported the development of the weapons industry and the war economy. “Science for Peace” indelibly requires reversing the logic whereby commissioned  scientific endeavors are directed towards supporting what President Eisenhower called “The Military Industrial Complex”.

    What is consequently required is a massive redirection of science and technology towards the pursuit of broad societal objectives. In turn, this requires a major shift in what is euphemistically called “US Foreign Policy”, namely America’s global military agenda.

    Military Affairs: The Current Global Context 

    The world is at a dangerous crossroads.  The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

    Under a global military agenda, the actions undertaken by the Western military alliance (U.S.-NATO-Israel) in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Palestine, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq are coordinated at the highest levels of the military hierarchy. We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific region.

    The current situation is all the more critical inasmuch as a US-NATO war on Russia, China and Iran is part of the US presidential election debate. It is presented as a political and military option to Western public opinion.

    The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states. America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare.

    U.S. and NATO forces have been deployed in Eastern Europe including Poland and Ukraine. In turn, military maneuvers are being conducted at Russia’s doorstep which could potentially lead to confrontation with the Russian Federation.

    The U.S. and its allies are also threatening China under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”.

    The U.S. led airstrikes initiated in August 2014 directed against Iraq and Syria under the pretext of going after the Islamic State are part of a scenario of military escalation extending from North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean to Central and South Asia.

    * * *

    THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WAR AND “COLLATERAL DAMAGE” 

    “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. …  The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (President Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)

     

    “The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians..” (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945).

    [Note: the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; the Second on Nagasaki, on August 9, on the same day as Truman's radio speech to the Nation]

    (Listen to Excerpt of his speech, Hiroshima audio video)

    Hiroshima after the bomb

    Is Truman’s notion of “collateral damage” in the case of nuclear war still relevant? Publicly available military documents confirm that nuclear war is still on the drawing board  of the Pentagon.

    Compared to the 1950s, however, today’s nuclear weapons are far more advanced. The delivery system is more precise. In addition to China and Russia, Iran and North Korea are targets for a first strike pre-emptive nuclear attack.

    US military documents claim that the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons are harmless to civilians.

    Let us be under no illusions, the Pentagon’s plan to blow up the planet using advanced nuclear weapons is still on the books.

    War is Good for Business:

    Spearheaded by the “defense contractors” (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, British Aerospace  et al), the Obama administration has proposed a one trillion dollar plan over a 30 year period to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, bombers, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) largely directed at Russia and China.

    War with Russia: From the Cold War to the New Cold War

    Blowing up Russia, targeting Russian cities is still on the Pentagon’s drawing board.  In the words of Hillary Clinton, the nuclear option is on the table.  Preemptive nuclear war is part of her election campaign.

    Source: National Security Archive

    According to 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union,China, and Eastern Europe.

     

    Major Cities in Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings.  (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015

    Excerpt of list of 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive

     

    GLOBAL WARFARE

    The US has formulated a global war scenario, which is defined in military documents.

    There are three major regional deployments of US-NATO which threaten Global Security:

    1. Eastern Europe on Russia’s Western Frontier, with the deployment of US-NATO military hardware on Russia’s doorstep

    2. “The Pivot to Asia” largely directed against China

    3. The Middle East and North Africa, extending to Central Asia

    In the above regions, the use of nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis is contemplated against both nuclear and non-nuclear states.

    In other regions of the World including Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, non-conventional forms of warfare are envisaged including destabilization,  ”regime change”,  covert support to terrorist organizations, economic warfare.

     

    1.  THREATENING RUSSIA ON ITS WESTERN FRONTIER

    Russia is threatened on its Western frontier with the US-NATO deployment of the so called missile defense system.

    A pro-US regime has been installed in Kiev which integrates two prominent Neo-Nazi Parties.

    Neo-Nazis are heavily integrated in Ukraine’s National Guard and military. The US government is channeling financial support, weapons and training to a Neo-Nazi entity –which is part of The Ukraine National Guard– The Azov Battalion (????????? ????) is  under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the equivalent of America’s Homeland Security.

    Kill the Russians: The New Cold War is no longer Cold

    A former CIA Official is calling for the “Killing of Russians”.  The US media and the the State Department applaud:

    CBS News, Charlie Rose

     

    2. “PIVOT TO ASIA”:  SOUTH CHINA SEA

    China is threatened by the US military in the South China Sea

    WAR WITH CHINA IS CURRENTLY ON THE DRAWING BOARD OF THE PENTAGON AS OUTLINED IN A RAND REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE US ARMY

    Washington is actively involved in creating divisions between China and its neighbours.

    The objective is to draw South East Asia and the Far East into a protracted military conflict by creating divisions between China and ASEAN countries, most of which are the victims of Western colonialism and military aggression: Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed against Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia. In a bitter irony, these countries are now military allies of the United States.

    Bilateral economic relations with China are destabilized. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a US hegemonic project which seeks to control trade, investment, intellectual property, etc in the Asia Pacific region.

    THAAD MISSILE DEPLOYMENT IN SOUTH KOREA DIRECTED AGAINST CHINA

    THAAD missiles are deployed in South Korea, against China, Russia and North Korea.  Washington states that THAAD is solely intended as a Missile Shield against North Korea.

    THAAD System

    The Jeju island military base is also directed against China. 

    Less than 500km from Shanghai

     

    3. US-NATO WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA (MENA)

    Meanwhile, under the pretext of  waging a “war on terrorism”, US-NATO are intervening militarily in the broader Middle East Central Asian region extending from the Mediterranean to Central Asia: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, resulting in several million civilian deaths.

    THe objective is to destabilize and destroy sovereign countries and to displace secular governments under regime change.

    The next stage of the Middle East war is Iran.

    The Global War on Terrorism is a Big Lie. Al Qaeda is a Creation of US Intelligence

    From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979 to the present, various Islamic fundamentalist paramilitary organizations became de facto instruments of US intelligence and more generally of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance.

    The US has actively supported Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist organizations since the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan War.  Washington has engineered the installation of Islamist regimes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has destroyed the fabric of secular societies.

    Confirmed by Israeli intelligence media,  the Al Qaeda opposition fighters in Syria are recruited by US-NATO and the Turkish high command.

    They are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, with special forces in their midst. The Al Qaeda affiliated “moderate” terrorist organizations in Syria are supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    The counter-terrorism agenda is bogus. It’s a criminal undertaking. What is being bombed is the civilian infrastructure of a sovereign country.

    The Historical Origins of al Qaeda

    In this video-footage President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1979) arrives in a helicopter and speaks to a translator in front of a seated crowd of Mujahedeen:

    ‘We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. – That land over-there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.’

    The video-footage can be found in the documentary series “Cold War” (Episode #24, Soldiers of God, 1975-1988), Turner Original Productions (Time Warner), 1998. Speaker Kenneth Branagh.

    isi and cia directors in mujahideen camp1987 Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11
    Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official, Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987. (source RAWA)

    Referred to as “Freedom Fighters”, president Reagan meets Afghan Al Qaeda Mujahideen leaders at the White House 

    The Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia:

    “[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged.”(Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), “RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.”, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 16 September 2001)

    Destroying National Sovereignty and Secular Societies, Installing an Islamic State (Made in America)

    What has been the fate of Afghanistan.

    A progressive secular state in the 1970s and early 1980s has become a US failed State integrated by US supported Al Qaeda terrorists. This is the model that US-NATO want to impose on Syria, Iraq, Libya: Destroy national sovereignty and replace it with an Islamic State which conforms to Washington’s demands.

    Kabul University in the 1980′s

    Unknown to the American public, the US spread the teachings of the Islamic jihad in textbooks “Made in America”, developed at the University of Nebraska:

    … the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

     

    The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..

     

    The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books “are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy.” Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

     

    … AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

     

    “It’s not AID’s policy to support religious instruction,” Stratos said. “But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.”

     

    … Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

     

    CONCLUDING REMARKS 

    War is not an inevitable process. War can be prevented through mass action.

    War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are “committed to their safety and well-being”. Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

    The legitimacy of the war must be addressed. Antiwar sentiment alone does not disarm a military agenda.

    The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

    There is a sense of urgency. Today, the antiwar movement is virtually defunct.

    What is the Truth

    The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance, yet realities in an inquisitorial environment are turned upside down: the warmongers are committed to peace, the victims of war are presented as the protagonists of war.

    The homeland is threatened.

    The media, intellectuals and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the unspoken truth, namely that the US-NATO led war destroys humanity.

    When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

    When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor, Justice and the entire international legal system are turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. Opposing the war becomes a criminal act. Meanwhile, the war criminals in high office have ordered a witch hunt against those who challenge their authority.

    The Big Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

    It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

    It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

    It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

    It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

    Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

    ACTIONS

    1. The role of media disinformation in sustaining the military agenda is crucial.

    We will not succeed in our endeavours unless the propaganda apparatus is weakened and eventually dismantled. It is essential  to inform our fellow citizens on the causes and consequences of the US-led war, not to mention the extensive war crimes and atrocities which are routinely obfuscated by the media. This is no easy task.  It requires an  effective counter-propaganda program which refutes mainstream media assertions.

