Today’s News 15th May 2016

  • Recession Watch: Freight Volume Drops to Worst Level since 2010

    By Wolf Richter of Wolf Street

    Freight shipments by truck and rail in the US fell 4.9% in April from the beaten-down levels of April 2015, according to the Cass Transportation Index, released on Friday. It was the worst April since 2010, which followed the worst March since 2010. In fact, shipment volume over the four months this year was the worst since 2010.

    This is no longer statistical “noise” that can easily be brushed off.

    The Cass Freight Index is based on “more than $26 billion” in annual freight transactions by “hundreds of large shippers,” regardless of mode of transportation, including by truck and rail. It does not cover bulk commodities, such as oil and coal and thus is not impacted by the collapsing oil and coal shipments. The index is focused on consumer packaged goods, food, automotive, chemical, OEM, heavy equipment, and retail.

    In a similar vein, the Association of American Railroads reported last week that loads of containers and trailers fell 7.5% in April year-over-year. “Intermodal” is a direct competitor to trucking. Combined, they’re a measure of the goods-based economy.

    The Cass Freight Index is not seasonally adjusted. Hence the strong seasonal patterns in the chart. Note the beaten-down first four months of 2016 (red line):

    US-Cass-freight-index-2016-04-shipments

    And May is not going to look much better. The report:

    May is usually a relatively strong month for freight shipments, but given the high inventories with ever slower turnover rates and the decline in new production orders, May could be another soft month.

    These inventories are a doozie. Total business inventories have ballooned since late 2014, even as business sales have declined. On Friday, the Commerce Department reported the March installment of that story: total business sales (adjusted for seasonal and trading-day differences but not for price changes) fell once again, this time by 1.7% from a year ago; and business inventories rose by 1.5% from a year ago.

    As a result, the crucial inventory-to-sales ratio, which tracks how long unsold inventories sit around and gather dust, has blown out to the same crisis level it had spiked to following the Lehman bankruptcy:

    US-Inventory-Sales-ratio-2008=2016-03

    With sales down and inventories very high, businesses are trimming their orders to bring inventories back in line, and this is impacting the transportation industry.

    Due to falling volume and “very soft rates,” as the report puts it, shippers have spent 8.3% less in April than a year ago, the lowest April spend since 2011. “With ample capacity available across the modes, competition for loads is holding rates down,” the report explains.

    Transportation data provider DAT looks at this from the truckers’ point of view. It tracks national spot-market demand for trucks and availability of trucks via its load-to-truck ratio – “a sensitive real-time indicator” of the balance between the two. And the spot market for the largest category, van-type trailers has become ugly: Last month, the load-to-truck ratio for vans plunged 46% from April 2015, and 52% from April 2014. It has been terrible all year (red line):

    US-Trucking-Load-to-Truck-ratio-2013_2016-04

    Cass notes that the economy “decelerated in the first four months of 2016.” And this “slowdown,” the report said, was caused by:

    • the continued decline of the global economy;
    • the reticence of the consumer sector to increase its buying;
    • the loss of jobs and income from the plunging oil costs (which shut down the fracking business and cut back on coal shipments);
    • very high inventory levels across the entire supply chain;
    • and poor export figures due to both the strength of the U.S. dollar and a decline in worldwide demand.

    Which aptly summarizes much of what troubles the US economy. And the current data doesn’t leave much room for any excess optimism:

    Eyes are on the Chinese economy, which has been extremely unstable and can have a big effect on world economies if it continues to falter. Based on the trends of many economic indicators, it appears the economy may get worse before it gets better.

    This type of transportation data shines some light on the goods-based economy in the US, and by extension, in the world: the goods-based economy is hurting – and there are no signs it’s getting any better anytime soon.

    The downturn’s impact on railroads has become very visible beyond their income statements: the majestic sight of 292 Union Pacific engines idled in Arizona Desert! Read…  Freight Rail Traffic Plunges: Haunting Pictures of Transportation Recession

  • You Know Those Missing Hillary Emails? Russia Might Leak 20,000 Of Them

    Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Hillary Clinton sits at the center of a raging firestorm concerning her arrangement of a private email account and server set up in her home — from which top secret information may have been deleted. But despite Bernie Sanders’ apparent annoyance with the “damn emails,” the scandal just exponentially intensified, when Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Monday that Russia has possession of around 20,000 of Clinton’s emails — leaving open the possibility her deletions might not have been permanent after all.

    “There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in an interview for The Kelly File.

    With Clinton’s repeated claims she employed the personal email server only for mundane communications and non-sensitive State matters having been proven outright lies, the deletions of 31,830 emails — in the new context of Napolitano’s statement — have suddenly become remarkably relevant.

    As the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s questionable email practices deepens, the question of who had access to what information previously located on the former secretary of state’s server is now more critical than ever.

    One such individual, Romanian hacker Guccifer, who was abruptly extradited to the United States, revealed he had easily and repeatedly accessed Clinton’s personal server — and he wasn’t the only one.

    “For me, it was easy,” the hacker, whose given name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, exclusively told Fox News; “easy for me, for everybody.”

    If Guccifer and Napolitano are right, Russia may, indeed, have possession of highly-sensitive information courtesy of Clinton’s arrogant failure to adhere to the obligation to use a government email account during her tenure as secretary — a situation worsened by the now-mendacious claim no sensitive information had been sent through the personal account.

    In fact, if Guccifer is to be believed — as his extradition by the U.S. indicates — news of the Kremlin having obtained potentially top-secret material may be the tip of a gargantuan iceberg. Using a readily available program, the Romanian hacker also claimed he observed “up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world” during sessions on Clinton’s personal server. If just one of those unknown parties was connected to Russia, who the other nine might be could be central to the FBI’s decision whether or not to charge Clinton for mishandling classified information.

    Adding yet another nail in the coffin case against Hillary on Thursday, the Hill reported conservative watchdog Judicial Watch revealed, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, frustration with technical difficulties in obtaining a secure phone line led the secretary to direct a top aide to abandon the effort and call her without the necessary security in place.

    “I give up. Call me on my home [number],” Clinton wrote in a February 2009 email from the newly-released batch — on the also notoriously unsecured server — to then-chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

    Though the email thread contains no confirmation such a call was ever made on the unsecured phone line, it evidences still more of the same flagrant disregard for national security apparently peppering Clinton’s practices during her time at the State Department.

    “This drip, drip of new Clinton emails show Hillary Clinton could not care less about the security of her communications,” noted Judicial Watch president, Tom Fitton, in a statement cited by the Hill. “How many other smoking gun emails are Hillary Clinton and her co-conspirators in the Obama administration hiding from the American people?”

    For a putative presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t appear to appreciate the imperative for keeping matters of national security obscured from … anyone.

  • How Hedge Funds Invest Heavily In Washington D.C.'s Culture Of Corruption

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Earlier this week, Ryan Grim and Paul Blumenthal published a blockbuster piece in the Huffington Post, titled: The Vultures’ Vultures: How A New Hedge-Fund Strategy Is Corrupting Washington.

    It details the secretive world of the dark money groups representing mercenary hedge funds in their insatiable quest for more and more money. In many ways, it’s merely a microcosm of America in 2016. A culture in which ethics has become so irrelevant, it isn’t even a nuisance; it simply never factors into the equation.

    The first few paragraphs set the stage perfectly:

    WASHINGTON – Take Robert Shapiro.

     

    A Harvard-trained economist, Shapiro is the head of a consulting firm called Sonecon. That business card doesn’t do it for you? He’s got a few more in his wallet:

    Senior fellow at the Georgetown University School of Business.

     

    Adviser to the International Monetary Fund.

     

    Director of the Globalization Initiative at NDN, a progressive think tank.

     

    Shapiro, a Democrat, has advised presidents and presidential candidates, and has held powerful government posts. It stands to reason, then, that when he has thoughts on public policy, he can find an outlet ready to publish them.

     

    Recently, he’s had ideas on how the government can address the debt crisis in Puerto Rico and how it can end the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by moving them into the private market. Before that, he had a take on how to deal with Argentina’s debt crisis. For all three, he produced academic-looking papers, complete with footnotes and charts.

     

    All three situations have one thing in common: If they were resolved the way Shapiro suggested, a variety of bets placed by a select group of the most politically powerful hedge funds would pay off in a huge way. In the case of Argentina, they mostly have. Fights over how to resolve the other two issues are still raging in Washington.

     

    For this article, we called Shapiro to ask on whose behalf he has been waging these intellectual battles. His answer was surprising in its honesty: He’s working with DCI Group, a political dark arts master known to be advocating on behalf of a group of powerful hedge funds that are changing how Washington works.

    If you want to get a sense of what’s motivating Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders voters, it’s a desire to take people like Robert Shapiro, remove them from the halls of power, and toss them into a cardboard box on the street. Of course, that won’t be happening any time soon, but that’s what a lot of people want.

    What follows are some additional excerpts from the piece, which I strongly suggest you read in full.

    Shapiro, it turns out, is but one foot soldier in the hedge fund infantry. A review of public documents, tax filings and interviews with people involved finds that in each of the three campaigns, hedge funds have enlisted the same set of lobbyists, political operatives, dark money groups and think-tank experts spanning the political spectrum.

     

    The band that has gotten together for the big three hedge fund jam sessions includes some unlikely allies: There’s DCI Group, the powerhouse lobbying firm. Then there’s the Raben Group, operatives whose specialty is working in the progressive space and lobbying Democrats. There’s the American Continental Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm. There’s 60 Plus and the Center for Individual Freedom, two groups that call themselves part of the conservative movement, but in reality are dark money groups known to run whatever campaign they’re paid to run, and that are happy to conceal the source of the funding. All these groups have roughly nothing in common, other than that they all have united in advocacy campaigns that alternately go up against the Argentinian people, Puerto Ricans and the rest of the American public.

     

    Each of these campaigns appears to have been run by or aided by the DCI Group. We say “appears” because DCI is one of Washington’s great black boxes — news articles that involve DCI routinely include a line informing readers that the organization did not respond to a request for comment. This article is no different.

    Old Washington hands involved in these particular fights say that nothing they’ve seen before in politics has prepared them for the mercenary campaigns the hedge funds are now waging.

     

    “There’s something about this that’s almost more disturbing, because you get an issue that’s not particularly a big public issue and people can spend and spend and spend,” said a veteran policymaker who found himself on the wrong end of the hedge funds. “And I don’t know how anybody can compete with it. And then you start losing the narrative and you see groups on the left get bought out and corrupted — really corrupted. I don’t know what to do about it.”

    It’s so bad, even the critters in Congress are disgusted by it.

    And it’s not ideological, either. If a big group of hedge funds decided to short the health insurance industry, it could easily be in their interests to fund a dark money campaign on behalf of single-payer health care. If they short the big banks, they’ve now become allies with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

     

    In Puerto Rico, the group of hedge funds waging the biggest lobbying campaign own debt that is first in line to be paid off in case of any calamity. (That’s not to say there aren’t other hedge funds that own different sets of Puerto Rican debt lobbying so that they’re the first to be paid; more on them later.) They’re now betting that they can stop Congress from rescuing Puerto Rico by amending bankruptcy laws to allow Puerto Rico to cover its basic expenses before paying out the hedge funds.

     

    Betting that Congress does nothing is often a smart wager. If the island government is forced to pay off creditors first, it will have to take those funds from vital programs threatening the livelihoods of people who live there.

    Here’s an example of how they threaten Congressional aides.

    Or even against staffers. In the midst of the debate over how to restructure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in early 2014, Jim Millstein was sitting down on Capitol Hill with Michael Bright, an aide to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was working on the legislation. Millstein, like other hedge-fund titans lobbying on the bill, had a set of structural recommendations he thought the Senate should take up.

     

    Millstein was worth listening to: While a top Treasury Department official, he had overseen the successful restructuring of AIG after the government bailout. But Millstein had an extra recommendation: The Fannie Mae shareholders needed to be paid out — shareholders like Millstein.

     

    The aide told Millstein he didn’t see why shareholders, who bought Fannie stock for pennies when the government had already bailed it out, needed a windfall. The meeting turned tense. “Don’t worry kid, you’re about to get yours,” Millstein said, according to a Democratic committee staffer later briefed on the episode. Bright, reached for comment, declined to speak for this article.

     

    The DCI Group most famously built its reputation doing the dirty work of the tobacco industry. That long-running operation involved funding “experts” who would question the medical science around smoking, and targeting individual advocates and lawmakers. It pioneered the use of shadow groups that concealed the true source of funding for the campaign, and can be seen as a blueprint for the hedge fund campaigns.

    Of course it did.

    Back in 2007, DCI was instrumental in killing legislation that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a doomed effort that may have prevented the lenders from melting down. It earned $2 million from Freddie Mac for its work.

     

    DCI was also part of American Task Force Argentina, the hedge-fund backed effort that battled Argentina over its default. Raben Group’s Robert Raben and Shapiro led the task force, and Shapiro’s consulting firm was paid at least $450,000. While there are no public filings today, the group is helping run the Fannie hedge-fund operation, according to DCI managing partner Justin Peterson, who has privately talked about DCI’s work. Shapiro, too, said he was working with DCI for his housing policy work.

     

    McGill represented NML Capital, a subsidiary of Elliott Management, the hedge fund connected with GOP megadonor Paul Singer, in the lawsuit against Argentina, along with Aurelius Capital Management. That lawsuit allowed the hedge funds to extract billions from the Argentinian people. It came after the years-long slash-and-burn campaign run from the  American Task Force Argentina — a lobbying coalition of Covington & Burling, DCI Group and the Raben Group.

    Well, well, well, will you take a look at that. Who do we find amongst hedge fund mercenary groups? None other than Covington & Burling. That’s right, the law firm that Eric Holder worked at before spinning through the revolving door into government, just in time to serve as Obama’s attorney general in order to protect bank executives from prosecution.

    Recall what we learned in the post, Cronyism Pays – Eric “Too Big to Jail” Holder Triumphantly Returns to His Prior Corporate Law Firm Job:

    After failing to criminally prosecute any of the financial firms responsible for the market collapse in 2008, former Attorney General Eric Holder is returning to Covington & Burling, a corporate law firm known for serving Wall Street clients.

     

    The move completes one of the more troubling trips through the revolving door for a cabinet secretary. Holder worked at Covington from 2001 right up to being sworn in as attorney general in Feburary 2009. And Covington literally kept an office empty for him, awaiting his return.

     

    The Covington & Burling client list has included four of the largest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. 

    For more information on one of the most shameless cronies and fraudsters in American history, see:

    Must Watch Video – “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime”

    The U.S. Department of Justice Handles Banker Criminals Like Juvenile Offenders…Literally

    Eric Holder Announces Task Force to Focus on “Domestic Terrorists”

    Eric Holder and the DOJ Have Spent Millions of Taxpayer Dollars on Unreported Personal Travel

    Elizabeth Warren Confronts Eric Holder, Ben Bernanke and Mary Jo White on Bankster Immunity

    Even Washington D.C. Insiders Admit Eric Holder is a Bankster Puppet

    Eric Holder Claims Emails Using Words ‘Fast and Furious’ Don’t Refer to Operation Fast and Furious

    Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 2.05.41 PM

  • Robogov coming to a town near you

    Automation is taking over all aspects of society.  In many cases, this is a good thing.  As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – trading Forex manually (Without robots or automation) is basically impossible.  But also we’ve learned that when anything is done by the government, it ends up being mismanaged, overpriced, delayed, or worse.  In the most extreme example, inmates on death row that are killed by the government, are later found to be innocent with DNA or other hard evidence.  Studies show recently that 4% of inmates killed are innocent, but many believe it to be much higher, as much as 50%.  Whatever is the number, one person being killed who is innocent is one too many.

    So, the state of Florida has implemented an automated toll system, which will not only take a photo of your license plate automatically, it will automatically find your address based on your DMV records, and mail you an invoice!  

    This invoice was paid promptly via online credit card.  What would have been interesting to see how they handle situations where the invoice was not paid!  But they fairly billed only the toll, $4.75.  It happened on the way from Fort Lauderdale to Miami, on 95’s new overpass, southbound to Miami.  There were many flashing signs “Tolls begin Monday (it was Saturday night)”  – but no where to pay the toll.  

    What happens when the IRS automatically deducts your taxes from your bank account?  Let’s be practical, any bank or financial institution inside the borders of USA – is open to the possibility of complete control by the Feds, for benign reasons – or in case of emergency, POTUS can always declare some emergency circumstances.. and poof!  For example:

    “In order to protect your security, and maintain financial stability of the system, we are deducting this temporary lien fine from your account, according to Section 42 Title 9 of the code.  Due to paperwork reduction act compliance this notification is electronic only.  Have a nice day.”

    Sounds far fetched, but so does the automated robotic toll system currently in use by the state of Florida, that automatically photographs cars and mails the registered drivers invoices – to other states!  

    Practically speaking, systems like this are not new, and have been in use in Europe for decades, and in California.  What’s particularly creepy about this though is there was no way to pay the toll in person by car.  It wasn’t labelled too well – no sign saying “Drive in this lane and we will mail you a ticket.”  Not sure if that’s even legal.

    Dear lawyers, is it a legally binding contract, between driver and the State of Florida, by driving in this lane, I have agreed they will photograph my car, and mail me an invoice?  Does it violate my privacy?  What if I didn’t understand the contract?  There wasn’t any clear explanation of how this contract worked.  What was simply strange is that in Florida, like many states, roads are distinguished between public and private.  Florida’s Turnpike, a well known private toll road – has it’s own tolling system.  It’s clearly marked and if you are really stupid, you can ask the toll booth worker about the rules, and if you don’t have money to pay or want to argue about something, there’s a manager in an office near most toll stations.  So seeing this ‘private lane’ on the drive to Miami was a real surprise for a Floridian, especially that it wasn’t marked clearly – and that robogov found me one month later in another state!  

    As an IT professional, the system is respectable.  Managing millions of drivers in a tourist state is not easy.  And the drivers in Florida are CRAZY.  So that’s another point, maybe it takes robots to manage such a group of “Floridians.”  But on another level, something just doesn’t feel right about a government run system that is automated. 

    If this is the thinking of the government – beware Roboregulations.  

    Our company Elite E Services has authored thousands of Forex robots, that automate the trading process.  Banks develop robots to automate their liquidity and risk management, so trading has become a battle of the robots.  But in this case, it’s just a one way – management robotic system. 

    Learn more about Forex automation at Elite E Services or checkout our book, Splitting Pennies.  Learn more about class action settlement automation at Liquid Claims.

  • US Army Shrinks To Smallest Since 1940 As Chinese Military Recruiting Accelerates

    The Army’s latest headcount shows that nearly 2,600 soldiers departed active service in March without being replaced, an action that plunges manning to its lowest level since before World War II, according to ArmyTimes.com. This is occurring as The People's Liberation Army (incidentally the world's largest military force, with a strength of approximately 2,285,000 personnel, or 0.18% of China's population) has begun aggressively recruiting, and rattling its sabre increasingly loudly over US interference in the South China Sea island dispute and most recently in Hong Kong.

    During the past year the size of the active force has been reduced by 16,548 soldiers, the rough equivalent of three brigades.

    Endstrength for March was 479,172 soldiers, which is 154 fewer troopers than were on active duty when the Army halted the post-Cold War drawdown in 1999 with 479,424 soldiers, the smallest force since 1940, when the active component numbered 269,023 soldiers.

     

    According to the Army Times, the Army is on track to reach its goal of reducing the number of active duty troops to 475,000 by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal year 2016. Under a drawdown plan unveiled last July, the number of active-duty soldiers would be reduced to 460,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2017 and 450,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018, barring action by Congress or the Pentagon.

    If those targets are met, the number of soldiers on active duty would be down 20 percent from 2010, when there were nearly 570,000 soldiers on active duty.

    When the Army presented its plan last July, military officials said their hands were tied by reduced funding levels.

    "These are not cuts the Army wants to make, these are cuts required by budget environment in which we operate," Gen. Daniel Allyn, vice chief of staff of the Army, said at the time. "This 40,000 soldier cut … will only get us to the program force, it does not deal with the continued threat of sequestration."

    In addition to those on active duty, the Army has 548,024 soldiers in reserve, for a total force of 1,027,196 soldiers. Under the drawdown plan, the total force number would be reduced to 980,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018.

    And this is occurring as China builds its military might with aggressive recruiting tactics.

    As we previously noted, whilst history doesn’t repeat it often rhymes. As Alexander, Rome and Britain fell from their positions of absolute global dominance, so too has the US begun to slip. America’s global economic dominance has been declining since 1998, well before the Global Financial Crisis. A large part of this decline has actually had little to do with the actions of the US but rather with the unraveling of a century’s long economic anomaly. China has begun to return to the position in the global economy it occupied for millenia before the industrial revolution. Just as the dollar emerged to global reserve currency status as its economic might grew, so the chart below suggests the increasing push for de-dollarization across the 'rest of the isolated world' may be a smart bet…

     

    The geopolitical consequences of the diminishment of US global dominance

    Each of these events has shown America’s unwillingness to take strong foreign policy action and certainly underlined its unwillingness to use force. America’s allies and enemies have looked on and taken note. America’s geopolitical multiplier has declined even as its relative economic strength has waned and the US has slipped backwards towards the rest of the pack of major world powers in terms of relative geopolitical power.

    Throughout this piece we have looked to see what we can learn from history in trying to understand changes in the level of structural geopolitical tension in the world. We have in general argued that the broad sweep of world history suggests that the major driver of significant structural change in global levels of geopolitical tension has been the relative rise and fall of the world’s leading power. We have also suggested a number of important caveats to this view – chiefly that a dominant superpower only provides for structurally lower geopolitical tensions when it is itself internally stable. We have also sought to distinguish between a nation being an “economic” superpower (which we can broadly measure directly) and being a genuine “geopolitical” superpower (which we can’t). On this subject we have hypothesised that the level of a nations geopolitical power can roughly be estimated multiplying its relative economic power by a “geopolitical multiplier” which reflects that nations ability to amass and project force, its willingness to intervene in the affairs of the world and the extent of its “soft power”.

    Given this analysis it strikes us that today we are in the midst of an extremely rare historical event – the relative decline of a world superpower. US global geopolitical dominance is on the wane – driven on the one hand by the historic rise of China from its disproportionate lows and on the other to a host of internal US issues, from a crisis of American confidence in the core of the US economic model to general war weariness. This is not to say that America’s position in the global system is on the brink of collapse. Far from it. The US will remain the greater of just two great powers for the foreseeable future as its “geopolitical multiplier”, boosted by its deeply embedded soft power and continuing commitment to the “free world” order, allows it to outperform its relative economic power. As America’s current Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, said earlier this year, “We (the USA) do not engage in the world because we are a great nation. Rather, we are a great nation because we engage in the world.”

    Nevertheless the US is losing its place as the sole dominant geopolitical superpower and history suggests that during such shifts geopolitical tensions structurally increase. If this analysis is correct then the rise in the past five years, and most notably in the past year, of global geopolitical tensions may well prove not temporary but structural to the current world system and the world may continue to experience more frequent, longer lasting and more far reaching geopolitical stresses than it has in at least two decades. If this is indeed the case then markets might have to price in a higher degree of geopolitical risk in the years ahead.

  • New KFC Restaurant Is Run Entirely By Robots

    First McDonalds, then Wendy’s, soon Carl’s Jr., and now KFC. The minimum-wage-driven automation of the lower-end of the workforce is accelerating…

    Submitted by Nick Bernabe via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Colonel Sanders is raising a robot army to serve fried chicken at a restaurant near you. KFC’s first automated restaurant, called Original+, went live in Shanghai on April 25th, complete with an artificially intelligent robot manager named “Du Mi” who works at the front counter.

    According to Chinese news outlet Sohu, “‘Du Mi’ marks the first commercial use of artificial intelligence in the fast food industry. The artificial intelligence robot was launched by China’s leading web services company Baidu during its World Conference in 2015.”

    (Interior view of the KFC store in Shanghai…doesn’t look much like the local KFC here)

    KFC hopes that the hip new automated restaurant will attract young customers with its free wireless phone charging stations and human-less eating experience.

    kfc

    But it’s not just KFC, and it’s not just China where automation, robots, and artificial intelligence is taking the place of human workers. If and when these automated restaurants gain traction in places like China, they are sure to be implemented in the U.S., as well. In fact, they already are — though to a lesser extent, for now. McDonald’s and other food chains are experimenting with digital kiosks similar to the self-checkout machines already found in many grocery stores.

    kfc

    KFC’s Original+ kiosk.

    In fact, as we covered recently at Anti-Media, automation is set to replace human jobs across broad sectors of the U.S. and world economies:

    “[T]he Bank of England is preparing for automation to shed 80 million American jobs and 15 million British jobs within the next 10 to 20 years. This is approximately 50% of the U.S. and British workforce. Forbes has put the number at 45%.”

    The ongoing debate surrounding robots, A.I., and automation displacing human workers is a delicate yet very important one. Many experts, including Stephen Hawking, have warned of the dangers of monopolistic artificial intelligence while others believe with the right direction from people, robots and technology can liberate humanity from manual labor.

    The inevitable automation of the world’s economy will reshape society as we know it. Minimum wages will no longer protect workers as employers shift to using robots who will never ask for breaks, pay, raises, or healthcare. Worker unions may essentially be rendered useless. Militaries will eventually no longer need humans to fight wars. Additionally, Uber, Lyft, taxi and limousine drivers, and other driving jobs could soon be replaced by self-driving cars as automation also changes the way we think about transportation altogether.

    Automation is loved, feared, and hated by many, but only time will tell how it will change our lives — for better or worse.

  • Is A Venezuela Coup Imminent? An Interview With A National Guardsman

    Following several very disturbing stories about the start of Venezuela’s social apocalypse, in the first case chronicling “Streets Filled With People Killing Animals For Food” and then last night documenting “Countless Wounded” After 5,000 Loot Supermarket Looking For Food, we concluded that “as civil war appears inevitable, as there are factions vying to oust Maduro, although we are confident the dictator will hang on for dear life (literally) and force his population to endure more of this socialist nightmare.”

    Today, now that speculation about a coup and/or civil war is becoming ever louder, we address some of these concerns courtesy of a must-read interview with a member of Bolivarian National Guard, the country’s national guardsmen, conducted by PanAm Post, which provides a critical blueprint of the next very tragic steps in Venezuela, which unfortunately now appear certainly to conclude with a national coup.

    From PanAm Post:

    Venezuela Is on the Brink of Social Collapse” National Guardsman

    Food Shortages Cause Daily Looting, Energy Crisis Worsens as National State of Emergency Approaches

     

    At the moment, the armed forces’ position vis-à-vis the government is not clear. Some speculate that the Bolivarian National Guard is divided. Others claim that the regime exerts full control over the Bolivarian National Guard’s members. The only certainty is that uncertainty abounds.

    The PanAm Post had the opportunity to interview a Bolivarian National Guard member of middle rank, who asked to remain anonymous since his views could expose him to danger.

    Why has the state launched an offensive against criminal groups?

    The situation was getting out of hand for political reasons. The state has no means to control criminal groups. The country’s jails are in chaos. The streets themselves are in chaos. The state’s security personnel are unarmed.

    The Maduro regime created the Organization for the Protection and Liberation for the People (OLP) to fight organized crime. Has that organization committed illegal acts as well?

    From a legal standpoint, yes. Now from the point of view of the general population, no, because they tolerate harsh methods against the criminal bands.

    But do they only kill criminals?

    In the majority of cases.

    Is the OLP really carrying out its operations strictly to end gang violence?

    That is their main purpose. But there is also a political element. The OLP’s creation was a desperate measure. The government had given liberty to the gangs to do what they please. They armed them and now they are attacking them.

    Is the OLP at war with gangs and with government officials at the same time?

    Yes, because they can’t control them. They have become too powerful. They are armed and they teach military strategy. These criminals used to fight against each other. Now they have a truce between them and they fight the military and other security forces. They say, “as long as we kill them, we’ll survive.”

    Does the state benefit by arming gangs? What is the regime trying to achieve?

    Their goal is to have armed groups on their side in case of political turmoil. That is the final goal. Disarmament laws only affect innocent people. Criminal have many more weapons than we do at the National Guard. They also have much more power. We can’t control that now. Any solution will come too late.

    The economic crisis and the public health crisis are becoming uncontrollable. The security forces are competent, but the government had to realize that the criminals were killing us all before they acted against them.

    How corrupt is is the National Guard?

    There is corruption in the National Guard, and there always has been. The difference is that, before, the system was more efficient. The National Guard decayed when it became political. Since we started to vote and to take part in the country’s political life, there has been no peace in the ranks.

    Now there is pressure on us because we have to follow the constitution, but we also have to be loyal to our higher officers even when their orders don’t correspond to the laws. If their orders contradict the laws, you can’t follow them. So there is a rift between the security forces and the other institutions.

    The government has an apparatus for persecution and espionage, so you can’t make negative statements about functionaries. The security services themselves are plagued by informants. You have to watch your every word.

    All of those military upheavals denouncing the government, those attempts to overthrow the government — are they real?

    No, the majority are false. There won’t be any coup attempts in Venezuela.

    Why not?

    Right now, all elements of the armed forces are under control. A coup-d’état takes place when you reach a breaking point and someone in the higher echelons of the armed forces decides that it’s time to act against the government. Right now in Venezuela, there are political divisions within the armed forces. There is neither the necessary unity nor the necessary organization for a coup to take place. Besides, officers fear the government’s informants. Everyone is on guard.

    What will result from the current discontent?

    The army and the National Guard are waiting. I can assure you that we are quite unhappy. But there is an entire structure above us, so it’s not easy to act. We receive criticism from all sides. Wherever I go, I come face to face with civilians’ displeasure and complaints. I also think the opposition has failed to take advantage of its opportunities to topple the government.

    How so?

    For example, when they won the parliamentary elections last December, the atmosphere was tense. The entire leadership knew what would happen. So did we. Former Speaker of the House Diosdado Cabello was willing to take the armed forces to the street against the opposition, but Padrino López, the Minister of Defense, didn’t allow him to do so.

    What happened exactly on December 6?

    The stories are true. That day there was a strong discussion between Padrino López and Cabello. López told Cabello that, if he ordered the troops to take the streets, he was going to have the army kill him.

    But did Padrino López only do it to save his own skin?

    Of course. He would have been responsible if the army started to massacre people. López was not going to allow that to happen. So that day the army was ordered to guard the opposition.

    On whose side does Padrino López find himself? That day, a rumor got out that he was defending Chávez’s revolution.

    Padrino López is intelligent, and I don’t doubt that he’s a chavista. But all branches of the armed forces are dissatisfied with the current situation. Imagine if one day they let Diosdado Cabello commit a massacre. If something like that occurs, the army will support President Maduro.

    And what has the Bolivarian National Guard done during the recent demonstrations? Why has the army remained silent?

    Those are two different situations. Like I said, government intelligence is an obstacle to action. The risk of not obeying orders is very large, but there is a lot of discontent and resentment due to the measures carried out by the Bolivarian National Guard and other officials.

    If discontent is so widespread, why is there no talk of a coup?

    That’s already been discussed. The coup d’état, we hope, will not be repeated. We remember what happened in 2002 with Chávez and we don’t want something similar to happen in the future.

    We are rather waiting for things to get truly out of hand. And that will happen in the following months. The situation is extremely unstable and the status quo can’t last. We are witnessing daily looting at supermarkets, and people are protesting.

    The crisis at Guri Dam (Venezuela’s most important hydroelectric power station) will get worse. Everything will get worse and there will be an implosion.

    At that moment, the country’s future will be determined. I don’t believe there’s much time left.

    Are you sure that something drastic will happen soon?

    Without a doubt. The Bolivarian National Guard has already discussed the matter.

    The situation in Venezuela has never been as bad as it is now. The breaking point is near, but still not at hand. My recommendation is for people to prepare, to look for food and then to store it. Obviously, when the implosion occurs , it won’t last long. I believe it will last something like 10 days, but they will be difficult days.

    There will be a state of emergency, and that will bring the crisis to an end.

    What will happen with the recall referendum that the opposition is trying to unleash against President Maduro?

    That’s not a serious option. The regime has demonstrated that it can violate the constitution without second thoughts. They are going to accept the referendum, but only if they know they can win with any method available. The situation will only come to a head when hunger and the lack of electricity force people to take direct action.

    So are the Armed Forces ready for a social catastrophe to take place?

    We are really willing to intervene if the country undergoes a social catastrophe. It’s as if we have water in a pot and it begins to boil very slowly. There will be a moment when, if the gas is not turned off, the water begins to overflow and disaster ensues.

  • The Dismal Retirement Picture For America's Older Generation

    As we have pointed out many times in the past (most recently here), the jobs "recovery" has gone disproportionately to older workers at the expense of younger workers.

     

    In fact, as Bloomberg points out, the employment-to-population ratio for those 65 and over is at its highest level since the early 1960's.

    This creates a bottleneck for younger workers who are looking to move up from their current roles, and also those that are trying to gain entry level employment but can't until the current occupiers of those seats can move up. The situation doesn't appear to be on the verge of getting any better either, as 27% of Americans say they will "keep working as long as possible" according to a 2015 Federal Reserve study – and to make matters worse (for younger generations), 12% of Americans say they don't plan to retire at all.

     

    The primary reason for the older generations remaining in the workforce isn't surprising: people simply don't have the money to retire. Three in five retirees surveyed by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies said making money or earning benefits was at least one reason they had retired later than planned, and almost half said financial problems were the main reason for working past 65.

     

    With nearly 60% of all U.S. households having no savings in individual retirement accounts such as a IRA or 401(k), the fact that older workers simply can't afford to retire is not a surprise. Those that do have a retirement account, predictably see different levels of funding according to their income.

     

    And of course, those with the highest funded retirement account receive the highest monthly returns – said otherwise, the wealthy grow disproportionately richer in retirement as well.

     

    What all of this means is that the trouble younger workers are having getting into the workforce will continue, furthering their inability to make any payments on the massive amount of student loan debt racked up while in college. For those that are fortunate enough to already be in those entry level positions, they'll have to make due with the current situation, because the older generation isn't going anywhere. What it also means, is that the Federal Reserve better figure out how will it keep market levels where they are, otherwise it runs the risk that what little is currently in retirement accounts will be wiped out. If there is a replay of 2008, the younger generations might as well hang it up – as well as those institutions that are holding the corresponding student debt.

  • For The American Farmer "It's Death By A 1,000 Knives”- US Farmland Values Plunge Most In 30 Years

    Not so long ago, US farmland – whose prices were until recently rising exponentially – was considered by many to be the next asset bubble. Then, exactly one year ago, the fairytale officially ended, and as reported in February, US farmland saw its first price drop since 1986. It was also about a year ago when looking ahead, very few bankers expected price appreciation and more than a quarter of survey respondents expect cropland values to continue declining.

    They were right.

    According to several regional Fed reports released last Thursday, real farmland values in parts of the Midwest fell at their fastest clip in almost 30 years during the first quarter.

    This is how the Chicago Fed described the increasingly dire situation:

    Agricultural land values in the Seventh Federal Reserve District fell 4 percent from a year ago in the first quarter of 2016—their largest year-over-year decline since the third quarter of 2009. Cash rental rates for District farmland experienced a significant drop of 10 percent for 2016 compared with 2015—even larger than the decrease of last year relative to 2014. Demand to purchase agricultural land was markedly lower in the three- to six-month period ending with March 2016 compared with the same period ending with March 2015. Moreover, the amount of farmland for sale, the number of farms sold, and the amount of acreage sold were all down during the winter and early spring of 2016 compared with a year ago. Nearly two-thirds of the responding bankers expected farmland values to decrease during the second quarter of 2016, with the rest expecting farmland values to remain stable.

    As the WSJ added, falling crop prices have weighed on land values from Kansas to Indiana over the past two years as farm income declined and investors who had piled into the asset at the start of the decade retrenched.

    Three regional Federal Reserve banks all reported year-over-year declines in farmland values in their districts and said the drops would continue, though their forecasts were based on surveys taken before the recent rally in corn and soybean prices.

    The St. Louis Fed region that includes parts of the U.S. agricultural heartland in Illinois, Indiana and Missouri reported the steepest decline, with the average price of “quality” farmland falling 6.4% in the quarter, the biggest decline since its survey began in 2012. The Chicago Fed said prices for similar land in its district fell 4% from a year ago, the seventh successive quarterly decline. Adjusted for inflation, prices in an area that includes parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin fell 5%, the biggest quarterly drop since 1987.

    Not even a recent short-term bounce in commodity prices – driven by China’s now concluded record loan expansion – is cause for optimism. Though some agricultural markets have rallied in recent weeks, prices for corn and wheat are still more than 50% lower than their 2012 peak, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has projected that net U.S. farm income will fall this year to the lowest level in more than a decade.

    Commodity prices have declined as farmers in the U.S. and elsewhere harvested bumper crops, adding to already generous stockpiles. U.S. farmers have also been hit by the strength of the dollar, which has stymied demand to export their crops.

    Another reason for America’s farmland recession: the drop in land values has been accompanied by deteriorating credit conditions, with more loans taken out to cover farm operations even as repayment rates fell on existing debt.

    It appears that in its scramble to save banks’ from their underwater energy exposure, the Fed forgot all about bailing out the American farmer.  The Kansas City Fed said the weaker credit environment had left many growers unable to pay off loans extended to them in the previous year, forcing them to carry debt into 2016.

    It gets worse: loan-repayment rates fell for the 10th consecutive quarter, which the bank said was the longest run of deteriorating repayment rates since the early 2000s. While farm loan delinquency rates remained low, growers with significant debt may face continuing stress.

    “This most recent uptick in loan demand may be more concerning because it has coincided with a period of falling repayment rates, softening farmland values and increasing collateral requirements,” said the Kansas City Fed in its report.

    * * *

    And then there was the latest JPM report from its 2016 midwest planting tour. Here are some of the key findings:

    We spent the last few days in the Midwest visiting dealers, farmers, and a variety of industry experts. Overall, our sense is that the industry is “healing” but the down-cycle will be long as used inventories remain elevated, used prices are still “in discovery mode”, and farmers are staring at a fourth year of losses and asset write-downs; sentiment improved a little with the USDA’s demand outlook, at least for beans (but that may be short lived). We maintain our negative outlook for US ag fundamentals.

    Among JPM’s other troubling findings is that farmers are not making money at current prices, and rents have started to move down, but not quickly enough; in IA, farmers must alert landlords in writing by September 1 if they want to renegotiate for the following year. Farmers have been buying equipment at auction when they perceive that it is good value, even though they may not need extra equipment; however, dealer used equipment prices continue to decline YoY, and the decline is accelerating as more used equipment is going to auction (at about a 20-30% discount).

    JPM also makes the following key observations:

    • Deere dealer: The Deere dealer we met in Iowa noted that he (uniquely) sold no new equipment for the past 16-18 months in order to reduce used inventory, which peaked at $20MM and is now at $7.5MM (vs. normal of $10MM). At the peak of the cycle he sold 80 tractors and 30-40 combines and his turns were 3.5- 4.0x, whereas now his combine turns are ~1.5x. He was able to sell some used equipment to Mexico but had to liquidate some through auction at a significant loss (up to $100K on a high HP tractor)
    • Titan dealer: At the peak of the cycle this dealer sold 23 combines per year; he sold three in 2015 and has 13 sitting in used inventory (about  three years excess used inventory). He cannot sell new equipment until he sorts out the used equipment inventory (combines in particular), though he noted that he has sold six tractors YTD, more than he managed for all of 2015. Like other dealers we spoke with, Titan dealers are very hesitant to sell used equipment through auction as prices can be up to 25% lower than book value; he would prefer to sell used equipment at a loss rather than write down the value of his entire book.
    • CAT (AGCO) dealer: This dealer noted that his dealership reported $186MM in sales at the peak in 2013, and this year his budget is to deliver $130MM, but he acknowledged that he may not make the budget as he too is struggling with excess used inventory. Unlike the DE dealer who simply stopped selling new equipment, this dealer has charged his sales force with a ratio of used for every new sale (tractors and competitor combines are 2:1 used vs. new, and for Lexion combines (Claas) the ratio is 3:1). He acknowledged that he may be taking a “death by a 1,000 knives” approach that could result in 2017 sales being down again.

    Here is JPM’s summary assessment on US farmer sentiment. It’s not good. 

    The farmers we hosted remain pretty downbeat about the prospect for profits in the 2016/17 crop year, though they did sell most of the 2015/16 crop during the recent rally. Once again this year much of the focus was on rent, which remains elevated, and, while it may be inching lower, farmers in IA need to put in a written request for a re-negotiation by September 1 for 2017/18; those conversations are going to need to be uncomfortable this year. One farmer noted that he has 20+ landlords, so the process can be time consuming and emotionally exhausting. On a separate issue, the farmers noted that Farm Credit requested that farmers write down equipment values by 20% in January; the longer the down-cycle lasts the more stress on their balance sheets, especially for farmers renting a significant portion of their farmland. None of the farmers are rolling equipment right now, but they do not like to have  equipment out of warranty as repair costs can run to $20K out of pocket. Beyond equipment, savings are being made on seeds (by moving to fewer traits or non-GMO), but not enough to break even at current prices.

    1. farmers are still forecasting a loss (for the fourth consecutive year) in 2016/17;
    2. balance sheets are coming under more pressure as equipment values are marked down (particularly farmers with a high proportion of rented land);
    3. renegotiating rents is extraordinarily stressful and time-consuming as most farmers have multiple landlords;
    4. lenders are becoming more risk averse as the cycle extends.

    Finally, for the best indication of just how dire the future is, we look at what those who know the business best are doing in terms of investments.Here is JPM: “Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, investment in agricultural machinery peaked at $50 billion SAAR in Q4’13 and is now down 58% from peak at $21 billion, about in line with 2002 levels.

    While America was so focused on whether or not there is a recession in the US manufacturing and oil & gas sector, it completely ignored the depression in America’s farming heartland.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 14th May 2016

  • Facebook and Exxon Mobil are both Overvalued Stocks for Different Reasons (Video)

    By EconMatters

     

    XOM is trading as a Bond in this yield chasing QE inspired Central Bank World, and FB is your classic momentum stock. The first lesson of modern investing is that everything is a trade in financial markets. Avoid being the bag holder in either of these two stocks. The day of their demise is merely a calendar event on the investing time clock horizon.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  • Why Were Texas Game Wardens Just Issued Nuclear Radiation Detectors?

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    After countless reports about the potential for nuclear or radioactive weapons of mass destruction being smuggled into the United States, the State of Texas is has begun to take the threat seriously.

    Via Houston Public Media:

     

    Up and down the Texas Gulf Coast, the state’s game wardens are on the water, looking for people fishing or hunting illegally.  But as we’ve reported, they sometimes come across things like illegal chemical dumpsites and more says Texas Parks and Wildlife’s Tom Harvey.

     

    “Game wardens encounter all kinds of things on their patrols, including a lot of illegal fishing, and this is a new threat we’re gearing up to be able to address,“ Harvey told News 88.7.

     

    That new threat is terrorism. One fear is that terrorists could try to smuggle radioactive material into the country by boat. The Port of Houston has for years had radiation detectors to scan cargo.

     

    So now, besides guns and handcuffs, game wardens will have one more tool.

     

    “We’ve acquired about a hundred devices that allow game wardens to detect radiological or nuclear emissions. These are little devices that can be worn on someone’s belt,” Harvey said.

     

     

    They’re about the size of a cellphone and can help a warden determine if something suspicious is radioactive.  It wouldn’t necessarily have to be connected to terrorism: radioactive materials used in the energy and medical industries can be illegally dumped.

     

    Game wardens began training with the radiation detectors in January and completed a mock exercise to find radioactive packages along the coast.

    In March the Obama administration warned that there were four ways a large-scale nuclear attack on U.S. soil could happen,

    The havoc such an attack could wreak in an urban area such as New York or London is concerning enough that leaders scheduled a special session on the threat during the two-day summit. U.S. officials said the leaders would discuss a hypothetical scenario about a chain of events that could lead to nuclear terrorism.

    And just last month we learned that ISIS-linked terrorists have targeted at least two nuclear power plants in Europe – one in Belgium in the lead up to the terror attacks in Brussels, as well as a cyber attack on a German plant that made it possible for hackers to take control of highly radioactive cooling rods at the facility. Moreover, as far as Europe is concerned, officials report that CBRN weapons (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) have already been smuggled into Europe, suggesting that mass-casualty attacks are in the planning stages.

    The threats to America is equally serious, as officials have reported that terrorists have already been captured attempting to cross into the United States through our southern border. Moreover, in recent years there have been numerous cases of nuclear material capable of being used in dirty bombs being stolen from facilities in Mexico.

    The issue was so serious that the Texas Rangers were dispatched to secure the southern border amid the threat.

    Though ignored by most Americans as an implausible scenario, the fact that DHS recently announced they will be holding a mock poison gas attack in New York suggests that officials are growing more concerned with the potential for a serious attack on key U.S. cities.