    It is essential that the relevant information and analysis reaches the broader public.   The Western media is controlled by a handful of powerful business syndicates. The media conglomerates which control network TV and the printed press must be challenged through cohesive actions which reveal the lies and falsehoods.

    2. There is opposition within the political establishment in the US as well as within the ranks of the Armed Forces.

    While this opposition does not necessarily question the overall direction of US foreign policy, it is firmly opposed to military adventurism, including the use of nuclear weapons. These voices within the institutions of the State, the Military and the business establishment are important because they can be usefully channeled to discredit and ultimately dismantle the “war on terrorism” consensus.  The broadest possible alliance of political and social forces is, therefore, required to prevent a military adventure which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity.

    3. The structure of military alliances must be addressed. A timely shift in military alliances could potentially reverse the course of history.

    Whereas France and Germany are broadly supportive of the US led war, there are strong voices in both countries as well as within the European Union, which firmly oppose the US led military agenda, both at the grassroots level as well within the political system itself.

    The weakening of the system of alliances which commits Western Europe to supporting the Anglo-American military axis, could indeed contribute to reversing  the tide. Washington would hesitate to wage a war on Iran without the support of France and Germany.

    4. The holding of large antiwar rallies is important and essential. But in will not in itself reverse the tide of war unless it is accompanied by the development of a cohesive antiwar network.

    What is required is a grass roots antiwar network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the main military and political actors, as well as their corporate sponsors, and which would ultimately be instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name. The construction of this type of network will take time to develop.

    Initially, it should focus on developing an antiwar stance within existing citizens’ organizations (e.g. trade unions, community organizations, professional regroupings, student federations, municipal councils, etc.).

    Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

    Bring home the troops.

    Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

  • Losing Louisiana: Shocking Images Of Life After A 1000-Year Flood

    Floods ravaged the state of Louisiana, leaving at least 11 people dead and 30,000 more forced to flee rising waters after days of catastrophic rainstorms. Bloomberg's Brendan Smialowski captured these images of the aftermath

    A boy rides his bike inside the flood-damaged Life Tabernacle Church…

     

    John Booth (left) sits with Angela Latiolais's (second from left) family while helping them save belongings after flooding…

     

    A dump truck stranded in a flooded construction site…

     

    A boat full of dogs makes its way through a flooded neighborhood…

     

    Volunteers move cages at a temporary animal shelter inside the Lamar Dixon Expo Center near a flood victims' shelter after flooding…

     

    A family of deer makes its way through flood waters…

     

    People carry computer parts from a boat after flooding…

     

    A car partially submerged in flood waters…

     

    The Gold-N-Guns pawn shop seen in flood waters…

     

    Rubble burns after flooding…

     

    Of course, on the bright side, now economists have an excuse for weak Q3 GDP data.

    *  *  *

    And finally – after all that devastation- there is this… The Aqua Dam…

    The Aqua Dam sounds truly nuts. A giant inner-tube around your house to protect you from floods? And it costs more than $8,000? That's some serious prepper stuff, and surely crazy. Well, this one worked magnificently during the Louisiana and Texas floods. Private enterprise comes through again!

    This is exactly the kind of thing that can only emerge in a free society where people can experiment and try out all kinds of different ways of solving problems. It's something that clearly a lot of people would think is ridiculous or too expensive, not practical, etc., yet it's the very thing that saved Randy Wagner's house.

    If we were all forced to leave it up to a one-size-fits-all state enforced solution to flooding, you know what would have happened: Wagner would have been forcibly evacuated from his home and would have had to watch as it got destroyed.

    But in a world where entrepreneurs can offer a variety of different products, and where buyers are free to take a chance on things they may not know for sure are going to work out, a family home survived a flood.

  • The 10 Worst Places In America To Start A Business

    Anywhere you start a business, it's going to be a gamble.

    More new businesses fail than succeed, according to the Kauffman Foundation. And, as CNBC notes, U.S. Small Business Administration data shows that it's only a matter of time before at least half of all businesses go under: Nearly two-thirds of businesses with employees survive at least two years, but only about 50 percent survive at least five years.

    So it's important to set up in an area where the odds are in your favor. Some cities are more hospitable to business formation than others. Regulatory hurdles, tax rates, ease and cost of hiring, and cost of real estate are just some of the factors. Cities across the country are also dealing with demographic challenges, including population growth, an aging workforce and economic stagnation.

    The new CNBC Metro 20: America's Best Places to Start a Business ranking identified metro areas where the likelihood of business success is highest. For that ranking, CNBC reviewed data on the 107 largest metro areas in the United States.  

    Here's a look at the bottom 10 – the metro areas where social, economic and government hurdles to success could plague business owners.

    10. Jackson, Mississippi

    Jackson, the capital of the Magnolia State, is weighed by an array of issues that work together to keep entrepreneurs at bay.

    With a population of nearly 171,000, Jackson battles higher-than-average unemployment and a poverty rate of nearly 30 percent, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data.

    The city's chief issues include dilapidated properties and potholes, thanks to frequent flooding and decades of poor infrastructure management.

    Jackson is trying to fix the issue. In 2014 the city approved a 1 percent sales-tax increase to fund infrastructure repairs. The measure is a crucial part of Jackson's mission to transform itself into a destination city that is "safe and conducive to entrepreneurial endeavors," according to the city's official website.

    • Jackson population growth rate: 2.06 percent
    • Jackson average hourly wages: $21.37
    • Jackson unemployment rate: 5.4 percent
    • Jackson cost of living: Low
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    9. Albuquerque, New Mexico

    One of New Mexico's eight state-designated arts and cultural districts, Albuquerque is known for its historic buildings, old churches and wealth of handcrafts shops, making it a go-to destination for cultural tourists. But heavily reliant on volatile oil and gas revenues, New Mexico's economy struggled to recover from the Great Recession, and the labor force has stagnated.

    In June, Albuquerque's unemployment rate rose to 6.4 percent, the highest level since August 2015, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (average annual unemployment was used for the Metro 20 ranking). In addition, annual income growth per capita rose a dismal 0.3 percent in 2013, the most recent data available, trailing the national average of 1.1 percent, according to Albuquerque's most recent progress report.

    The city said it plans to make small business a big part of its economy resurgence. It now offers entrepreneurial support resources, including Innovate ABQ, a hub for researchers, investors and entrepreneurs.

    • Albuquerque population growth rate: 2.28 percent
    • Albuquerque average hourly wages: $20.97
    • Albuquerque unemployment rate: 6.2 percent
    • Albuquerque cost of living: Average
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    8. Louisville, Kentucky

    Louisville may be home to big market-cap companies, like YUM! Brands, Papa John's and Lexmark, but more than 18 percent of the city's estimated 615,370 residents live in poverty. Meanwhile, the median household income is just $44,806, well below the U.S. average of $53,482, according to government data.

    Still, the city claims that small business accounts for about two-thirds of jobs.

    A plan called Louisville Forward aims to accelerate the economy through start-up resources, including five business accelerators, five co-working hubs and more than 20 networking partners. The city is also promoting a "buy local" initiative.

    • Louisville population growth rate: 3.46 percent
    • Louisville average hourly wages: $23.24
    • Louisville unemployment rate: 4.7 percent
    • Louisville cost of living: Low
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    7. Providence, Rhode Island

    Providence is an epicenter of academia, with eight college and university campuses anchored in the city, including the prestigious Brown University, Johnson & Wales University and Providence College. However, many students flee after graduation, resulting in a severe case of brain drain.

    As a result, the city's workforce has been hit hard. Providence's population grew just 1.1 percent between 2010 and 2015, dragging behind the country's growth of 4.1 percent over the same period, according to U.S. Census data.

    Rhode Island as a whole has business-friendliness issues. It was recently named America's Bottom State for Business in CNBC's 10th annual state-level ranking, and it's not the first time the state has been at the bottom of the list.

    • Providence population growth rate: 0.76 percent
    • Providence average hourly wages: $24.78
    • Providence unemployment rate: 6 percent
    • Providence cost of living: Average
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    6. Fresno, California

    With a poverty rate that is nearly double the national average and a median household income of just $41,455, Fresno is one of California's poorest communities. But the city has tax incentives in place that are designed to boost income growth and business.

    As a part of the state's Economic Development Initiative program, businesses in Fresno receive a tax credit when they hire qualified employees for wages paid between 150 percent and 350 percent of the minimum wage.

    Because Fresno was designated as one of three pilot program areas in the state, the qualifying wage threshold in Fresno is lower than the program standard of $15, at $10/hour for pilot cities, resulting in a larger tax credit for firms in the area.

    • Fresno population growth rate: 4.77 percent
    • Fresno average hourly wages: $20.13
    • Fresno unemployment rate: 10.2 percent
    • Fresno cost of living: Average
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    5. Santa Rosa, California

    Located about 55 miles north of San Francisco, Santa Rosa should get some of the benefits of the tech boom, but it is weighed down in the ranking by expensive costs of living and above-average hourly wages.