    Should a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack become reality, the panic would be unprecedented. Large scale evacuations of entire cities or regions would be likely, and thousands could die or be sickened because of a lack of protective equipment against CBRN attacks.

    That terrorists are actively targeting nuclear power plants is a warning sign that should not be taken lightly. The goal is mass casualties, and CBRN devices would be the optimal weapons used.

  • Incompetence Personified: Illinois Has Devolved To One-Off Funding Bills As It Still Can't Pass A Budget

    As Illinois struggles to get its fiscal house in order (good luck with that), it has devolved into funding key programs with one-off stopgap measures rather than approving an overall comprehensive budget. The state remains the only remaining state without a 2016 plan.

    Most recently, lawmakers overwhelmingly approved $700 million to fund social service programs, however, as the Chicago Sun Times reports, the bill is likely to sit on Governor Bruce Rauner’s desk as he tries to push lawmakers to come to an agreement on a balanced budget instead of one-off solutions.

    “The administration remains focused on enacting a truly balanced budget alongside meaningful reforms, and the Governor will continue negotiating in good faith toward a bipartisan agreement” said Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly.

    The bill included enough money to provide about 46% of what social service providers and programs such as Catholic Charities received from the state last year, and lawmakers such as Democrat Greg Harris are pushing to have the money released immediately.

    “This is a $700 million piece of legislation that would help the neediest at the time when they need help the most. This is money that is available to be dispersed immediately.”

    Legislators are haggling over a budget that under its current proposal would increase tax revenues by $5.4 billion by raising personal income tax rates from 3.75% to as much as 4.85%, cut spending by $2.5 billion, and borrow $5 billion in order to pay an expected $10 billion deficit by the time the fiscal year ends July 1.

    All of this is just another example of the state of complete disarray that municipalities, cities, and states are in all across the U.S. Between pension funds going insolvent, states missing budget projections by a billion dollars, and in Illinois’ case, flat out inability to even know where to begin to solve the massive amount of accumulated debt, the pressure is building on Congress to start talking up bailout programs – because right now, helicopter money is literally the only thing that can save everyone from defaulting all at once.

  • Did The Clinton Foundation Give $2 Million To Bill's "Energizer" Mistress?

    At Bill Clinton's behest, a $2 million commitment for Energy Pioneer Solutions was placed on the agenda during a September 2010 conference of the Clinton Global Initiative. As it turns out, the commitment is a bit of an issue…

    At the heart of the issue is the foundation sent funding to a company that had significant ties to the Clinton family according to the WSJ. The IRS website states that any 501(c)(3) should not be operated for the benefit of private interests.

    The WSJ explains the connections

    Energy Pioneer Solutions was founded in 2009 by Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska. An internal document from that year showed it as owned 29% by Mr. Kleeb; 29% by Jane Eckert, the owner of an art gallery in Pine Plains, N.Y.; and 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon of Chappaqua, N.Y., a close friend of Mr. Clinton, who also lives in Chappaqua.
     

    Owning 5% each were Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias and Mark Weiner, a supplier to political campaigns and former Rhode Island Democratic chairman, both longtime friends of the Clintons.
     

    The Clinton Global Initiative holds an annual conference at which it announces monetary commitments from corporations, individuals or nonprofit organizations to address global challenges—commitments on which it has acted in a matchmaking role. Typically, the commitments go to charities and nongovernmental organizations. The commitment to Energy Pioneer Solutions was atypical because it originated from a private individual who was making a personal financial investment in a for-profit company.

     

    Not only did the Clinton's oversee $2 million being sent to friends at Energy Pioneer Solutions via the foundation, according to the WSJ, Bill also personally endorsed the company to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant, ultimately leading to a grant in the amount of $812,000. Of course, Chu now says he doesn't remember the conversation. 

    As it is no stranger to having to scramble and do damage control, the foundation has come out with the following narrative:

    Asked about the commitment, foundation officials said, “President Clinton has forged an amazing universe of relationships and friendships throughout his life that endure to this day, and many of those individuals and friends are involved in CGI Commitments because they share a passion for making a positive impact in the world. As opposed to a conflict of interest, they share a common interest.”
     

    A spokesman for Mr. Clinton, Angel Urena, said, “President Clinton counts many CGI participants as friends.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.
     

    A Clinton Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian, called the commitment an instance of “mission-driven investing…in and by for-profit companies,” which he said “is a common practice in the broader philanthropic space, as well as among CGI commitments.” Of thousands of CGI commitments, Mr. Minassian cited three other examples of what he described as mission-driven investing involving a private party and a for-profit company such as Energy Pioneer Solutions.

    Energy Pioneer Solutions has struggled to operate profitably, and an audit found deficiencies in how the company accounted for expenses paid with federal grant money – surprise, surprise, another government funded (and Clinton funded) enterprise that can't make a profit and has lost taxpayer money.

    Energy Pioneer Solutions has struggled to operate profitably. It lost more than $300,000 in 2010 and another $300,000 in the first half of 2011, said records submitted for an Energy Department audit. Mr. Kleeb noted that losses are common at startups.
     

    The audit found deficiencies in how the company accounted for expenses paid with federal grant money, Energy Department records show. The company addressed the deficiencies, and a revised cost proposal was approved in 2011, said an Energy Department spokeswoman, Joshunda Sanders.
     

    Recently, Mr. Kleeb laid off most of his staff, closed his offices, sold a fleet of trucks and changed his business strategy, promising to launch a national effort instead. “We are right now gearing up to start under this new model,” he said.
     

    Asked if Energy Pioneer Solutions has ever broken even, Mr. Kleeb said, “We’re at that stage…We are expanding and doing well. We have partnerships, and it’s good.”

    Partnerships indeed. Speaking of partnerships, there is a connection that is noteworthy in this tangled web of cronyism…

    One of the owners of Energy Pioneer Solutions was Julie Tauber McMahon. She described Bill as a "close family friend" in an interview, but perhaps there is a bit more to that story.

    As the NY Post reports

    The fit, blond mother of three, who lives just minutes from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, West­chester, is the daughter of Joel Tauber, a millionaire donor to the Democratic Party.
     

    McMahon, 54, is rumored to be the woman dubbed “Energizer” by the Secret Service at the Clinton home because of her frequent visits, according to RadarOnline.

     

    Secret Service agents were even given special instructions to abandon usual protocol when the woman came by, according to journalist Ronald Kessler’s tell-all book, “The First Family Detail.”
     

     

    “You don’t stop her, you don’t approach her, you just let her go in,” says the book, based on agents’ accounts.
     

    “Energizer” is described in the book as a charming visitor who sometimes brought cookies to the agents.
     

    The book describes one sun-drenched afternoon when agents took notice of the woman’s revealing attire.
     

    “It was a warm day, and she was wearing a low-cut tank top, and as she leaned over, her breasts were very exposed,” an agent is quoted in the book.
     

    “They appeared to be very perky and very new and full . . . There was no doubt in my mind they were enhanced.”
     

    “Energizer” reportedly timed her arrivals and departures around Hillary Clinton’s schedule.
     

    McMahon has denied in reports having an intimate relationship with Bill Clinton.

    * * *

    While nobody knows for certain if Bill was funding a mistress (which really wouldn't surprise anyone), the fact remains that this is yet another stunning example that cronyism is alive and well.

  • Chomsky: Europe Bows To Its "Washington Masters" On Everything From Snowden To Iran

    Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

    United States exceptionalism has created a preternaturally excessive number of military installments, deployments, and bases around the world. In point of fact, as David Vine described for the Nation in September 2015:

    “While there are no freestanding foreign bases permanently located in the United States, there are now around 800 US bases in foreign countries. Seventy years after World War II and 62 years after the Korean War, there are still 174 US ‘base sites’ in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea, according to the Pentagon. Hundreds more dot the planet in around 80 countries, including Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, among many other places. Although few Americans realize it, the United States likely has bases in more foreign lands than any other people, nation, or empire in history.”

    It’s commonly accepted that, in terms of economic and political policy, as Germany goes so goes Europe — and as the United States goes, so goes Germany. Essentially, European nations’ historical fealty to whims of the U.S. has created a juggernaut of obligatory policies with other countries, whether or not such dealings ultimately prove to be in Europe’s best interests. According to a U.S. Department of Defense report dated June 2015, over 80,000 troops were stationed in various locations in Europe — including 44,660 in Germany, alone — and those numbers will be bolstered by 3,000 to 5,000 in 2017, “to help countries harden themselves against Russian influence,” as Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated in February.

    But as Professor Noam Chomsky explained in an exclusive interview with AcTVism Munich, as the American empire gasps its last breaths, that tide appears to be turning — and Europe, with Germany unofficially stationed at the helm, stands before an open window to escape overbearing U.S. influence.

    “If you go back to the early 50s,” Chomsky explained, “there was always concern that Europe might move in a direction independent of U.S. power. It might become what was called at the time a ‘third force’ in international affairs. The dominant force was the United States, the second force was the junior superpower … the Soviet Union, and there was concern that Europe was, of course, a rich, developed, advanced area that might just move in an independent direction […] In fact, one of the functions of NATO, as is generally understood, was to ensure that Europe would remain under the U.S. aegis, but not move towards an independent direction.”

    One current example of the friction between European countries’ continued capitulation to U.S. interests concerns the vast disparity in perceptions over the Iran nuclear deal, Chomsky noted. While enthusiastic “European ministers of government [and] corporation executives are flocking to Tehran to try to set up deals and arrangements,” Republican presidential candidates, including presumptive nominee Donald Trump, have said they would not follow through on the deal.

    U.S. dominance over policy has even influenced Europe’s response to the controversy over Edward Snowden. As Chomsky explained, a plane transporting Bolivian president Evo Morales was denied passage through European airspace en route to Bolivia — despite the aircraft’s diplomatic immunity — during the time period when Snowden’s whereabouts remained unknown to the U.S. This unprecedented shirking of diplomatic immunity occurred at the behest of the U.S. government, though the plane eventually landed in Austria where it was raided by police — just to find out if the rogue whistleblower happened to be aboard.

    “All of this is kind of pitiful,” Chomsky said. “It’s a revelation of real cowardice in the face of power that the European elites are unwilling to confront — a sign of subordination and a real lack of dignity and integrity, in my view […]

     

    “There are, I think, by now four Latin American countries that offer asylum to Snowden – not one European country. In fact, they won’t even let him cross their borders. Why? Because the master in Washington tells them, ‘we don’t want him to.’ And Snowden, it’s important to recall, performed an enormous service, a patriotic service in fact, to the people of the United States and the world.

    Snowden revealed to the planet the nefarious extent of the U.S. surveillance state — and its true reach both domestically and around the world.

    “That’s what he should have done,” added Chomsky. “That’s the responsibility of a decent citizen.”

     

  • Canaccord Founder Sells $31 Million Vancouver Mansion To Chinese Student

    Everybody loves a good Vancouver real estate horror story. Here is a great one.

    In the endless series of reports about wealthy Chinese oligarchs, billionaires, money launderers, or mere criminals, never have we encountered anything quite like this yet, because according to The Province, the majority owner of this Point Grey mansion located at 4833 Belmont Avenue and which was recently ranked 16th among the most expensive homes in Vancouver, was sold earlier this year by Canaccord founder Peter Brown for a record $31.1 million is a “student,” property records show. A Chinese “student”… of course.

     

    Land title documents list Tian Yu Zhou as having a 99-per-cent interest in the five-bedroom, eight-bathroom, 14,600 square-foot mansion on a 1.7-acre lot at 4833 Belmont Ave. Zhou’s occupation is listed as a “student.”

    The other owner of the property, which boasts sweeping views of the North Shore mountains and Vancouver, is listed as Cuie Feng, a “businesswoman.” Feng has a one-per-cent interest in the property, which was assessed this year as having a total value of about $25.6 million, records show.

    Efforts to reach Zhou and Feng through the lawyer listed on the land title documents were not successful, and realtor Cherry Xu, who reportedly served as the buyer’s agent, did not want to comment on the sale, citing privacy considerations.

    As the Province amusingly puts it, NDP housing critic David Eby said the fact that a student was able to buy one of the most expensive homes in the city contradicts the government’s messaging that “everything is under control in the Vancouver real estate market.”

    Eby said it also links to a theme uncovered in a 2015 study by Andy Yan, an adjunct professor at the University of B.C., which found homemakers and, to a lesser extent, students, are often the listed occupations of the owners of many newly purchased multi-million dollar Vancouver properties.

    “It’s incredibly strange that a student would be able to afford such a luxurious and multi-million-dollar property,” said Eby. “This is part of a trend of homemakers and students mass-buying property. I don’t know how that can be possible with the income of homemakers and students typically have, which is close to zero.”

    We can only hope he was being serious: that would make his statement all the more fun.

    Mortgage documents attached to the land title papers show that a mortgage of $9.9 million was taken out by Zhou and Feng from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce on April 28. The bi-weekly payments are listed as $17,079.41.

    Now this may be a first: traditionally Chinese kleptocrats pay all cash – what is the point of taking out a mortgage when the whole purpose of buying ridiculously overpriced real estate is to park hot or stolen cash. We will have to mull this one over.

    Where The Province article gets interesting is where Eby suggests that the government’s messaging and slow response to the housing crisis in Metro Vancouver could be because party donors, like Brown, are directly benefiting from the red-hot market.

    According to financial records, Brown has donated $62,500 to the B.C. Liberal Party in the past two years, and Eby further noted that Brown is a longtime Liberal fundraiser.

    “I think we shouldn’t underestimate the connection between the government saying there is no issue with the real estate market in Vancouver at the same time one of their major fundraisers is selling his home to a student for $31 million and significantly over the assessed value,” said Eby. “The government’s donors are directly profiting from this crazy real estate market while a lot of hard-working families are suffering.”

    While the government has been cautious in its approach to tackling the housing issue in Metro Vancouver, saying more data needs to be compiled, some action has been taken.

    “I always think more information is better in helping us understand that nature of what’s happening out there, rather than less,” Premier Christy Clark said Wednesday.

    “Let’s find out how many homes are being purchased in the market by people who aren’t residents of Canada, whoever they may be in the world. I think that information will help us come up with the right solutions.”

    Earlier this week, the government introduced regulations to clamp down on unethical real estate practices, including the legal use of assignment clauses to crank up the final sale price of a property, a practice known as shadow flipping.

    The government also said it will introduce amendments to the property transfer tax forms that will require, as of June 10, buyers of B.C. real estate to include their principal address and whether they are Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

    We are confident absolutely nothing will change and as more Chinese are desperate to park their cash in Canada, soon stories such as this one will become an (even more) everyday occurence.

  • Minimum-Wage Blowback – Wendy's To Employ Self-Service Kiosks At 6,000 Locations

    Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

    In direct response to higher wage prices and the firming of commodity prices, Wendy’s is going to install self-service ordering kiosks at 6,000 locations. McDonald’s is expected to follow at a slower pace.

    Investors Business Daily reports Wendy’s Serves Up Big Kiosk Expansion As Wage Hikes Hit Fast Food.

    Wendy’s (WEN) said that self-service ordering kiosks will be made available across its 6,000-plus restaurants in the second half of the year as minimum wage hikes and a tight labor market push up wages.

     

    It will be up to franchisees whether to deploy the labor-saving technology, but Wendy’s President Todd Penegor did note that some franchise locations have been raising prices to offset wage hikes.

     

    McDonald’s (MCD) has been testing self-service kiosks. But Wendy’s, which has been vocal about embracing labor-saving technology, is launching the biggest potential expansion.

     

    All 258 Wendy’s restaurants in California, where the minimum wage rose to $10 an hour this year and will gradually rise to $15, are franchise-operated. Likewise, about 75% of 200-plus restaurants in New York are run by franchisees.

     

    “We are seeing a bit of a softer overall category in April” relative to the past two quarters, Penegor said on an earnings call, implying more of an industrywide trend than an issue specific to Wendy’s.

     

    Penegor said the reason for softer growth was hard to pinpoint, but he listed a cautious consumer, tougher spring weather in the Northeast, and a wider gap between the cost of food at home vs. food away from home as possible contributors.

     

    In addition to self-order kiosks, the company is also getting ready to move beyond the testing phase with labor-saving mobile ordering and mobile payment available systemwide by the end of the year. Yum Brands and McDonald’s already have mobile ordering apps.

    Carl’s Jr. Investing in Machines

    Business Insider reports Fast-food CEO says he’s investing in machines because the government is making it difficult to afford employees.

    The 100% automated restaurant, Eatsa, has inspired the CEO of Carl’s Jr.

     

    The CEO of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s has visited the fully automated restaurant Eatsa — and it’s given him some ideas on how to deal with rising minimum wages.

     

    “I want to try it,” CEO Andy Puzder told Business Insider of his automated restaurant plans. “We could have a restaurant that’s focused on all-natural products and is much like an Eatsa, where you order on a kiosk, you pay with a credit or debit card, your order pops up, and you never see a person.”

     

    “This is the problem with Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and progressives who push very hard to raise the minimum wage,” says Puzder. “Does it really help if Sally makes $3 more an hour if Suzie has no job?”

    Zero Human Interaction Eatsa

    Also consider This is the first fast-food chain in America that requires zero human interaction.

    A new restaurant chain called Eatsa is unlike any fast-food chain we’ve seen before.

     

    The restaurant is almost fully automated, functioning like a vending machine that spits out freshly-prepared quinoa bowls.

     

    When customers enter Eatsa, they order their food at an iPad kiosk.

     

    Then they wait in front of a wall of glass cubbies, where their food will be appear when it’s ready.

     

    Hidden behind the wall of cubbies, kitchen staff prepare the food.

    Positions Open!

    Wendy's Careers

     

    State of Affairs

    Fast food is not cheap. $15 minimum wages do not help.

    It’s easy to dismiss Eatsa. It has 10 stores. But it’s the idea that’s important.

    Wendy’s is adopting a similar model as best it can, en masse.

    Department stores that have massively over-expanded will follow suit.

    None of these trends bode well for store expansion or hiring. Layoffs are on the horizon.

  • China Warns US: "Don't Disturb" Hong Kong Social Order; Threatens "Bad Reaction"

    Over the past few months, tensions have been high between the U.S. and China. Events such as China denying USS John C. Stennis and its escort ships access to a Hong Kong port showed just how strained relations have become between the two countries, and with China's recent comments saying that U.S. activity near the Fiery Cross Reef "threatened China's sovereignty and security interests", one would assume that things couldn't get much worse.

    Alas, that assumption would be wrong. As Reuters reports, China is now accusing the U.S. of trying to "disturb" social order in Hong Kong, something that Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said will "cause Chinese people to go on alert and have a bad reaction."

    Channel NewsAsia has more…

    BEIJING: China's Foreign Ministry on Friday accused unidentified people in the United States of trying to "disturb" social order in Hong Kong, after the U.S. State Department expressed further concern the territory's autonomy was being eroded.
     

    The State Department made the comments in its latest report on the former British colony, released on Wednesday. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said that as Hong Kong was a part of China, no other country had a right to interfere in its internal affairs.
     

    "We also remind the United States that certain people on the U.S. side have always wanted to disturb Hong Kong, disturb its socio-economic development, disturb the normal order of its residents' lives, and even use the Hong Kong issue to interfere in China's internal affairs," he told a daily news briefing.
     

    "This can only be futile. The only effect it will have is to cause Chinese people to go on alert and have a bad reaction."
     

    Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997 under agreements that its broad freedoms, way of life and legal system would remain unchanged for 50 years.
     

    Beijing's refusal to grant the former British colony full democracy has embittered a younger generation of activists who launched big protests in 2014.
     

    Political tension has simmered amid occasional incidents of unrest. A riot erupted in the city in February after a dispute between authorities and street vendors.
     

    The United States has repeatedly expressed concern about developments in Hong Kong, including freedom of the press and human rights issues.

    * * *

    So to summarize, the United States is antagonizing Russia, antagonizing China, and doing its very best to generate even further conflict in the Middle East. Perhaps the best indicator of how the economy is doing is not reading FOMC minutes, rather, just pay attention to how much war mongering the U.S. is doing around the world. After all, nothing solves a bad economy like a massive war – right?

  • The Real Oil Limits Story – What Other Researchers Missed

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

    For a long time, a common assumption has been that the world will eventually “run out” of oil and other non-renewable resources. Instead, we seem to be running into surpluses and low prices. What is going on that was missed by M. King Hubbert, Harold Hotelling, and by the popular understanding of supply and demand?

    The underlying assumption in these models is that scarcity would appear before the final cutoff of consumption. Hubbert looked at the situation from a geologist’s point of view in the 1950s to 1980s, without an understanding of the extent to which geological availability could change with higher price and improved technology. Harold Hotelling’s work came out of the conservationist movement of 1890 to 1920, which was concerned about running out of non-renewable resources. Those using supply and demand models have equivalent concerns–too little fossil fuel supply relative to demand, especially when environmental considerations are included.

    Virtually no one realizes that the economy is a self-organized networked system. There are many interconnections within the system. The real situation is that as prices rise, supply tends to rise as well, because new sources of production become available at the higher price. At the same time, demand tends to fall for a variety of reasons:

    • Lower affordability
    • Lower productivity growth
    • Falling relative wages of non-elite workers

    The potential mismatch between amount of supply and demand is exacerbated by the oversized role that debt plays in determining the level of commodity prices. Because the oil problem is one of diminishing returns, adding debt becomes less and less profitable over time. There is a potential for a sharp decrease in debt from a combination of defaults and planned debt reductions, leading to very much lower oil prices, and severe problems for oil producers. Financial institutions tend to be badly affected as well. If a person looks at only past history, the situation looks secure, but it really is not.

    Figure 1. By Merzperson at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2570936

    Figure 1. By Merzperson at English Wikipedia – Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2570936

    Substitutes aren’t really helpful; they tend to be high-priced and dependent on the use of fossil fuels, including oil. They cannot possibly operate on their own. They add to the “oversupply at high prices” problem, but don’t really fix the need for low-priced supply.

     

    Why supply tends to rise as prices rise

    For any non-renewable commodity, there are a wide variety of resources that will “sort of” work as substitutes, if the price is high enough. If the price can be raised to a very high level, the funds available will encourage the development of more advanced (and expensive) technology.

    If it is possible to raise the price to a very high level, it is likely that a very large quantity of oil will be available. Figure 1 shows some of the types of oil available:

    Getting sufficient oil out is a price problem

    I got my idea for Figure 2 from a natural gas resource triangle by Stephen Holditch.

     

    Figure 2. Stephen Holdritch's resource triangle for natural gas

    Figure 3. Stephen Holditch’s resource triangle for natural gas

    A similar resource triangle is available for coal (from National Academies Press; Coal Resource, Reserve, and Quality Assessments):

    Figure 3. Coal resources in 1997, based on EIA data. Image from

    Figure 4. Coal resources in 1997, based on EIA data. Image from National Academies Press.

    Because of the availability of an increasing amount of resources, we are likely to get more oil, natural gas, and coal, if prices rise. We associate high prices with scarcity; instead, high prices tend to make a larger quantity of energy product available.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has a different way of illustrating the likelihood of huge future oil supply, if prices can only rise high enough.

    Figure 4. Figure 1.4 from International Energy Agency's 2015 World Energy Outlook.

    Figure 5. Figure 1.4 from International Energy Agency’s 2015 World Energy Outlook.

    The implication of this chart is that the IEA believes that oil prices can rise to $300 per barrel, giving the world plenty of oil to extract for many years ahead.

     

    Can consumers really afford very high-priced energy products?

    In my view, the answer is “No!” If oil is high priced, then the many things made with oil will tend to be high priced as well. Wages don’t rise with oil prices; most of us remember this from the oil price run-up of 2003 to 2008.

    Because of this affordability issue, the limit to oil production is really an invisible price limit, represented as a dotted line. We can’t know in advance where this is, so it is easy to assume that it doesn’t exist.

    Figure 4. Resource triangle, with dotted line indicating uncertain financial cut-off.

    Figure 6. Resource triangle, with dotted line indicating uncertain financial cut-off.

    The higher cost of extraction is equivalent to diminishing returns.

    As we are forced to seek out ever more expensive to extract resources, the economy is in some sense becoming less and less efficient. We are devoting more of our human labor and other resources to extracting fossil fuels, and to extracting minerals from ever-lower-quality ores. In some sense, we could just as well be putting these resources into a pit and burying them–they no longer help us grow the rest of the economy. Using resources in this way leaves fewer resources to “grow” the rest of the economy. As a result, we should expect economic contraction when the cost of oil extraction rises.

    In fact, economic contraction seems to happen when oil prices rise, at least for oil importing countries. Economist James Hamilton has shown that 10 out of 11 post-World War II recessions were associated with oil price spikes. A 2004 IEA report says, “.  .  . a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. Inflation would rise by half a percentage point and unemployment would also increase.”

    Energy products play a critical role in the economy.

    Economic activity is based on many kinds of physical changes. For example:

    • Using heat to transform materials from one form to another;
    • Using energy products to help move goods from one place to another;
    • Moving electrons in such a way that light is provided
    • Moving electrons in such a way that Internet transmission can be provided.

    A human being, by himself, exerts only about 100 watts of power. A human being is also quite limited in what he can do; he can provide a little heat, but no light, for example. Energy products are very helpful for making capital goods such as buildings, machines, roads, electricity transmission lines, cars and trucks.

    We can think of energy products, and capital goods made using energy products, as ways of leveraging human energy. If per capita energy consumption increases over time, leveraging of human labor can grow. As a result, humans can become ever more productive–think of new and better machines to help humans do their work. Dips in this leveraging tend to correspond to economic contraction (Figure 7).

    Figure 6. World energy consumption per capita, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2105 data. Year 2015 estimate and notes by G. Tverberg.

    Figure 7. World energy consumption per capita, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2105 data. Year 2015 estimate and notes by G. Tverberg.

     

    To have a growing economy, wages of non-elite workers need to be growing. 

    Our economy is in a sense a “circular economy,” in which non-elite workers (less educated, non-managerial workers) play a pivotal role because they are both producers of goods and potential consumers of the output of the economy. Because there are so many non-elite workers, their demand for homes, cars, and electronic goods plays a critical role in maintaining the total demand of the economy.

    Figure 6. Representation of two major part of economy by author.

    Figure 8. Representation of two major parts of the economy by author.

    If the wages of these non-elite workers are growing, thanks to increased productivity, the economy as a whole can grow. If the wages of these workers are shrinking or are flat (in inflation-adjusted terms), the economy is in trouble. The recycling process cannot work very well.

    If there is not enough economic growth–often caused by not enough growth in energy consumption to leverage human labor–then we tend to get a growing imbalance between the sector on the left with businesses, governments, and elite workers, and the sector on the right, with non-elite workers. Part of this wage imbalance comes from sending jobs to low-wage countries. As jobs are shifted to low-wage countries, the workers of the world increasingly cannot afford the goods that they and other workers are producing.

    Figure 7. Representation by author of balance that occurs.

    Figure 9. Representation by author of imbalance that occurs.

    If the wages of non-elite workers are not rising sufficiently, rising debt can be used to hide this problem for a while. The way this is done is by allowing workers to buy goods at ever-lower interest rates, over ever-longer time periods. This strategy has an endpoint, which we seem to be close to reaching.

    Debt is a key factor in creating an economy that operates using energy.

    A generally overlooked problem of our current system is the fact that we do not receive the benefit of energy products until well after they are used. This is especially the case for energy used to make capital investments, such as buildings, roads, machines, and vehicles. Even education and health care represent energy investments that have benefits long after the investment is made.

    The reason debt (and close substitutes) are needed is because it is necessary to bring forward hoped-for future benefits of energy products to the current period if workers are to be paid. In addition, the use of debt makes it possible to pay for consumer products such as automobiles and houses over a period of years. It also allows factories and other capital goods to be financed over the period they provide their benefits. (See my post Debt: The Key Factor Connecting Energy and the Economy.)

    When debt is used to move forward hoped-for future benefits to the present, oil prices can be higher, as can be the prices of other commodities. In fact, the price of assets in general can be higher. With the higher price of oil, it is possible for businesses to use the hoped-for future benefits of oil to pay current workers. This system works, as long as the price set by this system doesn’t exceed the actual benefit to the economy of the added energy.

    The amount of benefits that oil products provide to the economy is determined by their physical characteristics–for example, how far oil can make a truck move. These benefits can increase a bit over time, with rising efficiency, but in general, physics sets an upper bound to this increase. Thus, the value of oil and other energy products cannot rise without limit.

    Using hoped-for benefits to set oil prices is likely to lead to oil prices that overshoot their maximum sustainable level, and then fall back.

    A debt-based system of setting oil prices is different from what most of us would have considered possible. If wages of non-elite workers had been growing fast enough (Figure 9), increasing debt would not even be needed, because the whole system could grow thanks to the increased buying power of the many non-elite workers. These workers could buy new houses and cars, have more meat in their diet, and travel on international vacations, adding to demand for oil and other energy products, thereby keeping prices up.

    As wages of non-elite workers fall behind, an increasing amount of debt is needed. For the US, the ratio of the increase in debt to the increase in GDP (including the rise in inflation) is as shown in Figure 10:

    Figure 10. United States increase in debt over five year period, divided by increase in GDP (with inflation!) in that five year period. GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis; debt is non-financial debt, from BIS compilation for all countries.

    Figure 10. United States increase in debt over five-year period, divided by increase in GDP (with inflation!) in that five-year period. GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis; debt is non-financial debt, from BIS compilation for all countries.

    Thus, the increase in debt has never been less than the corresponding increase in GDP over five-year periods, even when oil prices were low prior to 1970. In general, the pattern would suggest that the higher the oil price, the higher the increase in debt needs to be to generate one dollar of GDP. This is to be expected, if economic growth depends on Btus of energy, and higher prices lead to the need for more debt to cover the purchase of necessary Btus of energy.

    We are reaching a head-on collision between (1) the rising cost of energy production and (2) the falling ability of non-elite workers to pay for this high-priced energy. 

    The head-on collision we are reaching is what causes the potential instability referred to at the beginning of this article, as illustrated in Figure 1. Of course, such a collision has the potential to cause debt defaults, as it becomes impossible to repay debt with interest.

    Figure 11. Repaying loans is easy in a growing economy, but much more difficult in a shrinking economy.

    Figure 11. Repaying loans is easy in a growing economy, but much more difficult in a shrinking economy.

    Turchin and Nefedov in the academic book Secular Cycles analyzed eight agricultural economies that eventually collapsed. The problem that these economies encountered was exactly the same one we are now encountering: falling wages of non-elite workers at the same time that the cost of producing energy products (food, at that time) was rising. Rising costs were often an end result of too many people for the arable land. A workaround could be found, such as building irrigation or adding a larger army to conquer a neighboring land, but it would add costs.

    As the problems of these economies progressed, debt defaults became more of a problem. Governments found it hard to collect enough taxes, because so many of the workers were increasingly impoverished. Often, workers became sufficiently weakened by an inadequate diet that they became vulnerable to epidemics. Governments often collapsed.

    In the economies analyzed by Turchin and Nefedov, food prices temporarily spiked, but it is not clear that this was the final outcome, given the inability of workers to pay the high prices. Debt defaults would tend to further reduce ability to pay. Thus, it would not be surprising if prices ended up low (from lack of demand), rather than high. We know that ancient Babylon is an example of one economy that collapsed. Revelation 18:11-13 seems to describe the situation after Babylon’s collapse as one of lack of demand.

    11 “The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore— 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves.

    Other parts of the oil limits story that researchers have missed

    As I have previously mentioned, most researchers begin with the view that soon there will be a problem with energy scarcity. The real issue that tends to bring the system down is related, but it is fairly different. It is the fact that as we use energy, the system necessarily generates entropy. This entropy takes the form of rising debt and increased pollution. It is these entropy-related issues, rather than a shortage of energy products per se, that tends to bring the system down. See my post, Our economic growth system is reaching limits in a strange way.

    We could, in theory, fix our problems by adding infinite debt at the same time that wages of non-elite workers tend toward zero. We could then use this additional debt to fight pollution problems and pay all of the workers. All of us know that this solution would not work in the real world, however.

    The two-sided economy I have described in Figures 8 and 9 is one part of our problem. There is a popular saying, “We pay each other’s wages.” Unfortunately, paying each other’s wages does not work well, if the wage level of elite workers differs too much from the wage level of the non-elite workers. A worker making $7.50 per hour in a part-time job is not going to be able to pay the wages of a surgeon making $300,000 per year, no matter how an insurance policy is designed to spread costs evenly. A worker in India or Africa will not be able to afford goods made by human workers in the United States, because of wage differences.

    Governments can try to fix the problem of non-elite workers getting too small a share of the output of the system, but this is not easy to do. The real problem is that the system as a whole is not producing enough goods and services. This happens because the high cost of energy extraction (plus related issues–pollution control; need for more education for workers; need for ever-larger government and more elite workers) is removing too many resources from the system. The result is that the economy as a whole tends to grow ever more slowly. The quantity of goods and services produced by the economy does not rise very rapidly. When there are not enough goods produced in total, non-elite workers tend to find that their allocation has been reduced.

    If governments attempt to add debt to fix the problems with the system, the addition of debt tends to raise asset prices on the left side of Figures 8 and 9. Unfortunately, the additional debt usually has little impact on the wages of non-elite workers (that is, the right hand part of the system).

    Governments have talked about minimum income programs to raise incomes of those who are not elite workers. Whether or not this approach can work depends on many things–how much additional debt can be added to the system; whether this debt will actually raise the total amount of goods and services produced; how tolerant those in the left-hand side of Figures 8 and 9 are of losing their share of goods and services; the impact on relative currency levels.

    Research involving Energy Returned on Energy Investment (EROEI) ratios for fossil fuels is a frequently used approach for evaluating prospective energy substitutes, such as wind turbines and solar panels. Unfortunately, this ratio only tells part of the story. The real problem is declining return on human labor for the system as a whole–that is, falling inflation adjusted wages of non-elite workers. This could also be described as falling EROEI–falling return on human labor. Declining human labor EROEI represents the same problem that fish swimming upstream have, when pursuit of food starts requiring so much energy that further upstream trips are no longer worthwhile.

    Falling fossil fuel EROEI is a contributor to falling EROEI with respect to human labor, but there are other contributors as well (Figure 12). (My list is probably not exhaustive.)

    Figure 12. Authors' depiction of changes to workers share of output of economy, as costs keep rising for other portions of the economy keep rising.

    Figure 12. Author’s depiction of changes to workers’ share of output of economy, as costs keep rising for other portions of the economy.

    If our problem is a shortage of fossil fuels, fossil fuel EROEI analysis is ideal for determining how to best leverage our small remaining fossil fuel supply. For each type of fossil fuel evaluated, the fossil fuel EROEI calculation determines the amount of energy output from a given quantity of fossil fuel inputs. If a decision is made to focus primarily on the energy products with the highest EROEI ratios, then our existing fossil fuel supply can be used as sparingly as possible.

    If our problem isn’t really a shortage of fossil fuels, EROEI is much less helpful. In fact, the EROEI calculation strips out the timing over which the energy return is made, even though this may vary greatly. The delay (and thus needed amount of debt) is likely to be greatest for those energy products where large front-end capital expenditures are required. Nuclear would tend to be a problem in this regard; so would wind and solar.

    To evaluate the extent to which a given energy product tends to raise debt levels, a better approach might be to look at debt levels directly. Another measure might be to compare the required system-wide capital expenditures for a particular purpose, for example, to provide sufficient non-intermittent electricity for the state of California over a period of say, 50 years, using different electricity generation scenarios.

    Our academic system of inquiry, with its peer reviewed literature system, has let us down.

    Our peer reviewed academic system is not telling this story. Part of the problem is that this is a difficult story. It has taken me most of the last ten years to figure it out.

    Part of the problem with our academic system seems to be excessive reliance on past analyses. Once one direction has been set, it is hard to change. Another part of the problem is that the focus of each researcher tends to be quite narrow. The result can be that it is hard to “see the forest for the trees.”

    Furthermore, politicians and academic publishers tend to “push” results in the direction of a desired outcome. Grant money goes to researchers who follow the government-preferred fields of inquiry; publishers prefer books that are not too alarming to students.

    I am coming at this issue from “out in left field.” I don’t have a Ph.D., although I am a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society, which many would consider similar. I also have an M. S. in Mathematics. I do not work in a university setting. I do not have a strong background in subjects a person might expect, such as geology, economic theory, or physics. I do have a fair amount of practical experience with financial modeling from my actuarial background, however.

    My approach is very different from that of most researchers. I come to the problem from the point of view of how a finite world might be expected to operate. I write most of my articles on the Internet, where I get the benefit of comments from readers. Many of these commenters point me in the direction of articles or books I should read, or raise additional issues I should consider.

    Over the years, I have become acquainted with many researchers in related fields. These people have generally reached out to me–invited me to speak at their conferences, or corresponded with me about issues they considered important. As a result of this collaboration, I have been able to put together a more complete story than others.

    I have stayed away from publishers and funding sources that might try to influence what I say. I have not been taking donations, and do not run ads on my website. The story is one that needs to be told, but it easily gets distorted if the person telling the story is influenced by what will generate the largest donations, or the most grant money.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 13th May 2016

  • Arizona Governor Ducey Vetoes Gold

    by Keith Weiner

     

    In my testimony in support of the gold legal tender bill this year, I discussed failing pension funds. Retirees who count on their pension checks are being told that their monthly check will be reduced by up to 60%. This is devastating to them, obviously. What isn’t obvious is the cause. In the news coverage of this, the angry pensioners are blaming the union, the fund manager, and Wall Street in general.

    None of them point the finger where it needs to be pointed. The Fed has centrally planned our interest rate downwards, ever downwards, for 35 years. Now a 10-year bond pays a mere 1.7 percent interest. Pension funds are designed to invest and earn a real return on the money collected from workers’ paychecks. This breaks down when the interest rate collapses.

    There is no cure for zero interest rates (and negative in Europe and Japan). The central banks have created a monster, a Frankenstein that is now ravaging the economy and especially those who depend on fixed income.

    It is no longer possible to earn a yield on paper money, without taking undue risk of precisely the sort that retirement funds should not take.

    The only antidote to zero yield on paper is a positive yield on gold.

    I explained to the legislators that this bill would not fix the problem in itself. It is a necessary but not sufficient step.

    I made a different argument to Governor Ducey. Most legislation creates winners and losers. Those who will be hurt by a new law of course lobby against it, and may become enemies of the governor for signing it. This bill created no losers. No one would be hurt by recognizing gold as money. It would have been good for the state, adding jobs, and even tax revenue.

    Unpersuaded by either the plight of the pensioners or the prospect of business growth in Arizona, Ducey vetoed gold. This is his second time to shoot down gold.

    I have just two points to make about this. One, let’s stop perpetuating the myth that Republicans—or even pro-business Republicans as Ducey brands himself—are for gold. This is a big reason cited by Democrats for why they are against gold.

    Two, Governor Ducey knew he could get away with this veto because few people care. While our monetary system drowns under zero interest and runaway debt, people are worried about the Kardashians and the gender of Bruce-now-Caitlyn Jenner.

    You had better start letting your government know that you want to start removing the roadblocks and start moving towards the only honest money: gold. No one knows how much time you have, but it is not that long.

  • 'Guccifer' And The Kremlin's 20,000 Hacked Emails – In The Eye Of Hillary's Perfect Storm

    Submitted by Andrew Napolitano via LewRockwell.com,

    The bad legal news for Hillary Clinton continued to cascade upon her presidential hopes during the past week in what has amounted to a perfect storm of legal misery. Here is what happened.

    Last week, Mrs. Clinton’s five closest advisors when she was Secretary of State, four of whom remain close to her and have significant positions in her presidential campaign, were interrogated by the FBI. These interrogations were voluntary, not under oath, and done in the presence of the same legal team which represented all five aides.

    The atmosphere was confrontational, as the purpose of the interrogations is to enable federal prosecutors and investigators to determine whether these five are targets or witnesses. Stated differently, the feds need to decide if they should charge any of these folks as part of a plan to commit espionage, or if they will be witnesses on behalf of the government should there be such a prosecution; or witnesses for Mrs. Clinton.

    In the same week, a federal judge ordered the same five persons to give videotaped testimony in a civil lawsuit against the State Department which once employed them in order to determine if there was a “conspiracy” — that’s the word used by the judge — in Mrs. Clinton’s office to evade federal transparency laws. Stated differently, the purpose of these interrogations is to seek evidence of an agreement to avoid the Freedom of Information Act requirements of storage and transparency of records, and whether such an agreement, if it existed, was also an agreement to commit espionage — the removal of state secrets from a secure place to a non-secure place.

    Also earlier this week, the State Department revealed that it cannot find the emails of Bryan Pagliano for the four years that he was employed there. Who is Bryan Pagliano? He is the former information technology expert, employed by the State Department to problem shoot Mrs. Clinton’s entail issues.

    Pagliano was also personally employed by Mrs. Clinton. She paid him $5,000 to migrate her regular State Department email account and her secret State Department email account from their secure State Department servers to her personal, secret, non-secure server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. That was undoubtedly a criminal act. Pagliano either received a promise of non-prosecution or an actual order of immunity from a federal judge. He is now the government’s chief witness against Mrs. Clinton.

    It is almost inconceivable that all of his emails have been lost. Surely this will intrigue the FBI, which has reportedly been able to retrieve the emails Mrs. Clinton attempted to wipe from her server.

    While all of this has been going on, intelligence community sources have reported about a below the radar screen, yet largely known debate in the Kremlin between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Intelligence Services. They are trying to come to a meeting of the minds to determine whether the Russian government should release some 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that it obtained either by hacking her directly or by hacking into the email of her confidante, Sid Blumenthal.

    As if all this wasn’t enough bad news for Mrs. Clinton in one week, the FBI learned last week from the convicted international hacker, who calls himself Guccifer, that he knows how the Russians came to possess Mrs. Clinton’s emails; and it is because she stored, received and sent them from her personal, secret, non-secure server.

    Mrs. Clinton has not been confronted publicly and asked for an explanation of her thoughts about the confluence of these events, but she has been asked if the FBI has reached out to her. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in white collar criminal cases, the FBI gives the targets of its investigations an opportunity to come in and explain why the target should not be indicted.

    This is treacherous ground for any target, even a smart lawyer like Mrs. Clinton. She does not know what the feds know about her. She faces a damned-if-she-does and damned-if-she-doesn’t choice here.

    Any lie and any materially misleading statement — and she is prone to both — made to the FBI can form the basis for an independent criminal charge against her. This is the environment that trapped Martha Stewart. Hence, the standard practice among experienced counsel is to decline interviews by the folks investigating their clients.

    But Mrs. Clinton is no ordinary client. She is running for president. She lies frequently. We know this because, when asked if the FBI has reached out to her for an interview, she told reporters that neither she nor her campaign had heard from the FBI; but she couldn’t wait to talk to the agents.

    That is a mouthful, and the FBI knows it. First, the FBI does not come calling upon her campaign or even upon her. The Department of Justice prosecutors will call upon her lawyers — and that has already been done, and Mrs. Clinton knows it. So her statements about the FBI not calling her or the campaign were profoundly misleading, and the FBI knows that.

    Mrs. Clinton’s folks are preparing for the worst. They have leaked nonsense from “U.S. officials” that the feds have found no intent to commit espionage on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Too bad these officials — political appointees, no doubt — skipped or failed Criminal Law 101. The government need not prove intent for either espionage or for lying to federal agents.

    And it prosecutes both crimes very vigorously.

  • A Little Market Insight Into How The Game Is Played (Video)

    By EconMatters

     

    Every Game involves learning the rules of the game in order to be successful, the financial markets are the ultimate 4 dimensional futuristic chess game. There are different levels operating within the financial markets, the Game within the Game if you will. The Power Players at the top of the Food Chain run the show all things being equal.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  • Washington's Military Addiction (And The Ruins Still To Come)

    Submitted by Tom Engelhardt via TomDispatch.com,

    There are the news stories that genuinely surprise you, and then there are the ones that you could write in your sleep before they happen. Let me concoct an example for you:

    “Top American and European military leaders are weighing options to step up the fight against the Islamic State in the Mideast, including possibly sending more U.S. forces into Iraq, Syria, and Libya, just as Washington confirmed the second American combat casualty in Iraq in as many months.”

    Oh wait, that was actually the lead sentence in a May 3rd Washington Times piece by Carlo Muñoz.  Honestly, though, it could have been written anytime in the last few months by just about anyone paying any attention whatsoever, and it surely will prove reusable in the months to come (with casualty figures altered, of course).  The sad truth is that across the Greater Middle East and expanding parts of Africa, a similar set of lines could be written ahead of time about the use of Special Operations forces, drones, advisers, whatever, as could the sorry results of making such moves in [add the name of your country of choice here].   

    Put another way, in a Washington that seems incapable of doing anything but worshiping at the temple of the U.S. military, global policymaking has become a remarkably mindless military-first process of repetition It’s as if, as problems built up in your life, you looked in the closet marked “solutions” and the only thing you could ever see was one hulking, over-armed soldier, whom you obsessively let loose, causing yet more damage. 