    Indeed, the city touts itself as the North Bay's premier location for technology and entrepreneurial businesses, and it is trying to live up to the title. Santa Rosa has placed a renewed focus on entrepreneurship, and it now hosts a portal for local business owners on its official municipal website.

    It's also involved in a joint venture with the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce and the North Bay Angels, a seed capital firm. The partnership, called the North Bay Growth & Innovation Forum, aids local start-ups by creating a larger pool of available angel and private-equity financing.

    • Santa Rosa population growth rate: 3.78 percent
    • Santa Rosa average hourly wages: $27.15
    • Santa Rosa unemployment rate: 4.5 percent
    • Santa Rosa cost of living: Very high
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    4. Allentown, Pennsylvania

    Allentown, Pennsylvania's third-largest city, started down a financial spiral a few decades ago (remember the Billy Joel tune?) when nearby big employers folded or fled and its retail sector collapsed. Now Allentown officials say it is undergoing a renaissance and the city wants to make entrepreneurs vital to the plan's success.

    The city partners with two business incubators — Bridgeworks Enterprise Center and Velocity — both located in the Lehigh Valley area of Allentown. The former focuses predominantly on manufacturing and manufacturing-related technology start-ups, while the latter provides affordable office space, advisory services and networking sessions to founders who are dedicated to urban renewal.

    • Allentown population growth rate: 1.36 percent
    • Allentown average hourly wages: $23.24
    • Allentown unemployment rate: 5.2 percent
    • Allentown cost of living: Average
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    3. San Bernardino, California

    With nearly 34 percent of the population living below the poverty line, San Bernardino is the most impoverished city in California.

    The city declared bankruptcy in 2012, with a $46 million budget deficit, forcing it to make serious cuts in services.

    Unlike some of the other American towns in this bottom 10 that are making efforts to boost business, San Bernardino is now considering legislation that could make the business climate even worse. An amendment proposed in June would eliminate development funding for the city's small business assistance program, saving the city $150,000 for the current fiscal year. The amendment would also reduce funding for the Center for Employment Opportunities by 60 percent.

    But the city also states that it plans to offer an aggressive business incubator program to support entrepreneurial development.

    • San Bernardino population growth rate: 6.26 percent
    • San Bernardino average hourly wages: $21.48
    • San Bernardino unemployment rate: 6.6 percent
    • San Bernardino cost of living: High
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    2. Modesto, California

    Yep, yet another city from the Golden State relegated to this bottom 10 (the fourth thus far if you're keeping count). California may have the world's start-up mecca in Silicon Valley, but it isn't the best climate for business owners, in general. The state usually does poorly in CNBC's Top States for Business ranking due to lofty costs of living, high tax rates and high hourly wages. It came in No. 32 in the 2016 Top States ranking.

    Modesto has a population of about 211,270, with nearly 21 percent of residents living below the poverty line, compared to the statewide poverty rate of 16 percent, according to U.S. Census data. The college graduation rate is much lower that the state average, too — more than 80 percent of residents lack college degrees.

    Companies may struggle to find qualified job applicants, but the city is working to mend the education gap by connecting businesses and education leaders and encouraging social service. Earlier this month, the Modesto Chamber of Commerce held its sixth annual State of Business & Education gathering to show businesses ways to improve the local workforce.

    • Modesto population growth rate: 4.65 percent
    • Modesto average hourly wages: $22.92
    • Modesto unemployment rate: 9.5 percent
    • Modesto cost of living: Average
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

     

    1. Stockton, California

    The seventh-poorest city in California, Stockton has the dubious distinction of the worst city in which to start a business. Median household income of $45,347 is about $16,000 less than the statewide average. The city's college graduation rate is also much lower than the state and national averages, according to federal data.

    The city is aware of its challenges.

    In its most recent planning report, the city said it wanted to become more business friendly and make it easier for developers to acquire licenses and fulfill permit requirements. Business issues, such as cost of permits and fees, have become a major talking point in this year's mayoral election. Stockton's often complicated and expensive permitting and licensing process is a top concern for local business owners and developers.

    • Stockton population growth rate: 5.95 percent
    • Stockton average hourly wages: $21.42
    • Stockton unemployment rate: 8.9 percent
    • Stockton cost of living: Average
    • Median population growth rate, all metro areas: 4.77 percent
    • Median average hourly wages, all metro areas: $23.77
    • Median unemployment rate, all metro areas: 5.1 percent

    *  *  *

    So 50% of America's worst 10 cities for starting a business are in Californiawhich should not be a surprise since we noted with three simple charts why businesses are fleeing California.

    Source: CNBC

  • "There's Going To Be A Massive Run On Firearms" If A Hillary Win Is Imminent

    Submitted via Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com

    Survival Expert James Rawles Warns: “There’s Going To Be A Massive Run On Firearms… Bigger Than Anything We’ve Ever Seen Before” If Hillary Win Is Imminent

    James Wesley Rawles is a former intelligence officer of the United States Army, prolific author and one of the top survival experts in the world. In his best-selling book series Patriots he paints a terrifying picture of a post-collapse America where food is scarce, currency is worthless, law and order have broken down, and survival is a daily struggle. It’s a fictional tale, of course, but one that is grounded in real-world possibilities.

    In his latest interview with SGT Report, the SurvivalBlog.com founder breaks down the probability of such a scenario and explains that should it come to pass, where hyperinflation destroys our currency or a world war ravages America, the most important thing to have in your possession will be essential tangible assets.

    Further, Rawles notes that as we get closer to the possibility of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, we may soon see panic buying of firearms, ammunition and gun-related accessories.

    Venezuela is a microcosm of a centrally planned government and currency run amok… and we need to learn from their example.

     

    If you notice the things that people are clamoring for are tangibles… they’re looking for food and they’re looking for currencies that are inflation proof and that usually means precious metals.

     

    So if we’re going to learn anything from Venezuela it’s tangibles, tangibles, tangibles.

     

    …Wake up… watch what’s happening in Venezuela… you need to get your beans, bullets and band aids squared away… Those tangible items are going to be what pulls your family through the hard times ahead. And regardless of what happens to currencies, if you have a honest one year supply of food, preferably two years, and a good core position in physical precious metals that you hold at home… hidden… not in a bank because banks are vulnerable to banking holidays where they would limit or eliminate access to your safe deposit box…

     

    If you have those tangibles… food, silver and my other favorite is common caliber ammunition… that’s the other thing you should really stock up on heavily.

     

    I have a feeling that as we get closer to the election and if it looks like the poll numbers are leaning to Hillary winning there’s going to be a massive run on firearms… bigger than anything we’ve ever seen before… and along with that people are going to be rushing to buy any ammunition they can, reloading components and full capacity magazines.

    If you want to survive a collapse scenario this is a must-listen interview:

  • A Silver Lining For Ryan Lochte?
  • The Definitive Answer To Whether The Oil Market Has Rebalanced

    By EconMatters


    Introduction:

     

    There has been much debate in this oil industry regarding this subject with a lot of poor analysis, no analysis at all, opinions, raw speculation, pure conjecture and every investment bank in the world talking their book on this subject. So we thought we would settle this question once and for all so that everybody is on the same page. We analyzed the Oil Market to determine this question definitively by checking the actual data. The only valid way of determining this matter in a rational and constructive manner.

     

    Exhibit #1: U.S. Ending Stocks Excluding SPR of Crude Oil:

     

    2016       5/6         539,984 (Million Barrels of Oil)    8/12       521,093 (Million Barrels of Oil)

     

    We drew down 18.9 Million of Oil Stocks during summer driving season in 2016.

     

    2015       5/8         484,839 (Million Barrels of Oil)    8/14       456,213 (Million Barrels of Oil)

     

    We drew down 28.6 Million of Oil Stocks during summer driving season in 2015.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    We drew down more oil in 2015 versus 2016 for the same strong season of the market, and we are sitting with an extra 65 Million more barrels of oil in storage year over year with less of a drawdown this year during the Summer Driving Season. Therefore: Oil Market Not Rebalanced.

     

    Exhibit #2: U.S. Stocks of Total Gasoline:

     

    2016       5/6         240,564 (Million Barrels of Gasoline)        8/12       232,659 (Million Barrels of Gasoline)

     

    We drew down 7.9 Million of Gasoline Stocks during summer driving season in 2016.

     

    2015       5/8         226,710 (Million Barrels of Gasoline)        8/14       212,774 (Million Barrels of Gasoline)

     

    We drew down 13.9 Million of Gasoline Stocks during summer driving season in 2015.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    We drew down more gasoline in 2015 versus 2016 for the same strong season of the market, and we are sitting with an extra 20 Million more barrels of gasoline in storage year over year with less of a drawdown this year during the Summer Driving Season. Therefore: Gasoline Market Not Rebalanced.