    How Much, How Many, How Often, and How Destructively 

    In Iraq and Syria, it’s been mission creep all the way.  The B-52s barely made it to the battle zone for the first time and were almost instantaneously in the air, attacking Islamic State militants.  U.S. firebases are built ever closer to the front lines.  The number of special ops forces continues to edge up.  American weapons flow in (ending up in god knows whose hands).  American trainers and advisers follow in ever increasing numbers, and those numbers are repeatedly fiddled with to deemphasize how many of them are actually there.  The private contractors begin to arrive in numbers never to be counted.  The local forces being trained or retrained have their usual problems in battle.  American troops and advisers who were never, never going to be “in combat” or “boots on the ground” themselves now have their boots distinctly on the ground in combat situations.  The first American casualties are dribbling in.  Meanwhile, conditions in tottering Iraq and the former nation of Syria grow ever murkier, more chaotic, and less amenable by the week to any solution American officials might care for.

    And the response to all this in present-day Washington?

    You know perfectly well what the sole imaginable response can be: sending in yet more weapons, boots, air power, special ops types, trainers, advisers, private contractors, drones, and funds to increasingly chaotic conflict zones across significant swaths of the planet.  Above all, there can be no serious thought, discussion, or debate about how such a militarized approach to our world might have contributed to, and continues to contribute to, the very problems it was meant to solve. Not in our nation’s capital, anyway.

    The only questions to be argued about are how much, how many, how often, and how destructively.  In other words, the only “antiwar” position imaginable in Washington, where accusations of weakness or wimpishness are a dime a dozen and considered lethal to a political career, is how much less of more we can afford, militarily speaking, or how much more of somewhat less we can settle for when it comes to militarized death and destruction.  Never, of course, is a genuine version of less or a none-at-all option really on that “table” where, it’s said, all policy options are kept.

    Think of this as Washington’s military addiction in action.  We’ve been watching it for almost 15 years without drawing any of the obvious conclusions.  And lest you imagine that “addiction” is just a figure of speech, it isn’t.  Washington’s attachment — financial, tactical, and strategic — to the U.S. military and its supposed solutions to more or less all problems in what used to be called “foreign policy” should by now be categorized as addictive.  Otherwise, how can you explain the last decade and a half in which no military action from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen to Libya worked out half-well in the long run (or even, often enough, in the short run), and yet the U.S. military remains the option of first, not last, resort in just about any imaginable situation?  All this in a vast region in which failed states are piling up, nations are disintegrating, terror insurgencies are spreading, humongous population upheavals are becoming the norm, and there are refugee flows of a sort not seen since significant parts of the planet were destroyed during World War II.

    Either we’re talking addictive behavior or failure is the new success.

    Keep in mind, for instance, that the president who came into office swearing he would end a disastrous war and occupation in Iraq is now overseeing a new war in an even wider region that includes Iraq, a country that is no longer quite a country, and Syria, a country that is now officially kaput.  Meanwhile, in the other war he inherited, Barack Obama almost immediately launched a military-backed “surge” of U.S. forces, the only real argument being over whether 40,000 (or even as many as 80,000) new U.S. troops would be sent into Afghanistan or, as the “antiwar” president finally decided, a mere 30,000 (which made him an absolute wimp to his opponents).  That was 2009.  Part of that surge involved an announcement that the withdrawal of American combat forces would begin in 2011.  Seven years later, that withdrawal has once again been halted in favor of what the military has taken to privately calling a “generational approach” — that is, U.S. forces remaining in Afghanistan into at least the 2020s.

    The military term “withdrawal” may, however, still be appropriate even if the troops are staying in place.  After all, as with addicts of any sort, the military ones in Washington can’t go cold turkey without experiencing painful symptoms of withdrawal.  In American political culture, these manifest themselves in charges of “weakness” when it comes to “national security” that could prove devastating in the next election.  That’s why those running for office compete with one another in over-the-top descriptions of what they will do to enemies and terrorists (from acts of torture to carpet-bombing) and in even more over-the-top promises of “rebuilding” or “strengthening” what’s already the largest, most expensive military on the planet, a force better funded at present than those of at least the next seven nations combined.

    Such promises, the bigger the better, are now a necessity if you happen to be a Republican candidate for president.  The Democrats have a lesser but similar set of options available, which is why even Bernie Sanders only calls for holding the Pentagon budget at its present staggering level or for the most modest of cuts, not for reducing it significantly.  And even when, for instance, the urge to rein in military expenses did sweep Washington as part of an overall urge to cut back government expenses, it only resulted in a half-secret slush fund or “war budget” that kept the goodies flowing in.

    These should all be taken as symptoms of Washington’s military addiction and of what happens when the slightest signs of withdrawal set in.  The U.S. military is visibly the drug of choice in the American political arena and, as is only appropriate for the force that has, since 2002, funded, armed, and propped up the planet’s largest supplier of opium, once you’re hooked, there’s no shaking it.

    Hawkish Washington

    Recently, in the New York Times Magazine, journalist Mark Landler offered a political portrait entitled “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk.”  He laid out just how the senator and later secretary of state remade herself as, essentially, a military groupie, fawning over commanders or former commanders ranging from then-General David Petraeus to Fox analyst and retired general Jack Keane; how, that is, she became a figure, even on the present political landscape, notable for her “appetite for military engagement abroad” (and as a consequence, well-defended against Republican charges of “weakness”).

    There’s no reason, however, to pin the war-lover or “last true hawk” label on her alone, not in present-day Washington.  After all, just about everyone there wants a piece of the action.  During their primary season debates, for instance, a number of the Republican candidates spoke repeatedly about building up the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, while making that already growing force sound like a set of decrepit barges.

    To offer another example, no presidential candidate these days could afford to reject the White House-run drone assassination program.  To be assassin-in-chief is now considered as much a part of the presidential job description as commander-in-chief, even though the drone program, like so many other militarized foreign policy operations these days, shows little sign of reining in terrorism despite the number of “bad guys” and terror “leaders” it kills (along with significant numbers of civilian bystanders).  To take Bernie Sanders as an example — because he’s as close to an antiwar candidate as you’ll find in the present election season — he recently put something like his stamp of approval on the White House drone assassination project and the “kill list” that goes with it.

    Mind you, there is simply no compelling evidence that the usual military solutions have worked or are likely to work in any imaginable sense in the present conflicts across the Greater Middle East and Africa.  They have clearly, in fact, played a major role in the creation of the present disaster, and yet there is no place at all in our political system for genuinely antiwar figures (as there was in the Vietnam era, when a massive antiwar movement created space for such politics).  Antiwar opinions and activities have now been driven to the peripheries of the political system along with a word like, say, “peace,” which you will be hard-pressed to find, even rhetorically, in the language of “wartime” Washington.

    The Look of “Victory”

    If a history were to be written of how the U.S. military became Washington’s drug of choice, it would undoubtedly have to begin in the Cold War era.  It was, however, in the prolonged moment of triumphalism that followed the Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991 that the military gained its present position of unquestioned dominance.

    In those days, people were still speculating about whether the country would reap a “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War. If there was ever a moment when the diversion of money from the U.S. military and the national security state to domestic concerns might have seemed like a no-brainer, that was it.  After all, except for a couple of rickety “rogue states” like North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where exactly were this country’s enemies to be found?  And why should such a muscle-bound military continue to gobble up tax dollars at such a staggering rate in a reasonably peaceable world?

    In the decade or so that followed, however, Washington’s dreams turned out to run in a very different direction — toward a “war dividend” at a moment when the U.S. had, by more or less universal agreement, become the planet’s “sole superpower.”  The crew who entered the White House with George W. Bush in a deeply contested election in 2000 had already been mainlining the military drug for years.  To them, this seemed a planet ripe for the taking.  When 9/11 hit, it loosed their dreams of conquest and control, and their faith in a military that they believed to be unstoppable.  Of course, given the previous century of successful anti-imperial and national independence movements, anyone should have known that, no matter the armaments at hand, resistance was an inescapable reality on Planet Earth.

    Thanks to such predictable resistance, the drug-induced imperial dreamscape of the Busheviks would prove a fantasy of the first order, even if, in that post-9/11 moment, it passed for bedrock (neo)realism.  If you remember, the U.S. was to “take the gloves off” and release a military machine so beyond compare that nothing would be capable of standing in its path.  So the dream went, so the drug spoke.  Don’t forget that the greatest military blunder (and crime) of this century, the invasion of Iraq, wasn’t supposed to be the end of something, but merely its beginning.  With Iraq in hand and garrisoned, Washington was to take down Iran and sweep up what Russian property from the Cold War era still remained in the Middle East.  (Think: Syria.) 

    A decade and a half later, those dreams have been shattered, and yet the drug still courses through the bloodstream, the military bands play on, and the march to… well, who knows where… continues.  In a way, of course, we do know where (to the extent that we humans, with our limited sense of the future, can know anything).  In a way, we’ve already been shown a spectacle of what “victory” might look like once the Greater Middle East is finally “liberated” from the Islamic State.

    The descriptions of one widely hailed victory over that brutal crew in Iraq — the liberation of the city of Ramadi by a U.S.-trained elite Iraqi counterterrorism force backed by artillery and American air power — are devastating.  Aided and abetted by Islamic State militants igniting or demolishing whole neighborhoods of that city, the look of Ramadi retaken should give us a grim sense of where the region is heading. Here’s how the Associated Press recently described the scene, four months after the city fell:

    This is what victory looks like…: in the once thriving Haji Ziad Square, not a single structure still stands. Turning in every direction yields a picture of devastation. A building that housed a pool hall and ice cream shops — reduced to rubble. A row of money changers and motorcycle repair garages — obliterated, a giant bomb crater in its place. The square’s Haji Ziad Restaurant, beloved for years by Ramadi residents for its grilled meats — flattened. The restaurant was so popular its owner built a larger, fancier branch across the street three years ago. That, too, is now a pile of concrete and twisted iron rods.

     

    “The destruction extends to nearly every part of Ramadi, once home to 1 million people and now virtually empty.”

    Keep in mind that, with oil prices still deeply depressed, Iraq essentially has no money to rebuild Ramadi or anyplace else. Now imagine, as such “victories” multiply, versions of similar devastation spreading across the region. 

    In other words, one likely end result of the thoroughly militarized process that began with the invasion of Iraq (if not of Afghanistan) is already visible: a region shattered and in ruins, filled with uprooted and impoverished people.  In such circumstances, it may not even matter if the Islamic State is defeated.  Just imagine what Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city and still in the Islamic State's hands, will be like if, someday, the long-promised offensive to liberate it is ever truly launched.  Now, try to imagine that movement itself destroyed, with its “capital,” Raqqa, turned into another set of ruins, and remind me: What exactly is likely to emerge from such a future nightmare?  Nothing, I suspect, that is likely to cheer up anyone in Washington.

    And what should be done about all this?  You already know Washington’s solution — more of the same — and breaking such a cycle of addiction is difficult even under the best of circumstances.  Unfortunately, at the moment there is no force, no movement on the American scene that could open up space for such a possibility.  No matter who is elected president, you already know more or less what American “policy” is going to be.

    But don’t bother to blame the politicians and national security nabobs in Washington for this.  They’re addicts.  They can’t help themselves.  What they need is rehab.  Instead, they continue to run our world.  Be suitably scared for the ruins still to come.

  • Here Come A Lot Of Angry Teamsters: One Of America's Largest Pension Funds Demands A Taxpayer Bailout

    Over the past few months, we have covered the unfolding saga (here and here) of the Central States Pension Fund, which handles retirement benefits for current and former Teamster union truck drivers across various states including Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, New York, and Minnesota, and is one of the largest pension funds in the nation, all the way through Kenneth Feinberg’s rejection of the proposal to cut benefits on behalf of the Treasury.

    When the proposal was rejected, we said that the final resolution will be in the form of an inevitable taxpayer-funded bailout

    If the Treasury won’t allow any pension cuts, and the government created safety net won’t be there to keep the benefits flowing, how will the cash continue to flow to members? With the precedent now set by the Treasury that no cuts will be allowed, the answer will likely come in the form of a massive bailout.

    As it turns out, that is precisely what fund director Thomas Nyhan believes as well. Nyhan said the rejection means the CSPF likely won’t be able to offer another proposed fix without getting funding from Congress, either directly or through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

    However with the PBGC also on its way to insolvency, and unable to shoulder the additional burden in world of zero and negative rates, that leaves us with… drum roll please… the US taxpayers, aka Congress, footing the bill.

    “There are only two solutions. Either the plan receives more money or has to have fewer benefits. I’m hopeful that come probably 2017, we can actually all get to work on something that can provide a solution. If there is no legislation at any time, we’re going to end up going to insolvency.” Nyhan said. 

    The full-court press is now on, as now everyone involved is calling on congress to step in. Visitors to CSPF’s website this morning were greeed with a banner directing to a rescue plan website.

    Before you could enter the rescue site a pop-up message is shown, simply saying that since congress effectively shut down the proposal, they can now stand up and pass legislation to bail the fund out.

    Central States strongly urges these members to act now to pass legislation that protects the pension benefits of the over 400,000 participants of Central States Pension Fund”

     

    With the Treasury denying the possibility of pension cuts, the ball is now in Congress’ court to initiate a bailout.

    When it does, because it will, the flood gates will be open for the rest of the insolvent funds to come knocking with their hands out, and we can formally welcome the arrival of helicopter money – whether Yellen wants it or not – in the United States.

     

    What follows is Tom Nyhan testifying before congress back in 2013, laying it out in very plain terms that without funding, or significant benefit cuts, the game is over.

    “Unless the fund substantially reduces its liabilities, or receives a large influx of assets, it’s projected become insolvent within ten or fifteen years, and at this point our options are very limited.”

     

     

    Nobody listened, and now – in this bold new age of pension fund crushing zero and negative interest rates – it is game over.

  • OPEC Politics: Russian King, Iranian Crown Prince?

    Submitted by Eugen von Bohm-Bawek via Bawerk.net,

    Another month, another OPEC meeting beckons for 2nd June. But unlike typical meetings on the Danube (let alone dust filled haze of Doha), the producer group might just have a new King in town. It comes in the form of Russia; the number one global producer that’s not even technically a member of the cartel. Confused? Don’t be. The argument is quite simple.

    Iran and Russia Oil Production

    Unlike Doha where the outgoing Saudi Oil Minister, Ali Naimi was lining up a Saudi led deal to leave Iran outside the tent as the odd man out refusing to join the 17 country ‘freeze’, this time round, it’s very likely Russia will come back to the table with exactly the same deal, but one they’ve directly brokered with Iran, where the Islamic Republic is conveniently claiming they’ve already hit the magic 4mb/d production targets to bring a ‘freeze agreement’ back into play. Rest assured, if Russia and Iran are on the same page, everyone else will ‘sign on the line’ given their current fiscal difficulties where every petro-dollar counts for self-preservation purposes. That potentially leaves Saudi Arabia outside the ‘freezing tent’ as the latest renegade of the petro-state world – or worse still for Riyadh – signing up to a retro-engineered Russo-Iranian deal, where Saudi Arabia has conceded strategic leadership of the producer.

    No matter how much Saudi screams and shouts their previous intransigence brought Iran to the table, this is no longer their deal to sell. If Putin goes in for the kill in Vienna, strategic control of the producer group has effectively passed to Moscow, at least on an interim basis. On all fronts, this is entirely up to the Kremlin how they want to spin things. Not only does a Russo-Iranian deal make sense for a ‘resurgent’ Moscow playing the OPEC ‘King’; giving Iran a geopolitical leg up to become the number one ‘cartel princeling’ makes sense for broader Russian geo-strategic interests. Iran remains the most vital co-ordinate on Mr. Putin’s post-Soviet map.

    No doubt that will put a wry smile Mr. Naimi’s face given the Kingdom had its chance to remain the OPEC lynchpin in Doha, but opted to bump off the old man for internal power grabs instead. But we still need to be very careful to strip out what remain two totally separate debates here around OPEC political theatrics on the one hand vs. any actual market impact any so called freeze would have on the other. Unsurprisingly, we expect exactly the same Doha bluff to come through in Vienna, in what’s essentially a ‘license to pump’ agreement all round.

    Kuwait will claim it can do 3.2mb/d; Iraq will keep pitching 4.8mb/d;

     

    Venezuela will ‘hold firm’ at 2.6mb/d. All numbers grounded in political fantasies, not physical realities.

     

    Most importantly, Iran’s probably not quite back at 4mb/d, which ironically reinforces why a June freeze agreement remains absolutely ‘no regrets’ for the Islamic Republic to game. Claim 4mb/d targets are hit; keep making incremental gains over the next few months; but do so scoring lots of diplomatic points against Saudi Arabia along the way.

     

    To cap things off, Russia will obviously pitch its tent towards 11.5mb/d given Moscow’s currently ramming through tax tweaks to keep production at 11.2mb/d.

    Everyone gets to pump. Nobody has to ‘formally’ cheat. The price doesn’t really go anywhere, beyond a short term Viennese waltz. But most of all, it leaves Saudi Arabia with a major petro-diplomacy decision to make: Either accept it’s no longer calling the OPEC shots when it comes to producer ‘co-operation’ or completely bulk at Russo-Iranian overtures, and put their head back in the volumetric sands to ramp as far and fast as they can. OPEC gets left in its wake.

    Unfortunately for the Kingdom, that’s the real rub here: It’s far from clear Riyadh still holds the volumes based crown either in OPEC. For all the noise coming out of the Kingdom they can do 11.5mb/d, 12mb/d, 12.5mb/d or even ‘20mb/d’ if they ‘wanted to’, the acid test will come over the summer months when domestic demand will be through the roof. Unless everyone sees ‘total’ Saudi production going well above 11mb/d to maintain its stakes in the volumes game, the working assumption the Kingdom can always pump at will simply isn’t credible. If the ‘King’s dead so be it, but Riyadh should know better than anyone else, there’s also someone willing to take your place. Odds on Russia will wear that regal crown, at least for short term political posturing. While Iran can assume its logical role as the new Crown Prince.

  • Fed Nemesis & Mysterious Treasury Bond Buyer Exposed

    The monotonous drone from The Eccles Building continues to pontificate that bond bulls are fools but stock buyers are the smart ones for the miracle hockey-stick of Keynesian dreams is just around the corner and rate-hikes right along with it. Three decades of factual dismissal of this bullshit propaganda are of course proving that line of reasoning simply false and while Rosengren, Bullard, et al. bloviate that 'investors' should be selling bonds, it is shockingly ironic that their bond-buying nemesis is Mrs. Watanabe in the land of failed Keynesian policy piling into Treasuries at a record pace since The BoJ went NIRP.

    As UBS Rate strategists detail, since the BoJ launched its negative interest rate policy, Japanese investors have been significant net buyers of foreign assets, mainly DM government bonds. Weekly flow data suggests that this trend has continued beyond the turn of the Japanese fiscal year, albeit at a slightly slower pace (since April, Japan net purchases of overseas bonds amount to ¥2tn vs. ¥4.3tn in Mar-16 and ¥3.1tn in Feb-16). Today’s data of overseas purchases by destination for March highlights which markets have benefitted so far.

    DM: Record appetite for US Treasuries in March; dwarfed other markets

    Treasuries normally make up most of Japanese investors' foreign bond purchases. This was certainly true in March, with the ¥4.8tn of net purchases of USTs (largest since at least 2005) accounting for 87% of the overall net flow

    And that Fed-frustrating bid for bonds is not about to stop…

    Investment plans point to continued strong demand; should weigh on yields

    Our take on Japanese life insurers’ and asset managers’ investment plans for FY16-17 is that a vast majority plans to boost their foreign bond holdings further, often at the expense of JGBs.

     

    While most still seem to favour FX-hedging overseas bonds, some look to also up unhedged purchases. However, others appear sceptical of the prospects for a yen turnaround, and will only consider altering hedging ratios if they grow more confident that the JPY will weaken. We remain of the view that liquid and highly rated markets offering an attractive FX-hedged yield pickup vs. JGBs, like USTs and OATs, should be key beneficiaries.

     

    So the next time Eric Rosengren says that the bond market is way too pessimistic about growth or how awesome The Fed is – tell him to blame his Keynesian frontrunning fools in Japan for "reaching for yield" into USTs and dumping JGBs – if Eric really wants to saee what happens to his bond market, maybe try NIRP – just as Yellen said was on the table tonight.

  • "Screw The Next Generation" Anonymous Congressman Admits To "Blithely Mortgaging The Future With A Wink & A Nod"

    A shockingly frank new book from an anonymous Democratic congressman turns yet another set of conspiracy theories into consirpacy facts as he spills the beans on the ugly reality behind the scenes in Washington. While little will surprise any regular readers, the selected quotes offered by "The Confessions Of Congressman X" book cover sheet read like they were ripped from the script of House of Cards… and yet are oh so believable…

     

    A devastating inside look at the dark side of Congress as revealed by one of its own! No wonder Congressman X wants to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. His admissions are deeply disturbing…

    "Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them."

     

    "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything."

     

    "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost."

    The book also takes shots at voters as disconnected idiots who let Congress abuse its power through sheer incompetence…

    "Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works."

     

    "It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification."

    And, as The Daily Mail so elqouently notes, the take-away message is one of resigned depression about how Congress sacrifices America's future on the altar of its collective ego…

    "We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation."

     

    "It's about getting credit now, lookin' good for the upcoming election."

    Simply put, it's everything that is enraging Americans about their government's dysfunction and why Trump is getting so much attention.

  • "What Could Have Possibly Raised Your Costs" – Hillary Can't Answer Why Obamacare Costs Are Soaring

    Hillary Clinton’s strategy to get in front of voters and answer one-on-one type questions is not working out very well.

    First, Clinton couldn’t explain to an unemployed West Virginian why she was promising to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Now, Hillary can’t explain why Obamacare fees are higher than promised, and are set to explode even higher next year.

    During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.

    “As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you’re trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We’re just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that’s a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover”

     

    “We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can’t afford healthcare, but I’m someone that can afford it, but it’s taking a big chunk of the money I bring home.

    To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going up, and doesn’t understand why that would ever be the case.

    “What you’re saying is one of the real worries that we’re facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you’re describing is one of the real challenges.”

     

    “There’s a lot of things I’m looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you’re talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that’s what I don’t understand.

    * * *

     

    While we don’t have all of the answers as to why the cost of insurance has skyrocketed under the Obamacare regime (actually scratch that, we know very well) we do know that more government subsidies will only continue to drive the costs up, and families and small businesses will continue to get burned as the government continues to tinker with the healthcare market, especially as more insurance providers finally do the math and pull out of Obamacare states as the largest American health insurer, UnitedHealth, has done in recent weeks.