     

    Exhibit #3: U.S. Stocks of Distillate Fuel Oil:

     

    2016       5/6         155,332 (Million Barrels of Distillate Oil)  8/12       153,135 (Million Barrels of Distillate Oil)

     

    We drew down 2.2 Million of Distillate Stocks during summer driving season in 2016.

     

    2015       5/8         128,270 (Million Barrels of Distillate Oil)  8/14       148,400 (Million Barrels of Distillate Oil)

     

    We built 20.1 Million of Distillate Stocks during summer driving season in 2015.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    We built more Distillate Stocks in 2015 versus 2016. However, we are sitting with 5 Million more barrels of Distillates year over year. Furthermore, we were coming from such lower levels of Distillates last year there was more room to fill up storage facilities, and like Cushing this year once Oil Capacity reaches limits the Oil gets moved to the Gulf Coast. Well similarly for Distillates once inventories reach this level of overall capacity, refiners no longer want to produce extra supplies, so they have found other alternative products to process excess oil into product for available storage capacity. Therefore: Distillate Market Not Rebalanced.

     

    Exhibit #4: U.S. Stocks of Propane and Propylene:

     

    2016       5/5         73,176 (Million Barrels of Propane)          8/12       93,744 (Million Barrels of Propane)

     

    We built 20.6 Million of Propane Stocks for this time period in 2016.

     

    2015       5/8         68,459 (Million Barrels of Propane)          8/14       93,866 (Million Barrels of Propane)

     

    We built 25.4 Million of Propane Stocks for this time period in 2015.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    We built more Propane Stocks in 2015 versus 2016. However, we basically have the same levels of overall stocks (Which are at Record Historical Levels) as this time last year. The big takeaway is that over the last two years a lot of oil has been processed into this category for the sole purpose of doing something with the existing oil glut. Therefore: The Propane and Propylene Market Not Rebalanced.

     

    Exhibit #5: U.S. Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products:

     

    2016       5/6         1,369,395 (Million Barrels of Product)      8/12       1,393,563 (Million Barrels of Product)

     

    We built 24.1 Million Barrels of Oil and Petroleum Products during summer driving season in 2016.

     

    2015       5/8         1,244,572 (Million Barrels of Product)      8/14       1,280,261 (Million Barrels of Product)

     

    We built 35.7 Million Barrels of Oil and Petroleum Products during summer driving season in 2015.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    We built 11.5 Million more Total Crude Oil & Petro Stocks in 2015 versus 2016. However, we still added another 24 Million to total overall stocks this year during the Summer Drawing and Driving Season. Moreover, we are sitting at 1,393,563 versus 1,280,261 for last year, for the highest ever Recorded Reading of this Metric by a large margin. Therefore: Oil & Petroleum Products Market Not Rebalanced.

     

    Exhibit #6: U.S. Stocks of Other Oils:

     

    2016       5/6         252,979 (Million Barrels of Oil)                    8/12       291,808 (Million Barrels of Oil)

     

    We built 38.8 Million Barrels of Other Oil Stocks during summer driving season in 2016.

     

    2015       5/8         239,763 (Million Barrels of Oil)                    8/14       268,971 (Million Barrels of Oil)

     

    We built 29.2 Million Barrels of Other Oil Stocks during summer driving season in 2015.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    We built more Other Oils in 2016 versus 2015, but both years saw substantial builds, and my guess is that with Distillates Inventories at Record Levels, refiners needed to find other available storage capacity to move excess oil into refined product and chose this category “Other Oils”. We built 22.8 Million Barrels to this Other Category year over year, and is just another sign the oil market is in fact getting worse during the strongest demand part of the season. Therefore: Other Oils Market Not Rebalanced.

     

    Conclusion:

     

    The oil market is not rebalancing as some have suggested, in fact it appears to be still oversupplied by a large measure when taking into account the year over year additions to Total Stocks and comparing them to last year`s additions. Plus when you add in the effects of floating storage, the additions to alternative products for refined product there seems a desperate effort by the oil industry to move the commodity around from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, Gasoline Refining to Other Product Refining Categories to find any available storage capacity.

     

    The Oil Market again moved up above $50 a barrel on the forward curve allowing more hedging for Oil Producers, and the reason the oil market hasn`t rebalanced is not enough producers went out of business. In fact the oil market is in such a state of denial that even if Saudi Arabia and OPEC agreed to a Production Freeze, or a Production Cut this would just allow more U.S. Production to come online in the form of the Completed Wells Category. There is still way too much Oil Supply, and the Oil Market is massively oversupplied, and actually getting worse as opposed to rebalancing. Just for context, the high end of the Five Year Average Total Oil Stocks used to top out at 250 Million Barrels of Oil each year, we are now more than double that level at 521,093 Million Barrels of Oil in storage.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle    

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 20th August 2016

  • AN EXTReMeLY CaReLeSS MiSTaKe…

    AN EXTREMELY CARELESS MISTAKE

  • President Obama Violated The Law With His Ransom Payment To Iran

    Submitted by Andrew McCarthy via NationalReview.com,

    The president hoped to camouflage what he knew to be against the law in his dealings with Iran. Did it ever occur to President Obama to ask why he couldn’t just cut a check to the Iranian regime?

    Outrage broke out this week over the revelation that Obama arranged to ship the mullahs piles of cash, worth $400 million and converted into foreign denominations, reportedly in an unmarked cargo plane. The hotly debated question was whether the payment, which the administration attributes to a 37-year-old arms deal, was actually a ransom paid for the release of American hostages Tehran had abducted.

    It is a waste of time to debate that point further. The Iranians have bragged that the astonishing cash payment was a ransom — and Obama has been telling us for months that we can trust the Iranians. The hostages were released the same day the cash arrived. One of the hostages has reported that the captives were detained an extra several hours at the airport and told they would not be allowed to leave until the arrival of another plane — inferentially, the unmarked cargo plane ferrying the cash. The reason American policy has always prohibited paying ransoms to terrorists and other abductors is that it only encourages them to take more hostages. And, as night follows day, Iran has abducted more Americans since Obama paid the cash. No matter how energetically the president tries to lawyer the ransom issue, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    More worth examining is why the transaction took the bizarre form that it did. To cut to the chase, I believe it was to camouflage — unsuccessfully — the commission of felony law violations.

    The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Justice Department strongly objected to the cash payment to Iran. As we shall see, that should come as no surprise. What is surprising is the Journal’s explanation of Justice’s concerns: Department officials, it is said, fretted that the transaction looked like a ransom payment. I don’t buy that. It is not a federal crime to pay a ransom; just to receive one. Our government’s stated disapproval of paying ransoms is a prudent policy, not a legal requirement. The Justice Department’s principal job is to enforce the laws, not to ensure good policy in foreign relations. It seems far more likely that Justice was worried that the transaction was illegal.

    If they were, they had good reasons.

    At a press conference Thursday, Obama remarkably explained, “The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran.” Really Mr. President? The whole point of sanctions is to prohibit and punish certain behavior. If you — especially you, Mr. President — do the precise thing that the sanctions prohibit, that is a strange way of being “so strict in maintaining” them.

    Now, the sanctions at issue exclude Iran from the U.S. financial system by, among other things, prohibiting Americans and financial institutions from engaging in currency transactions that involve Iran’s government. Contrary to the nuclear sanctions that Obama’s Iran deal (the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” or JCPOA) attempts to undo, the sanctions pertinent here were imposed primarily as a result of Iran’s support for terrorism. That is significant. In pleading with Congress not to disapprove the JCPOA, Obama promised lawmakers that the terrorism sanctions would remain in force.

    Terrorism-related sanctions against Iran trace back to the early 1980s, shortly after the jihadist regime overthrew the shah, stormed the American embassy, took hostages, and triggered Hezbollah’s killing sprees. But the sanctions most relevant for present purposes stem from President Clinton’s 1995 invocation of federal laws that deal with national emergencies caused by foreign aggression.

    Clinton concluded that Iran had caused such an emergency by, among other things, “its support for international terrorism.” Note that this was even before Iran killed 19 members of the U.S. Air Force in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.

    To this day, Iran remains on our government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. Clinton’s state-of-emergency declaration has been annually renewed ever since. Let that sink in: Notwithstanding Obama’s often shocking appeasement of Tehran, he has been renewing the state of emergency since 2009 — most recently, just five months ago. Indeed, it is worth noting what the Obama State Department’s latest report on “State Sponsors of Terrorism” has to say about Iran. This is from the first paragraph:

    Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for [Hezbollah], Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups[.] . . . Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

    It is due to this atrocious record that Congress pressed Obama to maintain and enforce anti-terrorism sanctions, which the administration repeatedly committed to do. This commitment was reaffirmed by Obama’s Treasury Department on January 16, 2016, the “Implementation Day” of the JCPOA. Treasury’s published guidance regarding Iran states that, in general, “the clearing of U.S. dollar- or other currency-denominated transactions through the U.S. financial system or involving a U.S. person remain prohibited[.]” (See here, p.17, sec. C.14.) I’ve added italics to highlight that it is not just U.S. dollar transactions that are prohibited; foreign currency is also barred. Obama’s cash payment, of course, involved both — a fact we’ll be revisiting shortly.

    Treasury’s guidance cites to what’s known as the ITSR (Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations), the part of the Code of Federal Regulations that implements anti-terrorism sanctions initiated by President Clinton under federal law. The specific provision cited is Section 560.204, which states:

    The exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited. [Emphasis added.]

    The regulation goes on to stress that this prohibition may not be circumvented by exporting things of value “to a person in a third country” when one has “knowledge or reason to know that” such things are “intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran.”

    To summarize, the anti-terrorism sanctions are still in effect, a fact the administration has touted many times. Obama conceded at his press conference both that these sanctions are still in effect and that they applied directly to his $400 million pay-out to our terrorist enemies. But here’s the president’s problem: While he is correct that the sanctions barred him from sending Iran a check or wire transfer, that is not all they forbid — not by a long shot. They also make it illegal to do what he did.

    As noted above, the sanctions prohibit transactions with Iran that touch the U.S. financial system, whether they are carried out in dollars or foreign currencies. The claim by administration officials, widely repeated in the press, that Iran had to be paid in euros and francs because dollar-transactions are forbidden is nonsense; Americans are also forbidden to engage in foreign currency transactions with Iran.

    Obama had our financial system issue U.S. assets that were then converted to foreign currencies for delivery to Iran. Both steps flouted the regulations, which prohibit the clearing of currency of any kind if Iran is even minimally involved in the deal; here, Iran is the beneficiary of the deal.

    The regs further prohibit supplying things of value to Iran, regardless of whether it is done “directly or indirectly.” Expressly included in the “indirect” category are transfers of assets to another country with knowledge that the other country will then forward the assets, in some form, to Iran. That’s exactly what happened here, with Obama pressing the Swiss and Dutch into service as intermediaries.

    Although these regulations leave no room for doubt that their point is to prevent and criminalize things like sending $400 million in cash to the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the ITSR adds another reg for good measure. Section 560.203 states:

    Evasions; attempts; causing violations; conspiracies: . . . Any transaction . . . that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited. . . . Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this part is prohibited.

    By his own account, President Obama engaged in the complex cash transfer in order to end-run sanctions that prohibit the U.S. from having “a banking relationship with Iran.” The point of the sanctions is not to prevent banking with Iran; it is to prevent Iran from getting value from or through our financial system — the banking prohibition is a corollary. And the point of sanctions, if you happen to be the president of the United States sworn to execute the laws faithfully, is to follow them — not pat yourself on the back for keeping them in place while you willfully evade them. The president’s press conference is better understood as a confession than an explanation.

    Oh, and there is also Section 560.701, which makes clear that willful violations of the regulations constitute serious felony offenses under federal criminal law — punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

    I hope you’re not lawed out, because there are a couple of other criminal statutes to consider.

    The first is the law against providing material support to terrorists, Section 2339A of the federal penal code. It says that anyone who provides resources — including “currency or monetary instruments” — to a person or entity with knowledge that they are to be used in the preparation or carrying out of terrorism offenses is guilty of a serious felony. I’ve italicized “knowledge” to underscore that intent is not required; to be guilty, you just need to know.

    As we note above, the Obama administration has just reaffirmed that Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, as our editors recounted in Friday’s National Review editorial:

    [Secretary of State] John Kerry even admitted in January that funds channeled to Iran as part of the nuclear deal would “end up in the hands of the IRGC [Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps] or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.”

    No doubt: The IRGC’s Quds Force is a formally designated terrorist organization, as, of course, is Hezbollah, Iran’s forward jihadist militia with which the IRGC colludes. And as Tom Joscelyn recently pointed out, Iran continues to harbor members of al-Qaeda (three of whom were just formally designated as terrorists).

    In sum, the Obama administration has provided Iran with $400 million under circumstances in which it well knows that at least some of this cash will be used for terrorism. Indeed, as the editors point out, by providing the money in cash, Obama makes it more likely that it will be used for terrorism: Iran likes to deny its complicity in jihadist acts; so now, flush with cash, it can fund atrocities without leaving a paper trail.

    The second law involves money laundering, criminalized by Congress in Section 1956 of the penal code. There are several prohibited varieties of money laundering. It can be a crime, for example, to conduct a financial transaction involving money used to facilitate unlawful activity. And if money is transferred outside the United States, it can be illegal to use it to promote criminal activity.

    As we’ve seen, both currency transmissions to Iran and the provision of material support to terrorism are unlawful activities. The administration has conducted a financial transaction (in fact, several transactions: the issuance of the assets, their conversion into foreign currency, and the transmission to Iran) which facilitated both currency transfers to Iran and Iran’s certain use of the money to support terrorism. Plus, the money was shipped outside the United States before being transferred to Iran and before Iran will use it to promote terrorism. Money-laundering cases often boil down to proof of intent; but there clearly are multiple grounds on which to investigate whether the laws have been transgressed.

    The circumstances of Obama’s enormous cash transfer to our terrorist enemies raise serious questions about whether American policy against paying ransoms to terrorists has been flouted. But that should not obscure a more fundamental issue: The president has violated the law.

  • Cathay Pacific Crushed As Chinese Corporate Travel Collapses

    Cathay Pacific announced earnings earlier this week which paint a fairly ominous picture for China.  The airline posted a 9.3% YoY drop in revenue and an 82% decline in net profit which they attributed to, among other things, "weak passsenger demand, particularly in the premium class".  Comments from the Cathay's press release clearly indicate weak corporate travel with the company pointing out that corporate enplanements in Hong Kong declined for the first time since 2009:

    • The slowdown in the Mainland China economy and economic fragility elsewhere caused restrictions to be placed on corporate travel. This adversely affected premium class demand, particularly on long-haul routes.
    • Yield was further affected by strong competition, adverse currency movements and a significant reduction in premium corporate travel.
    • Demand for travel originating from Hong Kong was strong in the first two months of the year, but weakened thereafter. Corporate travel originating in Hong Kong was well below expectations, particularly to London and New York. Numbers travelling declined for the first time since 2009, when business was affected by the financial crisis.
    • Tourism from Mainland China to Hong Kong is weak.

    A couple of tables from Cathay's earnings presentation help sum up the story.

    Passenger yields tanked in 1H16 on lower corporate travel…

    Cathay

     

    Marking the lowest yields since 2009…

    Cathay

     

    While cargo yields plunged through 2009 levels…

    Cathay Cargo Yield

     

    Unfortunately, Chairman John Slosar doesn't expect things to improve in the back half of 2016:

    We expect the operating environment in the second half of the year to continue to be impacted by the same adverse factors as in the first half. The overall business outlook therefore remains challenging. We expect passenger yield to remain under pressure. Overcapacity and economic fragility will dampen cargo demand.  We will also continue to be vigilant on costs.

    Meanwhile, the company's earnings presentation noted the following for 2H16 outlook

    • The challenging business environment is expected to continue.
    • Yields are expected to continue to be under intense pressure.
    • Lower Hong Kong traffic with more 6th Freedom travel.
    • The cargo business will continue to be adversely affected by overcapacity and economic fragility.

    And, of course, Mr. Market was not happy…

    Cathay

     

    Cathay

  • Not All Americans Have The Right To Bear Arms

    No matter which side of the gun debate you fall on, we can all agree that gun laws are confusing. As ValueWalk.com notes, there are federal laws, state laws, and local municipal laws, all of which can be contradictory.

    There is still debate as to whether the Second Amendment is intended to give individuals the right to keep and bear arms or whether that right was meant as a collective to protect the state, though rulings in the last decade have upheld an individual’s right to bear arms.

    The United States is #1 for personal firearms ownership per capita by a longshot- the U.S. has 5% of the world’s population and owns an estimated 50% of the civilian owned guns in the world. That said, there are still millions of Americans who are federally prohibited from owning personal firearms. For starters, anyone under 18 years of age is prohibited from owning firearms- that’s nearly 71 million people. Also, anyone convicted of a felony- another nearly 6 million people- are prohibited from owning firearms. Illegal aliens, who make up nearly 12 million of the people in the United States, are also prohibited from owning firearms. Also prohibited from owning firearms are fugitives from justice, persons deemed to be dangerously mentally ill, drug addicts, dishonorably discharged military personnel, anyone who has renounced their U.S. citizenship, and anyone who has been indicted for or convicted of crimes punishable by over 1 year in prison.

    There are also limits to the types of firearms that can be owned by individuals without special licenses. Semi-automatic handguns and rifles are legal to own, but fully automatic weapons are only legal for police, the military, and persons with special licenses. In addition there are limits to the type of ammunition that can be owned by private individuals. Learn more about federal gun laws as well as laws that vary by state from this infographic!