    Also, Clinton does have a good point in saying that ideas should be subjected to real world tests before being implemented. Perhaps the all-knowing planners should have tried that before spending billions on the Obamacare roll out, which is currently crumbling beneath its own weight.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 12th May 2016

  • Should the Gold Price Keep Up with Inflation?

    by Keith Weiner

     

    The popular belief is that gold is a good hedge against inflation. Owning gold will protect you from rising prices. Is that true?

    Most people define inflation as rising prices. Economists will quibble and say technically it’s the increase in the quantity of money, however Milton Friedman expressed the popular belief well. He said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”

    There you have it. The Federal Reserve increases the money supply and that, in turn, causes an increase in the price of everything, including gold. It’s as simple as that, right?

    Except, it doesn’t work that way. Just ask anyone who has been betting on rising commodities prices since 2011. Certainly the money supply has increased. M1 was $1.86T in January 2011, and in March it hit $3.15T. This is a 69 percent increase. However, commodities have gone the opposite way. For example, wheat peaked at $9.35 per bushel in July 2012, and so far it’s down to $4.64 or about 50 percent. And the price of gold fell from $1900 in 2011, to $1050 late last year, or 45 percent.

    Would you say that inflation is +69%, or is it -45% or -50%?

    Most people look at retail prices, not raw commodities or gold. Retail prices have not followed into the abyss. Love it or hate it, the Consumer Price Index registers a cumulative 8 percent gain from 2011 through 2015 inclusive.

    Let’s consider an example to help understand why. Suppose you own a coffee shop in a central business district. The city enacts a new regulation that limits the hours for delivery trucks. This forces you to pay overtime wages to your staff to unload the trucks, and of course, the carrier charges more for delivery too.

    Next, the city allows poor people to stop paying their water bill. So to compensate, they raise the water rates on businesses. While they’re at it, they raise the fees for sewer, garbage, gas line hookups, fire inspections, and sign permits. The state passes a higher minimum wage law. The building inspector requires that you increase the size of your bathroom to accommodate wheelchairs, and you lose revenue-generating floor space. There are hundreds of ways that government increases your costs.

    Is this inflation?

    Not yet, costs are up but not prices. Sooner or later, all of the affected coffee shops try raising their prices. Consumers don’t necessarily want to pay more for coffee, so a few shops fail. The survivors are now charging 15% more for coffee. They have their higher prices, at the cost of lower sales volume.

    The burden of government bearing down on the coffee business only increases. Every day, three constituencies conspire to drive up costs. We’ll call them the “there oughtta be a law” crowd, the “government needs more revenues” mob, and the “they served 10oz of coffee plus 4oz of ice so let’s sue them” racket.

    Regulation, taxation, and litigation drive up price. Friedman was wrong. The rising price of lattes is not a monetary phenomenon (the monetary system is pressuring prices lower right now, and in my theory of interest and prices I discuss why). Rising retail prices are a fiscal, regulatory, and judicial problem.

    There is no reason for the price of gold to follow retail, because there is no mechanism that connects gold to these non-monetary costs.

  • A Look at the EIA Report and Some General Market Commentary (Video)

    By EconMatters

     

    The API Report tried to over correct from their previous two misses for weekly forecasts, and caused oil traders to be wrong footed going into the EIA Inventory Report.  There was just massive volume following the report with no “fadeable” metrics for shorts to hang their hats on today.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  • What Will The Global Economy Look Like After The "Great Reset"?

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    A very common phrase used over the past couple years by the International Monetary Fund’s Christine Lagarde as well as other globalist mouthpieces is the “global reset.” Very rarely do these elites ever actually mention any details as to what this “reset” means. But if you take a look at some of my past analysis on the economic endgame, you will find that they do, on occasion, let information slip which gives us a general picture of where they prefer the world be within the next few years or even the next decade.

    A few goals are certain and openly admitted. The globalists ultimately want to diminish or erase the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. They most definitely are seeking to establish the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights basket system as a replacement for the dollar system; this plan was even outlined in the Rothschild run magazine The Economist in 1988. They want to consolidate economic governance, moving away from a franchise system of national central banks into a single global monetary authority, most likely under the IMF or the Bank for International Settlements. And, they consistently argue for the centralization of political power in the name of removing legislative and sovereign barriers to safer financial regulation.

    These are not “theories” of fiscal change, these are facts behind the globalist methodology. When the IMF mentions the “great global reset,” the above changes are a part of what they are referring to.

    That said, much of my examinations focus on these macro-elements; but what about the deeper mechanics of the whole scheme? What kind of economic system would we wake up to on a daily basis IF the globalists get exactly what they want? This is an area in which the elites rarely ever comment, and I can only offer hypothetical scenarios. I am basing these scenarios on the measures that the establishment most obsessively chases. If they want a particular social or economic change badly enough, the signs become obvious.

    Here is what the world would probably look like after a global economic reset…

    Initial Crisis

    Who knows what the trigger will be? There are so many potential catalysts for economic instability that there is no way to make a prediction. The only thing that is certain is that one or more of these catalysts will be triggered. A Saudi depeg from the U.S. dollar, a large scale terrorist attack, a general rout in stock markets due to a loss of faith in central bank policy, a confrontation between Eastern and Western powers. It doesn’t really matter much. All of it is designed to produce one outcome chaos. To which the globalists will offer “order,” their particular order using their particular solutions as “objective mediators.”

    In our highly interdependent system in the West in which more than 80 percent of the population has been domesticated and is psychologically incapable of self-reliance, it is very likely that a disruption of normal supply chains and services would result in considerable poverty and death. Such a threat would invariably lead frightened and unprepared people to demand increased government controls so that they can return to the level of comfort they have grown accustomed to within the grid.

    One important factor to note is the rationale globalists will offer for increased centralization and control in the hands of a few. In my article, The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses, I study the clever narrative of Rand Corporation member John Casti and his “Linchpin Theory.” In Casti’s theory (more propaganda than theory), collapse is inevitable in what he calls “overly complex systems.” The more independent elements within any system, the more chance there is for unpredictable events that lead to supposed disaster. Ostensibly, the solution would be to streamline all systems and remove the free-radicals. That is to say, complete centralization is the answer. What a surprise.

    In a post-reset world, the elites will argue that the banks and bankers are not necessarily to blame. Rather, they will accuse the “system” of being too complex and chaotic, leaving itself open to greed, stupidity and overall unconscious sabotage. The fact that the crisis was engineered from the very beginning will never be mentioned. Centralization will be championed as the cure-all to the barbaric relic of complexity.  Almost all other changes to our economic environment will stem from this single lie.

    Thinning Of The Financial Herd

    You are going to see long standing financial institutions sacrificed in the name of rehabilitating the global system. Do not assume that certain major banks (Deutsche Bank?) will not be brought down, or that certain central banks will not be toppled (Federal Reserve) as the reset progresses. Also do not assume even that certain geopolitical structures will not be brought into disarray (European Union). In the push towards total globalization and one world economic governance, the elites have no loyalty to any single corporation, nation or even central bank. They will chop off almost any appendage if they can achieve a one world system in the trade.

    What this means on a micro-level is the activation of bail-ins; that is to say, the legalized confiscation of bank accounts, pension funds, stock holdings, etc. as a method for prolonging a collapse event. We have seen this already to some extent in Europe, and it will happen in the U.S. eventually. Some people (socialists/communists) may even cheer the action as the end of “capitalism” and a step toward economic “harmonization”; which is easy for them to cheer for since most of them have never worked hard enough to earn property or assets worth confiscating.

    Currency Devaluation

    Everyone who is aware expects this, but it is important to realize that currency devaluation will probably occur across the board in every region of the world. Some currencies will simply be hit harder than others. The dollar is a primary target of the globalists and WILL be brought down. It won’t disappear, but it will become progressively irrelevant on the global stage.  If the projections of 'The Economist' are the correct timetable, then the end of the dollar will be well underway before 2018.

    While the initial scenario we face in America will be one of stagflation, many necessities and the means to produce those necessities will skyrocket in cost.  There may not be inflation in every sector of the economy because imploding demand could offset some of the effects of falling currency value, but there will be extreme inflation in the areas that hurt common people most.

    The Digitization Of All Trade

    Despite all the failings and control mechanisms involved in fiat money, there are still worse systems to be had. Last month more than 100 executives from the world’s largest financial institutions met privately at the Times Square office of Nasdaq Inc. to discuss the future of money; more specifically a software apparatus called “Blockchain.” The goal is to implement Blockchain as a medium to fully digitize monetary transactions around the world and in a way that is traceable and foolproof. In other words, the goal is put an end to all transactions involving physical cash.

    The establishment of a cashless society would mark the end of all privacy in trade. Even supposedly anti-centralization digital currencies like Bitcoin are hindered by the blockchain feature, which requires the tracking of ALL transactions in order for the currency to function. While methods for anonymity could be argued, the fact of the matter is, digital currency by its very nature is a destroyer of the truly private trade offered by cash and barter. When all trade is tracked, and all savings digitized, whoever owns the keys to the core of the blockchain will have the power to wreak havoc on the life of any participant at will.

    To be sure, the “blockchain” that the elites have in mind will never allow for anonymous transactions, because digital currency is not about anonymity or “convenience,” it is about control.

    Consolidation Of Government Power

    Corrupt government is the tool by which globalists can extort goods and labor from a population as well as exert force to subdue rebellion.  It is highly unlikely that the global reset will result in a collapse of government.  On the contrary, it is usually during economic collapse that governments grow in power to the point of totalitarianism.  There will always be a new currency mechanism or financial structure to replace the old, and the globalists will always have a way to pay off armies and useful idiots to do their bidding.  No one should be counting on the idea that the elites face collapse as we face collapse.  This is naive.  The elites created the collapse; they plan to be ready to use it to their advantage.

    The End Of Private Production And Business

    After the reset and the opening crisis it is probable that resource allocation will become a major issue. Production of goods on the massive scale seen today will not ever be allowed to return if the elites have their way. This will create a perpetual lack of supply (by design). The only methods for dealing with lost production on an industrial level would be to either encourage localized production in every community, or to force people to reduce their standard of living and demand in the extreme. The elites will certainly press for the latter.

    Localized production in every community would kill any means of financial control the globalists might have on a population. In fact, I believe they will attempt to make any local production impossible, first through taxation so high that only the largest still-surviving corporations can afford to operate, and second, by confiscation of raw resources needed to manufacture goods on a scale that would grow wealth for a community. The government will claim that such resources must be managed by the authorities for the good of everyone rather than “wasted” by independent businesses in the “pursuit of personal wealth.”  You won't even see children running lemonade stands, let alone common people operating small factories, farms and store fronts.

    Eventually, they will also have to limit or outlaw barter and alternative currencies in order for the digitized economy to work.

    Carbon Output And Environmental Extortion

    No matter how much information is released which completely contradicts the fraud of man-made global warming, the establishment continues to charge full steam ahead with the creation of a carbon-based economic model. Why? Because the idea of the “carbon footprint” is the ultimate weapon for domination. A “carbon tax” is a tax on life itself. There is no way around it.

    In my article 'Ecological Panic: The New Rationale For Globalist Cultism' I dissect the elitist think-tank propaganda of Council on Foreign Relations member Timothy Snyder.  Snyder argues in his writings that nearly all man-made disasters are a product of high or extravagant living standards.  Though his definition of "high living standards" is rather vague, I expect that he sees the vast majority of Western society as people that need to be taken down several pegs.  He also argues that tyrants and mass murderers often ignore scientific authority in the pursuit of greater productive wealth, and that people who ignore "climate science" are contributing to future holocausts.  So, to summarize, we all must stop producing, stop pursuing personal wealth and achievement and sacrifice our own individual progress in the name of progress for the collective and the safety of the planet.

    Like Casti, Snyder's narrative requires the populace to bow down to a central authority in the name of the greater good.  And surely it is mere coincidence that the globalists these men work for will be at the helm of that central authority.

    Remember, in order to fully centralize, the elites must streamline. This does not only mean streamlining economic governance, but also streamlining the size of the system they seek to dictate. The larger and more diverse the system, the harder it is to wrap your tentacles around it. This means greatly diminished production, but also by extension greatly diminishing the population. Population controls then become vital.

    If the production of carbon can be taxed and administrated, then the production of life can be taxed and administrated. The establishment becomes godlike; the purveyor of all means of sustainment. The carbon boogeyman can be used to frighten the now crisis weary public into complete sublimation, for if mere carbon can cause the end of the world as we know it, then people, by their very existence, become a threat to the future that must be regulated.

    Anthropogenic climate change is THE model the elites must assert if they hope to convince the citizenry that a concrete ceiling on production and population is acceptable. If we ever get to the point where human society becomes so self-loathing as to seek its own enslavement and destruction through carbon controls, it may be a thousand years before we ever see freedom again.

    We’re Not There Yet

    All of the dangers described above are NOT set in stone. Some may claim that the “end is nigh” these people are idiots. The end is never nigh. Humanity has faced calamity after calamity for generations; our calamity just happens to be historically epic by comparison. It is not the last calamity. Centuries from now, there will be new disasters and new idiots telling everyone “the end is nigh.”

    Through it all, courageous people have risen to the occasion. Some are successful and some are not, but we do not live in a New World Order, yet, and that is saying something. Today is nowhere near as terrible as tomorrow could be if we do not act accordingly.

    The globalist reset needs a trigger, a crisis which admittedly we do not have the ability to avoid. But, the reset also depends on the right people in place to rebuild the system after the crisis unfolds. Here is where the future can be determined. Whoever is left standing after the opening salvo will have a choice: to hide and hope for the best, or to fight for the position to choose who builds tomorrow. Will it be the psychotic globalist cabal, or will it be free people of conscience? It may not seem like it now, but the end result is up to us.

  • London's New Mayor To Donald Trump: Let Muslims In Or They Will Attack The US

    Ever since he officially took office on May 9, London’s first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan wasted no time in criticizing and attacking Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban. Several days ago, the presumptive candidate told the New York Times that he was happy to see Mr Khan elected, saying it could be “very, very good.” However, the pleasantry was not returned, and instead Khan said Trump’s “ignorant” view of Islam could make both Britain and the US less safe, which ironically implies more potential terrorist attacks by Muslims in both the US and the UK.

    Khan brushed aside Trump’s suggestion that he would exempt him from his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States, and said that “this isn’t just about me – it’s about my friends, my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in the world,” he said. Quoted by the Telegraph, Khan added: “Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists.” He may well be right, although it only pushes the discussion back to square one – how should the US (and not just the US in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels) defend itself from extremists?

    Khan pressed on saying “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.” We are confident that Trump would also agree, however the Donald has never said he is focused on “mainstream Islam”, only its radical fringes, and those as Europe has found out the hard way over the past year, are very difficult to isolate.

    The reason for the tension between the two figures is that Trump has vowed a “total and complete” temporary shutdown of America’s borders to Muslims following last December’s deadly attack in San Bernardino by a husband and wife team who had Islamic State connections. When asked by the New York Times how his proposed ban on Muslims would apply to Mr Khan, Trump said: “There will always be exceptions.”

    Despite his outspoken views on Muslims, Trump insisted he was pleased to see Mr Khan elected as the capital’s first Muslim mayor. “I was happy to see that. I think it’s a very good thing, and I hope he does a very good job because, frankly, that would be very, very good.”

    Sadiq, however, has refused to back down and earlier today he told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that he hopes Donald Trump does not win the U.S. presidential election.

    Speaking Wednesday in London, he said American voters faced a decision “of hope over fear, unity over division. A choice of somebody who is trying to divide, not just your communities in America but who is trying to divide America from the rest of the world. And I think that, you know, that’s not the America that I know and love.” He continued: “I’m hoping he’s not the guy that wins.”

     

    Khan reiterated his belief that Trump’s views of Islam are ignorant. “It is possible to be a Muslim and to live in the West. It is possible to be a Muslim and to love America,” he said, adding that he himself loves the country.  “By giving the impression that Islam and the West are incompatible, you are playing into the hands of the extremists.”

    He continued: “Imagine that America has a sign saying no Muslims: What message does that send to Muslims around the world?”

    Well, ostensibly, one that the public wants to hear.

    However, what is perhaps most surprising is that in response to Khan’s criticism, Trump appeared to subtly soften his tone on his proposed ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States Wednesday,  The planned ban, Trump said on Fox News Radio’s “Kilmeade and Friends,” is only “temporary” according to The Hill.

    “It hasn’t been called for yet. Nobody’s done it,” the presumptive Republican nominee said. “This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.”

    Trump stood by his proposal, which has been criticized as potentially unconstitutional, as he has repeatedly since emerging as the presumptive GOP nominee last week.  “I assume he denies that there’s Islamic terrorism,” Trump responded on Wednesday. “I mean, if you look at this Islamic radical terrorism all over the world right now, it’s a disaster what’s going on. I assume he is denying that.”

    Yet the slight softening could suggest a change in rhetoric following protracted criticism from Sadiq Khan, the new London mayor. Khan, who is Muslim, has launched perhaps the most direct attacks on Trump’s policies in recent days.

    The question, then, is whether Trump’s shift in tone will be perceived as a backing off from a platform that has appealed to many Amerians, or if instead it will be seen as a modest centrist move by a candidate who is preparing to court a far broader cross-section of the US.

  • Getting It All Straight – Trumpism, Nationalism, Patriotism, & Libertarianism

    Submitted by Justin Raimondo via Anti-War.com,

    I was struck by a tweet from libertarian Republican congressman Justin Amash, who has become the “new Ron Paul” now that the three-time presidential candidate and libertarian icon has taken a well-deserved rest from politics. The other day he tweeted:

    “Patriotism & nationalism are profoundly different. Patriotism is love of country. FA Hayek called nationalism ‘a twin brother of socialism.’”

    Amash, who has vowed to never support GOP frontrunner and likely presidential nominee Donald Trump, undoubtedly had the New York real estate mogul in mind, but no matter what one thinks of The Donald, Amash is quite wrong about the nature of American nationalism and the meaning of “patriotism.”

    To begin with, Hayek was clearly talking about European nationalism, not the American variety. I’ll get to the difference between them, but I want first to point out the irony of Amash’s citation of this particular Hayek quote, because the great libertarian theorist was here talking about the problem of centralization: that is, the growing tendency of smaller political units to be subordinated to and swallowed up by bigger entities.

    If we place Hayek’s discussion in the present context, then it becomes clear that nationalism is not the enemy but a (potential) friend of liberty. For the modern trend is toward supra-national entities, like the European Union, the UN, and the North American “Free Trade” Agreement, which are engaged in erecting precisely that “society which is consciously organized from the top” so abhorred by Hayek. When nationalism is arrayed against globalism, i.e. against the concept of a regional super-state, or even a World State, libertarians must clearly take sides with the former.

    Furthermore, what is a “nation,” exactly?

    The libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard takes on this question in his trenchant essay “Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State,” and his ability to cut through to the heart of any question underscores the error made by Amash and anti-nationalist libertarians in general:

    “Libertarians tend to focus on two important units of analysis: the individual and the state. And yet, one of the most dramatic and significant events of our time has been the re-emergence – with a bang – in the last few years of a third and much-neglected aspect of the real world, the ‘nation.’ When the nation has been thought of at all, it usually comes attached to the state, as in the common word nation-state, but this concept takes a particular development in recent centuries and elaborates it into a universal maxim. In recent years, however, we have seen, as a corollary of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, a vivid and startlingly swift decomposition of the centralized state or alleged nation-state into its constituent nationalities. The genuine nation, or nationality, has made a dramatic reappearance on the world stage.

     

    “The nation, of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians, such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that  everyone is born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a country; he is always born into a specific time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.”

    In short, the “nation” consists entirely of non-governmental structures and institutions: it is the web of social interactions and cultural context which the government spends most of its energy trying to bend to its will.

    In a free society, this effort is largely unsuccessful: in a dictatorship, the state has replaced the nation and substituted its own “culture,” imposed from the top, for the traditions and values that have been established over time by the voluntary actions and decision-making of individuals.

    What Amash forgets, or never knew, is that from a libertarian perspective American nationalism is sui generis. Nationalism, after all, is by definition the valorization of a nation’s heritage, its traditions, and most especially its origins. And how did the American nation originate? Why, in the first – and only – successful libertarian revolution in world history.

    “Constitutional conservatives” of Amash’s sort are constantly invoking the Constitution as some sort of sacred canon, the libertarian ur-text through which all issues must be viewed. We’ll pass over just how libertarian this document is – there’s a large and persuasive school of libertarian thought that views the adoption of the Constitution as a counterrevolution – and ask: where does Amash think that holy writ came from? It was made possible by those who had fought a revolution and established a nation, one founded on the supremacy of individual liberty.

    This is what differentiated it from the nations of Europe, and what, in the end, separated American nationalism out from the European varieties. In Europe, nationalism inevitably meant the growth of State power at the expense of regional autonomy and individual liberty: in America, it meant the victory of a libertarian revolution and the establishment of a government that respected both the rights of the separate states and individual autonomy.

    Walled off by two oceans from a world dominated by monarchs and aggressors, born in a revolt against imperialism, imbued with a culture that nurtured the free individual, America is truly the exceptional nation, albeit not in the way today’s purveyors of “American exceptionalism” usually mean it. An American nationalist isn’t a Bismarckian:  he’s a Jeffersonian.

    Mutants like Teddy Roosevelt – and his contemporary fan club, the neoconservatives – are the exception that proves the rule. Speaking very generally, American libertarianism is consistent nationalism: not the expansionist, militaristic nationalism of Europe, but that of the Founders.

    In this country, a nationalist necessarily upholds the American tradition of limited government, the rule of law, and – yes – “isolationism” (“She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy”). No wonder John Kerry preaches the virtues of a “borderless world,” and warns graduating students of the dangers of “looking inward”! Empires aspiring to world hegemony don’t recognize the legitimacy of borders, and as for looking inward – why do that when we have a whole world to conquer?

    In a world where supranational bureaucracies – who want to centralize economic and political decision-making and put it in the hands of a trans-national elite – are actively subverting the very idea of national sovereignty, nationalists are on the right side of the barricades. Should Catalonia be forced to be a part of Spain? Should England be dragooned into the European Union? Should the American economy be ruled by a World Central Bank? What “libertarian” can answer yes?

    I am struck, in the Rothbard quote cited above, by the phrase a “much-neglected aspect of the real world.” Libertarians, all too often, have to be constantly reminded of the real world, as opposed to the world of floating abstractions they sometimes seem to inhabit. It is one thing to have principles: it’s quite another, however, to apply those principles to reality – not by compromising them, but by recognizing that one-dimensional models of human behavior will not chart a course to liberty.