    (click image for large legible version)

    Source:FederalCharges.com

  • "Markets Are Ripe For A Black Swan Event" – Why Most 'Well Hedged' Funds Won't Survive

    George Sokoloff, founder and CIO of Carmot Capital, recently explained why typical asset allocation strategies, including those employed by most "sophisticated" hedge fund managers, end up getting slaughtered during market shocks despite perceptions of being "well hedged".  One has to look no further than the last "great recession" to get a glimpse of just how well the typical "hedged" portfolios fared during the last "Black Swan" event. 

    Unfortunately, large pools of institutional capital have grown increasingly accustomed to making allocation decisions based on short-term returns and relative performance rather than absolute returns over extended periods of time.  Therefore, massive losses are ok as long as everyone is losing money at the same time, right?  Absolute returns only matter to the suckers that are actually planning to use those pension assets to retire at some point.  And, as for the hedge fund manager, don't worry if your relative returns suffer as that's not such a big deal either…simply shut your fund down…go on a really long vacation then come back and raise even more assets than before.  But we digress. 

    In an interview with International Business Times, Sokoloff points out that most investment strategies follow a Taleb distribution that provide the appearance of low risk and steady returns but in reality offer investors a high probability of a small gain and a small probability of a devastating loss.  Unfortunately, as Sokoloff points out, the majority of institutional capital across the globe is levered to such strategies.  Just like in the "great recession," funds that rely on "diversification" as a hedging strategy have a rude awakening during Black Swan events as correlations converge to 1 and the benefits of such diversification are erased.  

    "You could be making 5% per year but then there could come a year that you lose 30% or maybe more, and that's kind of the big nature of the Taleb distribution," said Sokoloff.

     

    "Unfortunately most investment strategies actually follow that, including very sophisticated hedge funds, risk parity funds etc. Essentially the whole endowment model, big endowments, family offices and institutions, all of them have investments and their portfolios unfortunately follow the Taleb distribution and they do have a fat left tail.

     

    "They try to hedge it as much as they can just by purely diversifying. But liquidity events are so insidious that your benefits are gone simply because your correlations start converging to one."

    Sokoloff uses a very simple analogy to illustrate the risks of typical portfolio allocation strategies by looking at what would have happened to a prudent money manager, based in 1912 Geneva, who constructed a diversified portfolio of developed and emerging market stocks and bonds:

    Imagine being a wealth manager out of Geneva in 1912, trying to create a nice diversified portfolio of developed market bonds, and emerging market bonds, says Sokoloff.

     

    Say 39% of client assets would be split between stocks of Great Britain, France, German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Italy: truly mature, developed markets.

     

    Some 21% of assets would go into stocks of the two fastest growing economies: Russian Empire and North American United States. The wealth manager might also put a smidge into emerging economies like Argentina, Brazil or Japan.

     

    In bonds, allocation would be somewhat similar. Gilts with sub-3% yield would be the benchmark, with the rest of developed and emerging bonds trading at a spread.

     

    Alternatives investment could be in anything ranging from arable land in central Russia or the Great Plains, to shares of new automotive or aeroplane startups in Europe and America, to Japanese manufacturing ventures.

    As Sokoloff points out, this "prudent" portfolio would have faced drawdowns of as much as 80% over the next decade.   People tend to rely on historically stable relationships between bonds and stocks, and when that relationship breaks down – as often happens in a liquidity event – even complicated strategies involving some arbitrage, essentially blow up.

    The typical problem with strategies designed to profit during Black Swan events is that funds that are genuinely hedged against systemic risk tend to under-perform during periods of relative market stability due to the costs of hedging.  And given the focus on short-term performance in today's market, most institutional capital does not have the patience to stick with fund managers that consistently under-perform during stable markets even if the payoff could be huge during a down cycle.  But, Sokoloff notes there are strategies that provide minimal returns during "normal" market periods and stellar returns during "Black Swan" events, strategies which he refers to at the "Holy Grail." 

    There are a number of types of strategies which make good candidates for the Holy Grail. Many derivatives like conditions when volatility jumps. During a stockmarket crisis credit spreads between different quality bonds start increasing as people see higher chance of default on lesser quality bonds. This is where you can play on the derivatives space that hinges on the credit spreads; so credit default swaps for instance.

     

    Commodity trading advisors (CTA), or people looking into the movement of futures of different kinds and taking bets on either side, would be another candidate class of assets for this type of hedging.

     

    Another interesting hedge would be the sub-class of macro managers, the much maligned macro investors that are really contrarians. They believe there will be will be some economic shocks going forward, especially with emerging markets like China and others; or that Japan's unusual policy will backfire. The best-known in this camp are the likes of Hugh Hendry at Eclectic and Kyle Bass of Hayman Capital.

     

    Sokoloff said: "Those are the managers that use a lot of macro instruments that are convex in nature and they are just trying to time when things start going south. They have not really been good performers; they have been hated in last seven years and have lost assets as well. But still, they are a very good hedge."

     

    The last candidate would be algorithmic traders that benefit from prevalence of fear in the market. When fear strikes markets people start acting in very chaotic fashion. Sokoloff points out that the human psyche is really tuned in a certain way, which makes humans very predictable when they panic. That makes a ripe field to harvest with algorithmics.

     

    "There are algorithmic traders that also provide convex returns, tail risk hedging returns and that allows you to also benefit very strongly from any sort of collapse, slide or risk situation. And that is the camp we are in."

    Finally, Sokoloff points out that our current environment is ripe for a Black Swan event while the only thing missing is the proper catalyst.

    "What we are seeing right now, unfortunately, is stagnation. The growth rate is zero for developed markets. That is the precipice. That is the trigger point for the financial system to start suffering shocks.

     

    "Global trade volumes in the past 18 months have gone nowhere. Pure import and export trade is not growing. It's at zero, which kind of tells you that if trade is flat where does the GDP really grow on? And most of the time it's just gathering expenditures. That is obviously a non-sustainable situation.

     

    "A non-sustainable situation needs a trigger point or a flash point before it can really erupt. There's plenty flash points; political, military, economic, social. They are just not triggering yet. But they will at some point.

     

    "Frankly, the situation that we have right now could be just like 1912."

  • Students Fight Back Against Political Correctness – The Rise Of "Cultural Libertarianism"

    Submitted by Harith Armstrong and Kassy Dillon via HeatSt.com,

    HARITH ARMSTRONG:

    In both the United States and the United Kingdom, conservative and libertarian viewpoints have endured censorship on the Internet and on college campuses.

    This has given rise to a new generation of animated and impassioned students keen on partaking in what’s been aptly described as the “cultural libertarian” movement.

    Young millennials engaged in this movement come from a variety of backgrounds but are able to unite based on a fervent disdain for those that believe there are boundaries to what’s deemed “acceptable” speech – a hatred of authority; and a love of freedom and mischief.

    As a conservative writer and student at King’s College London, I have been actively campaigning against political correctness.

    I was recently temporarily suspended from Facebook for announcing a series of speeches I wanted to give at universities in London questioning the place of Islam in the modern world.

    I believe social media companies like Twitter and Facebook actively seek to censor those who talk about the link between Islam and the behavior of jihadists, those who want to put a halt to immigration and those who criticize the Black Lives Matter and feminist movements.

    The victims of their failure to entertain nuance are solely of one political persuasion. My public support of Donald Trump at college was an exercise in differentiating between those who cared about freedom of expression and those who were willing to discard it in favor of a feeling-based approach to learning.

    I think being provocative and adopting a contrarian-like demeanor to intellectual discourse is mistakenly associated with populism and a lack of integrity in our culture.

    Pushing the boundaries is an integral part of upholding the pillars that help maintain a healthy civilization—so long as my university infantilizes students by no- platforming politicians like Boris Johnson, condones the harassment of those who support the Israeli state, and perpetuates the idea that safe spaces are necessary.

    I will continue to make my voice heard.

    KASSY DILLON:

    As a free-speech activist, journalist and student. I felt obliged to join the fight to reinstate Milo Yiannopoulos after his permanent ban from Twitter. I did this by highlighting the partiality of his ban and seeking support from others through keeping the “FreeMilo” hashtag alive.

    This resulted in me being harassed and receiving death threats from accounts that were reported by dozens of people yet escaped suspension.

    As reported by Heat Street, shortly after Yiannopoulos’ ban, I sought to reveal the implicit bias of political correctness on Twitter by re-posting the hateful tweets by Leslie Jones, the actress from the new Ghostbusters who is credited with getting Yiannopoulos suspended.

    Twitter temporarily suspended me within hours, and decided to take no action against Jones. Both Harith and I are students at overwhelmingly liberal schools, and we’ve encountered professors and students who dismiss our opinions by virtue of our political affiliation. The majority of lecturers and academics view the world through the prism of one ideology.

    I remain hopeful that universities will eventually begin to promote intellectual diversity. The increased presence of organizations supporting conservative and libertarian students such as Right2Debate, Leadership Institute, Young Americans for Freedom and Young Americans for Liberty will act as a voice for those students facing discrimination.

    By having these organizations offer training, conferences and financial support, students are now equipped to challenge the misrepresentations by the left.

    I carried out a social experiment last semester at my school, Mount Holyoke College, that showed how much freedom of speech has diminished as a principle worth defending by young students on the left. I hung a Trump campaign sign on my door, it was thrown into the garbage bin. After hanging the Trump sign back up, it was yet again thrown in the garbage, but this time ripped to shreds.

    This illustrated not only the deep political divide on my campus, but the reactionary and juvenile behavior of my fellow students.

    JOINT CONCLUSION:

    Uniting to give a voice to those students facing censorship or discrimination for holding respectable views is the way forward. The internet remains a place where young “cultural libertarians” have a chance to speak out against the hypocrisy of the left. News websites  have provided us with the opportunity to expose the way in which freedom of expression has been curtailed to appease the liberal-majority.

    We both realize that university administrations cave to the will of those who are most organized. This is what gives us both hope and encouragement. Conservatives and libertarians need to unite to win this culture war.

    We vow to do all we can to challenge the authoritarians at universities in the UK and USA. If we continue fighting, we’ll eventually become the majority.

    History testifies that freedom always prevails.

  • Which States Have The Most Millennials Living At Home With Mom

    We've written frequently over the years about the legions of "safe space" seeking Millennials moving back in with mom (see "More Young Americans Live With Their Parents Than At Any Time Since The Great Depression").  As the Pew Research Center reported back in May, for the first time ever more 18-34 year olds are living at home with mom than are "married or cohabiting in their own households."  According to Pew research the biggest reason for Millennials moving back home is their inability find jobs to support their independence.  Take, for example, "young" Lisa Jacobs:

    Lisa Jacobs holds two bachelor’s degrees, one in photography and one in graphic design. But work has been sporadic, so this year she moved back in with her parents in Somerset, New Jersey.

    “My parents have a lovely home, but nobody’s happy to be living at home at 32,” Jacobs said, adding that she needs to make at least $20 an hour to afford an apartment. “There are plenty of places that would pay me $15 an hour. But that’s not getting me any closer to moving out.”

    Frankly, we're shocked that someone with TWO uselessamazing bachelor degrees wouldn't be able to find a job in such a robust economy.  But don't strain yourself, young Lisa Jacobs, with a $15 per hour job that is beneath your level of enlightenment…no you just move in with mom and wait for your dreams to come true!

    For parents who might find themselves in similar situations, the University of Minnesota has developed a very helpful map to assess the risk of your over-educated, entitled, self-indulging offspring moving back home.  Unsurprisingly, parents are most at risk in the states with large, expensive metropolitan cities where recently-educated, residentially-challenged young adults like to return to indulge their "social" desires but can't necessarily afford to live.  The states with the highest percentage of Millennials living at home were New Jersey (43.9%), Connecticut (38.8%), New York (37.4%) Florida (37.2%) and California (36.7%). 

    If you're the parent of a Millennial and just want to be left alone might we suggest a nice "fly-over" state like North Dakota where only 15.6% of Millennials are found to be living at home.  Sure it's a little cold but the remote, barren landscapes are amazing Millennial deterrents.

    (click on map below to be redirected to interactive version with additional stats)

    Millennials At Home

  • Vancouver Housing Market Implodes: Average Home Price Plunges 20% In 1 Month – "The Market Is Devastated"

    Three weeks ago, when we looked at the long-overdue sudden change in the Vancouver housing market, long a receptacle for Chinese hot and laundered money, we found that as a result of the implementation of the 15% property tax implemented by British Columbia (something we recommended over a month earlier), that the Vancouver housing bubble has burst.

    We concluded this based on anecdotal evidence by local real estate professionals: “As a new dawn breaks in Metro Vancouver’s real estate market, realty companies and real estate boards are reporting the first anecdotes of deals falling through as foreign buyers forfeited deposits on binding deals rather than pay the new tax. Worse, if only for the unprecedented local housing bubble, and certainly better for potential local homeowners who were locked out from the massively overpriced market, they report evidence of local buyers withdrawing offers in expectation that the market will soften.”

    Less than a month later, there is also hard evidence to confirm this assessment. According to Global News, evidence from realtors and MLS data is showing the Vancouver real estate market is in the midst of a major slow down, with prices dropping and sales plummeting. 

    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 realtor Brent Eilers, using 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%.

    Global News obtained MLS sales data from several key Metro Vancouver markets and found the number of homes sold during the first two weeks of August in Greater Vancouver dropped by 85% on average. Richmond experienced a 96% drop in the number of sales and Burnaby North fell by 95%. Vancouver’s West Side, West Vancouver, and Coquitlam also took major hits.

    It appears that the Vancouver housing market has slammed shut.

    Which is hardly a surprise: virtually everyone saw it coming, the only question was when. Eilers says he’s been warning of a real estate slow-down for at least a year due to the region’s unsustainable and unsupportable prices. West Vancouver, where he does a large part of his business, had a benchmark detached home price of almost $3.4 million in July according to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver.

    The market in West Van is up 450 per cent since 2001. So is everyone making 600 per cent more income than they were so they can pay their taxes and buy their houses? Of course not. So how is this inflation been financed? By off-shore money and record debt.” Precisely what we said at the start of the year when we first heard horror stories about Chinese buyers paying cash, sight unseen, for any and every local luxury, and not so luxury home.

    It appears that it is not just the 15% luxury tax implemented on on July 25 that has burst the bubble: according to Eilers sales were dropping even before the tax. According to the data, July was another slow month in West Vancouver with only 44 sales, down from 80 in 2015. June saw 74 sales, also down from 102 the year before.

    The pattern has left the market “devastated”, Eilers adds.

    While it may be too early to make a definitive conclusion, after all while earlier this month, the REBGV released its statistics for the month of July, saying the data showed the market had slowed down to “normal levels”, there was still no official August data available, and thus no actual indication of the slowdown. Fortunately for buyers, real-time data proves otherwise.

    Zolo, a Canadian real estate brokerage, keeps track of MLS home sales in real-time and reports prices as an average rather than the “benchmark price” used by the REBGV. It currently shows 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. 

    Still, it may be too early to call the time of death of the market. “It’s only slowing down at the top where there is uncertainty,” Zolo CEO Barry Allen said. And that uncertainty is “diabolically dangerous”, according to Eilers, who has sold real estate during four different correction periods in Vancouver. “When the market changes, it typically changes over night or within a couple of weeks, but it often takes two to three months for everybody to figure it out. That’s why it can be so scary,” he said.

    According to the realtor, often sellers have their houses appraised months before they put them on the market, meaning in the climate we are currently witnessing, sellers are expecting to list their homes at record-high prices, even though the number of sales and listings indicate prices should be lowering.

     

    “Typically what happens when the market starts to flip is all the buyers go into hibernation and all the listings come on. What are the odds on getting that seller to price his home at a fraction of where the market is now? It’s zero,” Eilers said.

     

    What causes prices to lower is “urgency, anxiety, and fear,” according Eilers. He says a climate of financial overexposure, a treadmill of buying and selling and flipping homes, owning multiple properties, and buying before selling will test how long sellers can hold on without selling in desperation.

    If the bubble has indeed burst, things are about to get very ugly. Eilers says that in the 1980 housing crash, prices dropped by 40 to 60% within a year and took six years to recover. “So your $2 million house became $800,000 in five months. There’s a lot of economists and a lot of wise people that believe that our financial structure is much closer to that structure from a corrections’ point of view,” Eilers explained.

    One thing, however, appears certain: the foreign money influx has stopped. Zolo’s CEO says the foreign buyer tax has certainly stopped speculative buyers. This has caused many other buyers to take on a “wait and see” approach, which has essentially frozen the market.

    News of the foreign buyer tax has spread to China, where Chinese real estate website Juwai now promotes other Canadian cities as foreign capital destinations. The website used to promote Vancouver as one of the best places for wealthy Chinese to invest, but has now switched to publicizing Calgary and Alberta due to the tax.

    Which means that while one bubble is bursting, another is about to start, even if it is smack in the middle of Canada’s bleeding oil patch.

    That said, this is good news for ordinary Vancouver residents. NDP MLA David Eby says the tax has caused a lot of people to hit the pause button on buying homes, but all those people might come back into the market in September. Despite his reservations on how the tax was implemented – he would have preferred an incrementally-increasing tax – he says a market slow down is good news.  

    “A lot of people have said to me quietly that they hope there is a substantial housing crash.”

    Well, it appears they got what they wanted. Now the only question is what happens once Vancouver “corrects” by 30%, 40% or more – will the Chinese buyers stay away permanently or, like a good S&P500 algos, simply BTFD. We will have the answer in a few months.

  • Leaked Memo Shows Soros Pushed Greece To Support Ukraine Coup, Paint Russia As Enemy

    Submitted by Alex Christoforou via TheDuran.com,

    Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war.

    One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine.

    It is now accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup, that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of “EU values”.

    What is even more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of “non-profit organisations” worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine “Maidan” narrative, but to also disavow any ties and support for Russia.

    Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated smear campaign.