    And now a word about “patriotism”: this concept has been used as a bludgeon against opponents of every war in American history, and is trotted out to smear government critics as “unpatriotic,” if not outright traitors. Such expressions of “patriotism” as the Pledge of Allegiance (authored by a socialist), and the odious maxim “My country right or wrong,” are nothing more than state-worship, the very opposite of true nationalism in the American sense.

  • In China, Nobody Wants To Be A Bagholder

    With the frenzied speculation that drove levels and volumes in Chinese commodities off the charts having dawned on everyone from Cramer to Chinese Securities regulators as ‘not real’, it appears everyone is scrambling to not be the bagholder for this bubble as authorities crackdown on Chinese asset managers pooling retail investor funds, warning of the rise of “ponzi schemes.” While nobody knows for sure how much of the trading surge has been driven by individuals, but the evidence suggests retail punters are playing a big role, and as Bloomberg reports, the average holding period for contracts including rebar and iron ore was less than 3 hours in April!

    China’s asset managers were warned of “Ponzi scheme” risks from pooling investor funds intended for different products, as an industry association said a joint venture between Citic Trust and Citic-Prudential Fund Management was being punished for violating restrictions on such practices. As Bloomberg details,

    Citic-CP Asset Management, known for marketing Uber Technologies Inc. shares in China, has been suspended for six months from issuing new products because of the breaches, according to an Asset Management Association of China statement on its website on Thursday. No one answered at a phone number listed on a website for Citic-CP Asset Management on Friday.

     

    The risk from pooling money is that cash from new investors can be used to repay existing investors, as occurs in the scams named after Charles Ponzi. The association reiterated that funds investing in securities are banned from running cash pools and pledged to work with the China Securities Regulatory Commission to cleanse the industry of the practice.

     

    In Thursday’s statement, the asset-management association urged its industry to abandon the “grey area,” saying cash pools could hide financial risks for long periods, only to create enormous damage when things went wrong.

    Of course, with the now famous Chinese propensity for gmabling on any and everything that is going up, as evidenced by the stunning collapse of average trading periods in commodity futures…

    “I’m pretty bored at work, so I trade commodities futures for some excitement,’’ said He, whose account swelled to as much as 700,000 yuan ($107,443) before sliding back to 400,000 yuan at the end of April.

     

    “Because I’m making investments with my friend, we can comfort each other when we are making a loss.’’

     

    Nobody knows for sure how much of the trading surge has been driven by individuals, but the evidence suggests retail punters are playing a big role. More than 40 percent of the volume in rebar futures last month came during the night session, when it’s more convenient for people with day jobs to trade. The average holding period for contracts including rebar and iron ore was less than 3 hours in April, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

     

     

    Individuals with a bank account and official identity card can open a futures trading account at a brokerage within 40 minutes, with no initial balance required, Morgan Stanley said in a report on May 4.

    One would suspect the Chinese do in fact need protecting from themselves as lessons learned from the stock market’s bubble burst, the corporate bond bubble’s burst, and the real estate bubble’s burst still led them to pile into Chinese commodities… and deal with that bursting too…

    “The authorities in China are on an ongoing journey of educating investors about risk and reward as well as trying to manage the booming wealth management industry,” Pogson said.

  • 11 Signs That The U.S. Economy Is Rapidly Deteriorating Even As The Stock Market Soars

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    We have seen this story before, and it never ends well.  From mid-March until early May 2008, a vigorous stock market rally convinced many investors that the market turmoil of late 2007 and early 2008 was over and that happy days were ahead for the U.S. economy.  But of course we all know what happened.  It turned out that the market downturns of late 2007 and early 2008 were just “foreshocks” of a much greater crash in late 2008.  The market surge in the spring of 2008 was just a mirage, and it masked rapidly declining economic fundamentals.  Well, the exact same thing is happening right now.  The Dow rose another 222 points on Tuesday, but meanwhile virtually every number that we are getting is just screaming that the overall U.S. economy is steadily falling apart.  So don’t be fooled by a rising stock market.  Just like in the spring of 2008, all of the signs are pointing to an avalanche of bad economic news in the months ahead.  The following are 11 signs that the U.S. economy is rapidly deteriorating…

    #1 Total business sales have been declining for nearly two years, and they are now about 15 percent lower than they were in late 2014.

     

    #2 The inventory to sales ratio is now back to near where it was during the depths of the last recession.  This means that there is lots and lots of unsold stuff just sitting around out there, and that is a sign of a very unhealthy economy.

     

    #3 Corporate earnings have declined for four consecutive quarters.  This never happens outside of a recession.

     

    #4 Profits for companies listed on the S&P 500 were down 7.1 percent during the first quarter of 2016 when compared to the same time period a year ago.

     

    #5 In April, commercial bankruptcies were up 32 percent on a year over year basis, and Chapter 11 filings were up 67 percent on a year over year basis.  This is exactly the kind of spike that we witnessed during the initial stages of the last major financial crisis as well.

     

    #6 U.S. rail traffic was 11 percent lower last month than it was during the same month in 2015.  Right now there are 292 Union Pacific engines sitting idle in the middle of the Arizona desert because there is literally nothing for them to do.

     

    #7 The U.S. economy has lost an astounding 191,000 mining jobs since September 2014.  For areas of the country that are heavily dependent on mining, this has been absolutely devastating.

     

    #8 According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, U.S. firms announced 35 percent more job cuts during April than they did in March.  This indicates that our employment problems are accelerating.

     

    #9 So far this year, job cut announcements are running 24 percent above the exact same period in 2015.

     

    #10 U.S. GDP grew at just a 0.5 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2016.  This was the third time in a row that the GDP number has declined compared to the previous quarter, and let us not forget that the formula for calculating GDP was changed last year specifically to make the first quarter of each year look better.  Without that “adjustment”, it is quite possible that we would have had a negative number for the first quarter.

     

    #11 Barack Obama is poised to become the first president in U.S. history to never have a single year during his time in office when the economy grew by more than 3 percent.

    But you never hear Obama talk about that statistic, do you?

    And the mainstream media loves to point the blame at just about anyone else.  In fact, the Washington Post just came out with an article that is claiming that the big problem with the economy is the fact that U.S. consumers are saving too much money…

    The surge in saving is the real drag on the economy. It has many causes. “People got a cruel lesson about [the dangers] of debt,” says economist Matthew Shapiro of the University of Michigan. Households also save more to replace the losses suffered on homes and stocks. But much saving is precautionary: Having once assumed that a financial crisis of the 2008-2009 variety could never happen, people now save to protect themselves against the unknown. Research by economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics finds higher saving at all income levels.

    So even though half the country is flat broke, I guess we are all supposed to do our patriotic duty by going out and running up huge balances on our credit cards.

    What a joke.

    Of course the U.S. economy is actually doing significantly better at the moment than almost everywhere else on the planet.  Many areas of South America have already plunged into an economic depression, major banks all over Europe are in the process of completely melting down, Japanese GDP has gone negative again despite all of their emergency measures, and Chinese stocks are down more than 40 percent since the peak of the market.

    This is a global economic slowdown, and just like in 2008 it is only a matter of time before the financial markets catch up with reality.  I really like how Andrew Lapthorne put it recently

    On the more bearish slant is Andrew Lapthorne, head of quantitative strategy at Societe Generale. To him this profit downturn is a sign that stocks are far too overvalued and the economy is weaker than you think.

    “MSCI World EPS is now declining at the fastest pace since 2009, losing 4% in the last couple of months alone (this despite stronger oil prices),” wrote Lapthorne in a note. For the S&P 500 specifically, the year on year drop in profit drop was the most since third quarter of 2009.

     

    “Global earnings are now 14% off the peak set in August 2014 and back to where they stood five years ago. Equity prices on the other hand are 25% higher. Gravity beckons!”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Look, this is not a game.

    So far in 2016, three members of my own extended family have lost their jobs.  Businesses are going under at a pace that we haven’t seen since 2008, and this means that more mass layoffs are on the way.

    We can certainly be happy that U.S. stocks are doing okay for the moment.  May it stay that way for as long as possible.  But anyone that believes that this state of affairs can last indefinitely is just being delusional.

    Gravity beckons, and the crash that is to come is going to be a great sight to behold.

  • When Social Media Goes Too Far: French Woman Broadcasts Her Suicide On Periscope

    Social media can be a positive thing. It can help family stay connected, help old friends re-connect, and even introduce new friends. However, for all of the positives, social media can also be taken too far, and end up having quite a negative impact.

    For example, it could lead to literally be addicted to one's smart phone, or even worse, social media could be used as a final "broadcast" for some that choose to take their own life.

    As RT reports, a 19 year old girl was recording herself on live video-streaming app Periscope when she threw herself under a train at the Egly station, about 25 miles south of Paris.

    Around 1,000 viewers watched as the girl said "What's about to happen will be very shocking, but I'm not doing it for the hype, I am doing it to send a message", which prompted users to respond with such comments as "we're waiting", and "give us a hint."

    Eventually during the video, the screen went dark, and an emergency worker could be overheard saying "I am under the train with the victim; I need to move the victim." The girl had in fact had broadcast to the public the moment she took her own life. RT also goes on to say that the girl sent a text message to one of her close friends several minutes before her death, announcing her intentions.

    Local prosecutor Eric Lallement said that the incident is being investigated, as the girl allegedly spoke of rape and named the aggressor during the video as well.

    Unfortunately, this of course isn't the first incident that has been broadcast on social media platform. Last month, an 18 year old Ohio woman was arrested for streaming video on Periscope of her friend being raped. Another incident that was live streamed was an attack by two teens on a drunken 24 year old man in Bordeaux, France – both teens were arrested.

    Sadly, these terrible events are a stark reminder that social media can indeed be taken too far.

  • Turkey Threatens Europe: "Unless Visas Are Removed, We Will Unleash The Refugees"

    Following months of appeasement of Turkey’s dictator Recep Erdogan, Europe has found itself surprised that as it yields to every incremental demand, Turkey simply asks for more and more. One such example was chronicled by the FT earlier today in “Turkey demands EU hands over €3bn for refugees” in which we read that “a row has erupted between Turkey and the EU over billions of pounds in aid for Syrian refugees, casting fresh doubt on a fragile deal to halt the flow of people towards Europe.”

    Erdogan’s argument is that he want the money to be transferred over to him directly to dispense with as he pleases, while Europe insists that UN agencies oversee that the money be spent as designated for refugee needs, instead of funding another wing for Erdogan’s palace. Of course, the only reason why Erdogan is confident he has leverage is because Turkey is currently hosting over 3 million Syrian refugees that is holding back from flooding into Europe once more, potentially resulting in the most acute episode of Europe’s refugee crisis.

    And to his credit, Erdogan has been successful in that, because as the following chart shows, for the first time since April 2015, more refugees arrived in Europe via Italy than on the path through Greece to the east. The flow of migrants through the Aegean Sea has waned since the European Union and Turkey struck a deal in March to send refugees back that arrive in Greece.

     

    However, this potential onslaught of Europe-bound refugees is also Erdogan’s biggest trump card: should Europe deny anything Turkey wants, he will simply open the gates leading to spiraling political chaos of the type already seen in Austria and Germany where anti-immigrant parties have stormed higher in the political polls in recent months.

    Confirming precisely that, was a warning by Burhan Kuzu, a high-ranking deputy for Turkey’s ruling AKP party and former adviser to President Erdogan, who said that Ankara will send migrants back to the EU if the European Parliament won’t grant visa-free travel to Turkish citizens.  Kuzu made several statements on Twitter in anticipation of Wednesday’s session of European parliament, at which visa exemption for Turkish nationals in the Schengen zone, as part of a migrant deal between Brussels and Ankara, was to be discussed.

    “The European Parliament will discuss the report that will open Europe visa-free for Turkish citizens. If the wrong decision is taken, we will unleash  the refugees!” in what was an unmistakable threat.

    He also told Bloomberg: “If Turkey’s doors are opened, Europe would be miserable.

    “Europe is on the edge of an important decision: It will decide on Turkey’s visa-free travel rights today. If a positive decision comes out, this is also a benefit for Europe,” the MP wrote in a separate tweet.

    As RT writes, it’s not the first time the deputy has threatened to flood Europe with over 2 million migrants from North Africa and Middle East, stranded in Turkish refugee camps.“Finally the EU understood Turkey’s stake and loosened its purse strings. What did we say? ‘We will open the borders and set Syrian migrants on you’,” he wrote back in December 2015.

    But in the worst news for Greece, and an indication that Erdogan’s gambit is no longer working, EUobserver wrote earlier that the European parliament had “quietly” suspended discussions of visa-free travel for Turkey Monday. EU parliament chief Martin Schulz put the debate on hold because Turkey had not yet met all EU visa-free criteria, said Judith Sargentini, a Dutch Green MEP. According to the site, the move is aimed at putting pressure on the European Commission so that it would take a firmer stance on Turkey fulfilling its part of the deal.

    “The ball is back with the European commission,” one of the MEPs told EUobersver, while the other stressed that the suspension will “make the parliament more important.”

    Meanwhile, Turkey’s minister for EU affairs Volkan Bozkir met with EU Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos, in Strasbourg today. The minister will also hold talks with Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, on Friday in Brussels. No press events were planned following both meetings.

    The reason for the visit is because on May 4, the European Commission proposed to the European Parliament and the EU Council to lift visa restrictions for Turkish citizens, if Ankara fulfils five conditions by the end of June. They included measures to prevent corruption, holding talks on an operational agreement with Europol, judicial cooperation with all EU member states, bringing data protection rules in line with EU standards, and the revision of legislation on the fight against terrorism. It was the last condition that Turkey found particularly unacceptable.

    Bozkir told Turkish NTV broadcaster Wednesday that “it is not possible for us to accept any changes to the counter-terrorism law” as demanded by the EU.

    This followed a firm statement by Erdogan who told the EU on Friday that Turkey would not make the changes, declaring: “we’re going our way, you go yours”.

    Wednesday’s repeated refusal, and assertion that there had never been a reciprocal deal over the laws, will likely alarm EU officials already worried by the departure of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, seen as a more flexible negotiating partner.

    The EU said last week Turkey still had to change some laws, including narrowing its legal definition of terrorism, to secure visa-free travel for its citizens – part of a wide-ranging deal to secure Turkish help in reducing the flow of migrants into Europe.

    Turkey’s clear rejection and insistence that it has all the required leverage, sets Europe and Turkey for what will be a dramatic showdown in which Turkey’s increasingly despotic dictator will either be appeased one more time, or his bluff will be called.

    With Europe hit by the biggest migrant crisis in decades, the EU and Ankara signed the migrant deal back in March. According to the agreement, Turkey would take back refugees seeking asylum in the EU in exchange for a multi-billion euro aid package and some political concessions, including the visa-free regime.

    If the deal falls apart, Turkey will surely flood millions more in refugees who will unleash far more political havoc across Europe, and certainly Germany, than Greece ever could.

    So for all those focusing closely on the risk of Brexit or developments in Greece this summer where the third Greek bailout may or may not give the insolvent nation a few more months before its next payment to the ECB is due while it pretends to “reform”, a far bigger risk is what Greece’s neighbor to the east, ruled by an unhinged, irrational president, will end up doing, and how Europe would respond if he actually follows through with his bluff.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th May 2016

  • Introducing The London Kleptocracy Bus Tour

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    The City is a semi-offshore state, a bit like the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories, tax havens legitimised by the Privy Council. Britain’s financial secrecy undermines the tax base while providing a conduit into the legal economy for gangsters, kleptocrats and drug barons.

     

    Even the more orthodox financial institutions deploy a succession of scandalous practices: pension mis-selling, endowment mortgage fraud, the payment protection insurance con, Libor rigging. A former minister in the last government, Lord Green, ran HSBC while it engaged in money laundering for drug gangs, systematic tax evasion and the provision of services to Saudi and Bangladeshi banks linked to the financing of terrorists. Sometimes the UK looks to me like an ever so civilised mafia state.

     

    – From last year’s post: Guardian Op-Ed – The City of London Has Turned Britain Into a “Civilized Mafia State”

    This is too good not to cover.

    Via Yahoo News:

    A black bus winds its way through some of London’s most expensive neighbourhoods for a sightseeing tour with a difference — a guided visit around luxury houses bought by shady international tycoons and officials.

     

    The “Kleptocracy Tour” was set up by anti-corruption campaigner Roman Borisovich, who aims to expose dirty money fuelling the high-end London property market and the teams of British “enablers” who make it happen.

     

    “The idea behind the tour is to attract public attention to the fact of massive money laundering through properties in London,” Borisovich told AFP on the tour this week, ahead of an international anti-corruption summit being hosted by Prime Minister David Cameron.

     

    More than 36,000 properties in London are owned through offshore firms, which own a total £122 billion (154 billion euros, $176 billion) worth of property across England and Wales.

     

    Buying properties through offshore companies can be a way of hiding the true owners and avoiding taxes.

     

    More than £180 million worth of property in Britain was investigated as suspected proceeds of corruption between 2004 and 2014, according to Transparency International, which says this figure is just the “tip of the iceberg”.

     

    Luke Harding, a journalist with The Guardian newspaper who helped analyse the Panama Papers, said the shock for him was the realisation of the extent of the enabling role played by British intermediaries.

     

    “The UK has become Monaco with fog,” he said, after addressing the bus tour.

    Liberty Blitzkrieg readers will be familiar with this theme as I’ve been referring to London real estate as the world’s criminal oligarch money laundering capital of the world for quite some time.

    Here are a few previously published articles on the topic:

    London Bubble Trouble – Visas Issued to Wealthy Foreigners Plunge 84%

    The Luxury Housing Bubble Pops – Overseas Investors Struggle to Sell Overpriced Mansions

    Guardian Op-Ed – The City of London Has Turned Britain Into a “Civilized Mafia State”

    London’s Mayor Says We Should “Thank the Super Rich” – Calls Them “Tax Heroes” and Compares to the “Homeless and Irish Travelers”

  • The Washington Post Accuses Stingy Americans Of Ruining Obama's Recovery

    Every year it’s the same: some legacy mainstream media mouthpiece muses on how great Obama’s recovery would be… if only it wasn’t for stingy US consumers refusing to spend like the drunken sailors of days gone by. Last June, it was the WSJ’s Jon Hilsenrath who actually wrote a letter to American consumers, confused by their unwillingness to spend and explicitly accused them of being “stingy” even as the “Federal Reserve was counting” on them to spend, spend, spend. For those who have forgotten this absolute pearl, here it is again:

    Dear American Consumer,

     

    This is The Wall Street Journal. We’re writing to ask if something is bothering you.

     

    The sun shined in April and you didn’t spend much money. The Commerce Department here in Washington says your spending didn’t increase at all adjusted for inflation last month compared to March. You appear to have mostly stayed home and watched television in December, January and February as well. We thought you would be out of your winter doldrums by now, but we don’t see much evidence that this is the case.

     

    You have been saving more too. You socked away 5.6% of your income in April after taxes, even more than in March. This saving is not like you. What’s up?

     

    We know you experienced a terrible shock when Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008 and your employer responded by firing you. We know stock prices collapsed and that was shocking too. We also know you shouldn’t have taken out that large second mortgage during the housing boom to fix up your kitchen with granite countertops.  You’ve been working very hard to pay off this debt and we admire your fortitude. But these shocks seem like a long time ago to us in a newsroom. Is that still what’s holding you back?

     

    Do you know the American economy is counting on you? We can’t count on the rest of the world to spend money on our stuff. The rest of the world is in an even worse mood than you are. You should feel lucky you’re not a Greek consumer. And China, well they’re truly struggling there just to reach the very modest goal of 7% growth.

     

    The Federal Reserve is counting on you too. Fed officials want to start raising the cost of your borrowing because they worry they’ve been giving you a free ride for too long with zero interest rates. We listen to Fed officials all of the time here at The Wall Street Journal, and they just can’t figure you out.

     

    Please let us know the problem. You can reach us at any of the emails below.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    The Wall Street Journal’s Central Bank Team

     

    -By Jon Hilsenrath

    In retrospect, we can’t help but chuckle at the part about “Fed officials want to start raising the cost of your borrowing because they worry they’ve been giving you a free ride for too long with zero interest rates.”

    That said, one year later, it’s the turn of that other administration mouthpiece (owned no less by the man who has converted US consumerism into a business empire, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos) the Washington Post, to dwell on precisely the same topic: why are Americans so paralyzed from fears over a recession that ended so long ago, that instead of spending, American consumers are rushing to save in the process preventing Obama’s wonderful recovery from blooming.

    While it does not go so far as Hilsenrath in explicitly accusing consumers of being “stingy”, it does so indirectly when the author of what appears to be a hit piece aimed at the US middle class, or all those who no longer believe in maxing out their credit card, Robert Samuelson says that the real drag in the US economy is “us“, by which he means all those Americans refusing to go out and buy “stuff” (well, maybe not Samuelson: we are confident Samuelson is well compensated by Jeff Bezos to inspire even more AMZN bottom-line boosting consumerism). As a result, “American consumers aren’t what they used to be …. and that helps explain the plodding economic recovery.

    You see, dear American consumers, it’s all your fault. Not soaring, record rents, not spiking health insurance premiums that are eating away at your last disposable dollar, not that the so many of the “jobs created” in recent years have been part-time or minimum wage, not the fact that under ZIRP you can’t generate any interest income and are forced to save even more for retirement, not that as a result of central bank policy pension and retirement funds are unveiling cuts to retiree benefits,  not that real disposable incomes have gone nowhere in the past decade, not even that a third of US households can no longer even afford the basics of food, rent and transportation

    It’s your unwillingness to spend; it is – in the words of the WaPo author – “the surge in saving that is the real drag on the economy.

    Really. Here is the full article:

    American consumers aren’t what they used to be — and that helps explain the plodding economic recovery. It gets no respect despite creating 14 million jobs and lasting almost seven years. The great gripe is that economic growth has been held to about 2 percent a year, well below historical standards. This sluggishness reflects a profound psychological transformation of American shoppers, who have dampened their consumption spending, affecting about two-thirds of the economy. To be blunt: We have sobered up.

     

    This, as much as any campaign proposal, may shape our economic future. There’s an Old Consumer and a New Consumer, divided by the Great Recession. The Old Consumer borrowed eagerly and spent freely. The New Consumer saves soberly and spends prudently. Of course, there are millions of exceptions to these generalizations. Before the recession, not everyone was a credit addict; now, not everyone is a disciplined saver. Still, vast changes in beliefs and habits have occurred.