    In one document entitled: “Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian debate in Greece” (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping  greece.docx), Soros offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for “at least 15 full working days in carrying out this task” plus all expenses paid.

    The aim of this task:

    The consultant is expected to chart the main players in the Greek debate on Ukraine, outline the key arguments and their evolution in the past 18 months. Specifically, the report will take stock of any existing polling evidence provide a ‘who is who?’ with information about at least
    – 6 newspapers,
    – 10 audiovisual outlets (TV and radio),
    – 6 internet sites,
    – About 50 opinion leaders and trends in social networks[1].

     

    Categorize the main strains of discussion and eventually identify different sides / camps of the discussion.

     

    Provide a brief account of how Russia has tried to influence the Greek debate on Ukraine through domestic actors and outlets

     

    Include a section with recommendations on
    – What are the spaces OSF should engage and would most likely to have impact?
    – What are the voices (of reason or doubt) that should be amplified?

    Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE) selected Iannis Carras for the Greek media mapping grant. The justification why he was chosen…

    All contracts were for the same amount. We needed to find highly specialized researchers to map the debate on Ukraine in Europe, therefore we identified a shortlist of candidates in consultation with colleagues in the Think Tank Fund, OSEPI and in consultation with members of the OSIFE board and chose the most qualified who could produce the report in the time allowed. In the case of Greece we agreed that Iannis Carras, an economic and social historian of Balkan and Russian relations with expert knowledge of Greece’s NGOs and social movements, was the best suited to the task.

    What is even more interesting is not the grant from OSIFE, but a letter from grant winner Carras to a person named Mathew (another Greek speaker???), outlining his plan in detail for pushing Soros’ Ukraine agenda in Greece.

    Of significance is how Carras tells Mathew about Greek society’s overall suspicion of The Open Society after the roll in played in seeding unrest in Yugoslavia. Carras even tells Mathew to not mention The Open Society in Greece.

    “Do you want your name to appear alongside mine on the paper?  Do make comments on all of the below.

     

    In general, and at your discretion, do not say you are doing this for Open Society because it is likely to close down doors. There’s a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece, mainly because of its positions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia. As I am simultaneously writing an article for Aspen Review Eastern Europe that can be used as the organisation for which research like this is taking place.”

    Carras then goes on to outline his approach in manipulating Greek society, covering topics such as:

    1.     Media.
    2.     Political parties and think tanks
    3.     Opinion polls.
    4.     Business relations.
    5.     Religious and cultural ties.
    6.     Migration and diaspora.
    7.     Greece and Ukraine in the context of Greece’s economic crisis.
    8.     Greece, Ukraine and the Cyprus issue.
    9.     Names and brief description of significant actors: a ‘who is who?’ with information on at least 50 opinion leaders

    Carras notes how Russia has much goodwill in Greece, exercising “signifiant soft power”.  Carras notes that Greece is, at this moment, a weak player in the Ukraine debate and the Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias realises this.

    Summary: I am working on the hypotheses largely born out by the interviews carried out so far that Russia has significant soft power in Greece though this does not easily convert into hard power (e.g. vetoing EU sanctions).Greeks are basically not very interested in Ukraine and the crisis there. They reflect and understand that conflict through their own economic crisis and their relations with Europe (nowadays primarily Europe and not US). To the extent that relations with Europe remain the focus and do not go off the rails, Greece will bark but will not bite. If they improve, Greece might not even bark (as can be seen with Greece’s policy on Israel, Kotzias can be very much a realist).

    Carras does warn that should Greece’s economic situation deteriorate further, than Greece may very well look to Russia for support, and this has implications on the Ukraine plan.

    If they deteriorate however, Greece will be looking to Russia for increased support and will alter its Ukraine policies accordingly. Do you agree with these hypotheses? Can you find confirmation for or against them in the media outlets examined?

    Carras places extra emphasis on influencing the media in Greece, citing various large news outlets that the Soros NGO can target, including approaching left wing and right wing blogs.

    This is the bulk of the work (we have to think about how to divide the work up). We have to provide a ‘who is who?’ with information about at least 6 newspapers, 10 audio-visual outlets (TV and radio) and 6 internet sites. Some of these will be obvious, but, even in these cases, change over time (at least eighteen months) is an important consideration. Here are some suggestions for newspapers: Kathimerini, Avgi, Ta Nea, Vima, Efymerida Syntakton, Eleutherotypia, Proto Thema, Rizospastis? etc. What else? Protagon? Athens Review of Books? (info on Kotzias). As for TV, we’ll just do the main ones. What about left wing blogs? What about commercial radio stations? I think we should cover Aristera sta FM. Sky. What else? Anything from the nationalist and far right? My choice would be Ardin (already looking at this) which at least tries to be serious. Patria is even more unsavoury. I’ll deal with the religious web sites in the culture and religion appendix. I think we should interview Kostas Nisenko (http://www.kathimerini.gr/757296/article/epikairothta/kosmos/viaih-epi8e…) and Kostas Geropoulos of New Europe to get into the issues involved… not at all sure though that it’s advisable to talk to the Russia correspondents Thanasis Avgerinos, Dimitris Liatsos, Achileas Patsoukas etc. (I know all of them). Also if we come across articles with interesting information on any one of the topics, we should mail them to one another.

    Attention is placed on influencing political parties. Carras sees this as a more difficult task, as parties in Greece would not be warm towards turning their back on Russia.

    Who if anyone deals with Russia / Ukraine within each of the political parties? How important are political parties in formulating policies? (my hunch is totally unimportant). I must admit I have little idea of how to proceed with this one, but I have written to the academic Vassilis Petsinis and I hope I’ll get to skype with him soon. Think-tanks are easier, and, I think, more important. I have already interviewed Thanos Dokos (director Greek foreign policy institute, ELIAMEP) in person.

    Carras notes how he has approached various religious leaders, academics and actors, to gauge a sense of how deep Russia’s influence and “soft power” runs in Greek society and culture.

    So far I have interviewed by telephone Metropolitan John of Pergamum (one of the top figures in the inner circle of the Istanbul based Ecumenical Patriarchate). I have read Metropolitan Nektarios of the Argolid’s recent book (2014), “Two bullets for Donetsk”. I have tried but so far not succeeded in contacting Metropolitan Nektarios himself, and have started work on two of the main religious news websites romfea.gr and amen.gr .

     

    With respect to culture I intend to contact Georgos Livathinos, leading director of Russian and other plays and Lydia Koniordou, actress. Also the management of the Onassis Centre, particularly Afroditi Panagiotakou, the executive vice-director who is quite knowledgeable in this field having travelled to both Ukraine and Russia.

     

    In 2016 Greece and Russia will be hosting each other as the focus of cultural events in the two respective countries. I will be looking to understand the extent to which Russia’s unparalleled cultural soft-power might translate into Greek policy making.

    Greek military is the final point of influence, with Carras interviewing Ambassadors and policy decision makers.

    Foreign policy and the Greek military. So far I have interviewed in person Ambassador Elias Klis (formerly ambassador of Greece to Moscow, advisor to the current Foreign Minister, advisor to the Greek Union of Industrialists. He is perhaps the single most important person for understanding Greek-Russian diplomatic relations at present). Ambassador Alexandros Philon (formerly ambassador of Greece to Washington, to whom I am related). Captain Panos Stamou (submarines, extensive contacts in Crimea, also secretary and leading light of the Greek-Russian historical association) who emphasised the non-political tradition of the Greek armed forces. Tempted to talk to Themos Stoforopoulos for a nationalist left wing view. I have also read foreign minister Kotzias’ latest book. All of this has provided me with useful insights for appendices 7 and 8, and particularly for the connection to the Cyprus issue (which at the moment Greece is very keen to downplay).

    Carras places an emphasis on Cyprus, perhaps recognising the islands affinity to support Russia and its large Russian diaspora community.

    The recommendations will be for the medium and the short term, cited here based on interviews carried out so far. Medium term recommendations will include a cultural event (to be specified later) and a one-day conference on Ukraine and international law, citing precedents for dealing with the situation in Ukraine (particularly Cyprus). Recommendations may include capacity building for local Ukrainian migrant spokesperson(s). Short term recommendations will include an action pack on what Greece has at stake in Ukraine, and ways to narrate parallels in interactions between nation and empire vis-à-vis Greece / Ukraine. Think about whether these work / what else we might recommend?

    Both of the documents are below:

    -Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece

    -Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece2

    -Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece3

    Document from Iannis Carras… “Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 2015.docx”

    -Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 2015

    -Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 20152

    -Ukraine and Europe-greece-carras tsimitakis greece ukraine mar 20153

    *  *  *

    Finally we note that the incredible furore being raised about Paul Manafort's 'exposure' to Ukraine is a joke when one considers it was George Soros (above) and Hillary Clinton (see chart below) that was really pulling all the strings behind the scenes…

     

    And in case you thought it was just a right-wing conspiracy… Hillary's best buddy The Podesta Group has hired outside counsel in Ukraine…

Digest powered by RSS Digest