     

    A Gallup poll shows just how vast. In 2001, Gallup began asking: “Are you the type of person who more enjoys spending money or who more enjoys saving money?” Early responses were almost evenly split; in 2006, 50 percent preferred saving and 45 percent favored spending. After the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the gap widened spectacularly. In 2016, 65 percent said saving and only 33 percent spending.

     

    What’s happening is the opposite of the credit boom that caused the financial crisis. Then, Americans skimped on saving and binged on borrowing. This stimulated the economy. Now, the reverse is happening. Americans are repaying old debt, avoiding new debt and saving more. Although consumer spending has hardly collapsed, it provides less stimulus than before. (A conspicuous exception: light-vehicle sales, which hit a record 17.4 million in 2015).

     

    Consider the personal savings rate: the difference between Americans’ after-tax income and their spending. If a household has income of $50,000 and spends $45,000, its savings rate is 10 percent. Here are actual figures. From 1990 to 2005, the savings rate dropped from 7.8 percent to 2.6 percent. Since then, the savings rate has risen; it was 5.1 percent in 2015.

     

    Federal Reserve figures on debt tell a similar story. From 1999 to 2007, household borrowing (mainly home mortgages and credit card debt) increased nearly 10 percent annually, far faster than income gains. People mistakenly believed that they could safely borrow against the inflated values of their homes and stocks. Now, borrowing is subdued. In 2015, household debt of $14 trillion was unchanged from 2007. While many consumers borrowed, others repaid or defaulted.

     

    The surge in saving is the real drag on the economy. It has many causes. “People got a cruel lesson about [the dangers] of debt,” says economist Matthew Shapiro of the University of Michigan. Households also save more to replace the losses suffered on homes and stocks. But much saving is precautionary: Having once assumed that a financial crisis of the 2008-2009 variety could never happen, people now save to protect themselves against the unknown. Research by economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics finds higher saving at all income levels. 

     

    In theory, it’s easy to replace lost consumer demand. In practice, it’s not so easy. Businesses could build more factories and shopping malls. But with weaker consumer spending, do we need them? More exports would help, but economies abroad are weak.

     

    Government policies are also frustrated. The Fed’s low interest rates don’t work if people don’t want to borrow. Ditto for tax cuts. During the Great Recession, Congress enacted several temporary tax cuts to boost consumer spending. The effect was modest, as studies by Shapiro and his collaborators found. Take the case of the two-percentage-point suspension of the Social Security payroll tax in 2011 and 2012. Two-thirds of the tax cut went to saving and repaying debt — not spending.

    The horror…

    There is more but we’ll cut off here, wondering why the WaPo article did not have a disclaimer that it is owned by the world’s largest retailer by market capitalization, and will instead add to the scorn.

    Yes, dear broke American consumers which once made up the world’s most vibrant middle class: please stop being such a nuisance and source of confusion to nice Op-Ed columnists at the WaPo, the WSJ and, of course, the Fed and their $4.5 trillion in direct injections into the offshore bank accounts of America’s wealthiest 1%, and instead go ahead and splurge all your savings on trinkets, gadgets and gizmos you don’t need.

    Only that way will Obama’s recovery be truly complete.

  • American Horror Story: The Shameful Truth About The Government's Secret Experiments

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”—C.S. Lewis

    Fool me once, shame on you.

    “You” in this case is the government that keeps violating the sacred trust of its citizenry.

    Fool me twice, shame on me.

    “Me” in this case is the collective “we the people” who should have learned early on that a government that repeatedly lies, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority and abuses its power can’t be trusted.

    Fool me over and over and over again, shame on both of us.

    Shame on every politician, bureaucrat and technician who is a shill for the U.S. government’s abuses and lies, and shame on every gullible American who keeps buying into the government’s propaganda, believing that it has our best interests at heart.

    Unfortunately, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government has seldom had our best interests at heart.

    The government didn’t have our best interests at heart when it propelled us into endless oil-fueled wars and military occupations in the Middle East that wreaked havoc on our economy, stretched thin our military resources and subjected us to horrific blowback.

    There is no way the government had our best interests at heart when it passed laws subjecting us to all manner of invasive searches and surveillance, censoring our speech and stifling our expression, rendering us anti-government extremists for daring to disagree with its dictates, locking us up for criticizing government policies on social media, encouraging Americans to spy and snitch on their fellow citizens, and allowing government agents to grope, strip, search, taser, shoot and kill us.

    Certainly the government did not have our best interests at heart when it turned America into a battlefield, transforming law enforcement agencies into extensions of the military, conducting military drills on domestic soil, distributing “free” military equipment and weaponry to local police, and desensitizing Americans to the menace of the police state with active shooter drills, color-coded terror alerts, and randomly conducted security checkpoints at “soft” targets such as shopping malls and sports arenas.

    It would be a reach to suggest that the government had our best interests at heart when it locked down the schools, installing metal detectors and surveillance cameras, adopting zero tolerance policies that punish childish behavior as harshly as criminal actions, and teaching our young people that they have no rights, that being force-fed facts is education rather than indoctrination, that they are not to question governmental authority, that they must meekly accept a life of censorship, round-the-clock surveillance, roadside blood draws, SWAT team raids and other indignities.

    One would also be hard-pressed to suggest that the American government had our best interests at heart when it conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins. The government reasoned that it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients, and poor blacks.

    The mindset driving these programs has, appropriately, been likened to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. As the Holocaust Museum recounts, Nazi physicians “conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.” These unethical experiments ran the gamut from freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia, tests to determine the maximum altitude for parachuting out of a plane, injecting prisoners with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis, exposing prisoners to phosgene and mustard gas, and mass sterilization experiments.

    It’s easy to denounce the full-frontal horrors carried out by the scientific and medical community within a despotic regime such as Nazi Germany, but what do you do with a government that claims to be a champion of human rights all the while allowing its agents to engage in the foulest, bases and most despicable acts of torture, abuse and human experimentation?

    In Alabama, for example, 600 black men with syphilis were allowed to suffer without proper medical treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. In California, older prisoners had testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts implanted in them to test their virility. In Connecticut, mental patients were injected with hepatitis.

    In Maryland, sleeping prisoners had a pandemic flu virus sprayed up their noses. In Georgia, two dozen “volunteering” prison inmates had gonorrhea bacteria pumped directly into their urinary tracts through the penis. In Michigan, male patients at an insane asylum were exposed to the flu after first being injected with an experimental flu vaccine. In Minnesota, 11 public service employee “volunteers” were injected with malaria, then starved for five days.

    In New York, dying patients had cancer cells introduced into their systems. In Ohio, over 100 inmates were injected with live cancer cells. Also in New York, prisoners at a reformatory prison were also split into two groups to determine how a deadly stomach virus was spread: the first group was made to swallow an unfiltered stool suspension, while the second group merely breathed in germs sprayed into the air. And in Staten Island, children with mental retardation were given hepatitis orally and by injection to see if they could then be cured.

    As the Associated Press reports, “The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs … because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.”

    Moreover, “Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the '60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.”

    Media blackouts, propaganda, spin. Sound familiar? How many government incursions into our freedoms have been blacked out, buried under “entertainment” news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial?

    Unfortunately, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.

    For instance, there was the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. As NPR reports, “All of the World War II experiments with mustard gas were done in secret and weren't recorded on the subjects' official military records. Most do not have proof of what they went through. They received no follow-up health care or monitoring of any kind. And they were sworn to secrecy about the tests under threat of dishonorable discharge and military prison time, leaving some unable to receive adequate medical treatment for their injuries, because they couldn't tell doctors what happened to them.”

    And then there was the CIA’s MKULTRA program in which hundreds of unsuspecting American civilians and military personnel were dosed with LSD, some having the hallucinogenic drug slipped into their drinks at the beach, in city bars, at restaurants. As Time reports, “before the documentation and other facts of the program were made public, those who talked of it were frequently dismissed as being psychotic.”

    Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear. But has the U.S. government really changed?

    Has the government become any more humane, any more respectful of the rights of the citizenry? Has it become any more transparent or willing to abide by the rule of law? Has it become any more truthful about its activities? Has it become any more cognizant of its appointed role as a guardian of our rights?

    Or has the government simply hunkered down and hidden its nefarious acts and dastardly experiments under layers of secrecy, legalism and obfuscations? Has it not become wilier, more slippery, more difficult to pin down? Having mastered the Orwellian art of Doublespeak and followed the Huxleyan blueprint for distraction and diversion, are we not dealing with a government that is simply craftier and more conniving that it used to be?

    Consider this: after revelations about the government’s experiments spanning the 20th century spawned outrage, the government began looking for human guinea pigs in other countries, where “clinical trials could be done more cheaply and with fewer rules.”

    In Guatemala, prisoners and patients at a mental hospital were infected with syphilis, “apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.” More recently, U.S.-funded doctors “failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study in Uganda even though it would have protected their newborns.” Meanwhile, in Nigeria, children with meningitis were used to test an antibiotic named Trovan. Eleven children died and many others were left disabled.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Case in point: it has just been announced that scientists working for the Department of Homeland Security will begin releasing various gases and particles on crowded subway platforms as part of an experiment aimed at testing bioterror airflow in New York subways.

    The government insists that these gases being released into the subways by the DHS are nontoxic and do not pose a health risk. It’s in our best interests, they say, to understand how quickly a chemical or biological terrorist attack might spread. And look how cool the technology is—say the government cheerleaders—that scientists can use something called DNATrax to track the movement of microscopic substances in air and food. (Imagine the kinds of surveillance that could be carried out by the government using trackable airborne microscopic substances you breathe in or ingest…)

    Mind you, this is the same government agency that has been likened to a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast” by the Washington Post.

    This is the same government that in 1949 sprayed bacteria into the Pentagon’s air handling system, then the world’s largest office building. In 1950, special ops forces sprayed bacteria from Navy ships off the coast of Norfolk and San Francisco, in the latter case exposing all of the city’s 800,000 residents. In 1953, government operatives staged “mock” anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg using generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that “‘invisible smokescreen[s]’ were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar.” Later experiments covered territory as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas. In 1965, the government’s experiments in bioterror took aim at Washington’s National Airport, followed by a 1966 experiment in which army scientists exposed a million subway NYC passengers to airborne bacteria that causes food poisoning.

    And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.

    So when so-called conspiracy theorists—including the late rock musician Prince and civil rights activist Dick Gregory—suggest that those streaks crisscrossing the sky are chemtrails laced with behavior-modifying chemicals, you might want to tamp down on that kneejerk reaction that chalks them up as nuts. After all, the government has done it before, lacing the fog over San Francisco with bioweapons (delivered by Navy ships moored nearby). In fact, not that long ago, the Obama administration declared by way of executive order that federal agencies are now authorized to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives?

    Are you getting my drift yet?

    What kind of government perpetrates such horrific acts on human beings, whether or not they are citizens? Is there any difference between a government mindset that justifies experimenting on prisoners because they’re “cheaper than chimpanzees” and a government that sanctions jailhouse strip searches of individuals charged with minor infractions simply because it’s easier on a jail warden’s workload?

    And when all is said and done, what kind of people rationalize, write off, or just turn a blind eye to such monstrous acts of inhumanity?

    Shame on the government, yes, but shame on us for blindly trusting that the government’s motives and priorities have changed.

    Shame on us for believing that the government’s bloody wars on terror are keeping us safe in any way. Shame on us for placing greater value on the government’s phantom promises of security over our own hard-won freedoms. Shame on us for allowing our government, our freedoms and the rule of law to be held hostage at the end of a military-issued gun.

    Shame on us for letting ourselves be played for fools by individuals who care nothing for us, our our health, our happiness, our welfare, our livelihood, our property or our freedoms. Shame on us for letting ourselves be bamboozled about the war on terror, deceived about the need to trade our freedoms for greater security, and conned into believing that turning America into a battlefield will actually make us safer. Shame on us for letting ourselves be double-crossed by politicians who promise change and reform and hoodwinked into believing that politics is the answer to what ails the nation. Shame on us for not doing a better job of ensuring that future generations have some hope for a better, freer future.

    Most of all, shame on us that even after being repeatedly tricked, deluded, misled, swindled and betrayed by government officials, even after learning about the many ways in which we have been duped and deluded, shame on us for still falling for the government’s trickery, chicanery, hocus-pocus, scams and lies.

    Shame on us, yes, but still, the question remains: why? What’s in it for the government?

    Perhaps the answer lies in The Third Man, Carol Reed’s influential 1949 film starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. In the film, set in a post-WW II Vienna, rogue war profiteer Harry Lime has come to view human carnage with a callous indifference, unconcerned that the diluted penicillin he’s been trafficking underground has resulted in the tortured deaths of young children.

    Challenged by his old friend Holly Martins to consider the consequences of his actions, Lime responds, “In these days, old man, nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, so why should we?”

    “Have you ever seen any of your victims?” asks Martins.

    “Victims?” responds Limes, as he looks down from the top of a Ferris wheel onto a populace reduced to mere dots on the ground. “Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax – the only way you can save money nowadays.”

    In other words, we are citizens of a government that has dehumanized us and reduced us to little more than faceless numbers, statistics and economic units.

    What’s in it for the government? Money and power. Or as John Lennon summed it up, “I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that.”

  • Goldman Closes "Short Gold" Recommendation With 4.5% Loss; Will Continue Buying Gold From Its Clients

    Back on February 15, just as the USD was about to plunge unleashing a global risk-on rally as a result of “Yuan stability”, Goldman triumphantly announcecd its latest trading recommendation: short gold (at $1,205) with a target of $1000 and a 7% stop loss.

     

    This being Goldman – the one hedge fund whose prop traders immediately take the other side of all trades pitches to clients – said clients were immediately and brutally taken to the cleaners as the consequence of a tumbling dollar (another trade that Goldman got disastrously wrong) was soaring gold. And that is precisely what happened. After that, unofficially, it took just two and a half months for Goldman to get stopped out of its short gold recommendation, which as we first noted, happened on April 29, when its the price soared above $1,300 breaching Goldman’s stop. Officially, Goldman’s Jeff Currie decided to take his time, although he too finally threw in the towel today admitting Goldman was wrong yet again with one more trading recommendation (recall that Goldman had earlier been stopped out and lost money on 5 of its Top 6 trades for 2016 in just over a month).

    But instead of doing the right thing and also admitting it has zero idea how to trade gold, where it will go next or what the catalysts are, Goldman decided to change its price targets, and instead of predicting $1,100/oz in three months, Goldman has generously pushed its price target by $100 higher to $1200 (and $1,050 over 12 months), even as gold traded just shy of $1300 a few days ago and only dropped as a result of the recent USD rally.

    In other words, Goldman admits it was wrong, but still remains indirectly short as it is still hoping to skewer even more muppets on the very same trade it has gotten wrong for the past 3 months… and in the process buy their gold if possible.

    Here is the “explanation”

    Our US economists recently reduced their forecast for Fed funds rate hikes over the next 12 months from 100 bp to 50 bp. Corresponding with this, our global rates team has lowered its forecast profile for 10-year US real rates over the same period. As a result, we reduce the downside to our gold price forecast, raising the 3/6/12 month forecast profile to $1,200/1,180/1,150/oz from $1,100/1,050/1,000/oz. Our new year average price forecasts are $1,202/1,150/1,150/oz from $1,124/1,000/1,050/oz. Though we forecast that gold prices will decline from spot over the next 3-12 months (with c.5%-9% downside), for reasons which we detail below, the changes to our economists’ rates forecasts act to reduce the degree of downside to our modelled gold price profile and thus change the risk-reward of our previously implemented short gold trade recommendation (published February 15), which we close as a result at a c.4.5% loss.

    Or, you could have simply remembered that you had a 7% stop and that you were stopped out 2 weeks ago, which any trader would know very well if he actually had the trade on instead of just using it as bait for clients to unload their gold. Perhaps Mr. Currie can also tell us what Goldman’s “flow” trader P&L was on the “short gold” trade. 

    On the other hand, since nothing could have been more bearish for gold than Goldman going outright long the metal, we are delighted that Goldman is still buying gold – as it asks its clients to sell it their gold – because it means that the upside for gold remains unlimited. This is also the opposite of what Goldman has tried to – yet again – convince the handful of Kermits who bother to even listen to the taxpayer bailed out hedge fund with the worst trading recommendation record since Tom Stolper (incidentally another former Goldmanite) and of course Dennis Gartman.

    For those who care, this is what else Currie said – it is mostly a verbatim copy of what he said in mid-February with the exception that he now admits he was wrong then, and that he is “rising” his target price by $100.

    In our view, the gold rally during 1Q16 was driven primarily by concerns about the ability of US policy rates to diverge, corresponding Fed dovishness, and US real rates weakness, as well as a depreciating US dollar (both against the G10 currencies as well as against the EM currencies, the latter on the back of a transitory China credit stimulus). Furthermore, we have seen the largest ever increase in gold net speculative positioning over the past three months, with net speculative length now near its post global financial crisis peak.

    Looking ahead, we see limited upside for gold pricing given the limited room for the Fed to surprise to the downside (the market is pricing c.16 bp by end of 2016 and less than one 25 bp Fed Funds rate hike over the next 12 months), limited room for the dollar to depreciate (net speculative positioning is the shortest it has been since early 2013, Exhibit 1, please see Global Markets Daily: The Dollar Bottom, published May 10, for details), and limited room for China to drive EM currency strength to contribute to dollar weakness.

     

    While the upside risks to gold pricing appear relatively limited from here, we see a number of catalysts for gold prices to moderate, including a more hawkish Fed and ultimately US policy rate divergence (Exhibit 3), corresponding with gradual dollar appreciation over the next 3-12 months. Indeed, while Friday’s jobs report was a modest disappointment, with a 160k rise in nonfarm payrolls, some downward revisions to prior months, and declines in both household employment and labor force participation that reversed some of the big gains of the prior six months, the bigger picture, in our view, is still one of gradual acceleration as the US labor market moves to full employment and temporary factors such as the weakness in energy, import, and healthcare costs become less important as we move through 2016. As such, we still see the economy on a path that will prompt the FOMC to restart the normalization process before too long—most likely in September but perhaps as early as July. After the soggy numbers of the past two quarters, we expect GDP growth to rebound to a 2¼% pace as the drag from the earlier FCI tightening (Exhibit 5)—which by our estimates has subtracted about one per centage point from growth recently—abates and the fundamentals for domestic demand, especially housing and consumption, remain favorable.

    This next sentence is our favorite:

    In addition, there are reasons to believe that the risk off environment which contributed to gold’s outperformance at the beginning of this year is less likely to repeat in the near future as confidence in Chinese growth, Chinese currency stability, and the potential for a collapse in oil prices is much reduced.

    Why is it our favorite? Because just a few hours earlier another Goldman report warned that in its quest to keep the bond market stable, central banks may unleash “Financial Turbulence” and “Rate Shock.” We can only assume that Currie had no idea. It’s almost as if Goldman doesn’t even bother to pretend to have a coherent story when ripping clients off.

    As for Goldman’s vapid, deja vu conclusion…

    In terms of risks surrounding our bearish gold view, we view them as broadly balanced. An upside risk to our forecast is that lower-than-expected Chinese growth significantly impacts US equities, consumer confidence, and growth, thereby resulting in lower increases in real rates relative to our forecast profile. A downside risk relative to our base case is a large reduction in the pace of Chinese and Russian central bank buying (since mid last year, buying has been running at a very high rate of c.450 tonnes per annum).

    … it is missing just one thing: what is Goldman’s next stop loss, because that is where gold is really headed next.

  • Obama's Toilet Revolution

    Submitted by Mark Hanna via AmericanThinker.com,

    As a Western revolutionary, Obama has been relentless in his efforts over the last seven years to use all the machinery and influence of government, whether illegally (since 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled 13 times that Obama’s actions have been unconstitutional) or legally, to fundamentally transform America into the neo-Marxist democracy he and his father have long dreamed about.

    His most recent stunt to this end is to use North Carolina’s “bathroom” law, or House Bill 2, as a springboard for the U.S. Justice Department to issue a sweeping dictate in the name of social fairness and civil rights.  House Bill 2, which requires individuals to use the public bathrooms and showers that correspond to their birth sex, was drafted and passed in order to negate an unconstitutional Charlotte city ordinance that forced different sexes to share public accommodations.

    What’s most ominous about Obama’s latest maneuver is that the letter sent by the Justice Department to North Carolina governor Pat McCrory stakes out a position for the federal government that would apply to every business in America, as well as all universities and colleges that receive federal funds, that are subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    According to Gov. McCrory, the demand letter (read the letter here) sent to top North Carolina officials should be understood as follows:

    One thing the nation has to realize is this is no longer just a North Carolina issue. This order, this letter by the Justice Department, is saying that every company in the United States of America that has more than 15 employees are going to have to abide by the federal government’s regulations on bathrooms.  So now the federal government is going to tell almost every private sector company in the United States who can or cannot come into their bathrooms, restrooms, their shower facilities for their employees. And they’re also telling every university in the United States of America — it’s not just North Carolina — they’re now telling every university that accepts federal funding that boys who may think they’re a girl can go into a locker room or a restroom or shower facility.

    Barack Obama and his militant Justice Department don’t care at all about individuals confused or rebellious about their gender.  As with all revolutionary activity, the goal is to seize upon crisis in order to further the aggrandizement of the State, and its control over every competing area of society.

    Obama’s response to North Carolina is a classic leftist maneuver of setting up a straw man, or transgender in this case, to ensure and continue to expand federal power over the states.  From a revolutionary perspective, states with their 10th Amendment constitutional sovereignty are antithetical to the long-term objective of an international socialist system.   

    It is critical now for states to recognize their pivotal constitutional power and determine to use every available resource to counter, correct, and ultimately crush the left’s war against the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.  Recall the efforts made by the revolutionary left to force a Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and tear down state marriage laws.  Their attack on North Carolina is not at all different in both tactic and objective.

    Gov. McCrory seems to recognize the enormous significance of this fight and has bravely turned the table on Obama and his comrades at Justice by announcing today that North Carolina will sue.  Time will tell if his response will work.  In the interim, however, other governors from states across the country should quickly join McCrory in making this a national fight for the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty.

    The bullying left and their fellow-traveling mega-corporations such as Apple, Facebook, PayPal, and Wells Fargo are convinced that the threat of economic warfare against the states will tame them.  But instead of cowering as other Republican governors have before him, Gov. McCrory launched a counterrevolution and pushed back with the support of many other companies and organizations that are not part of Obama’s not so new economic and social policies of revolution.

  • Hillary Clinton Son-In-Law's Hedge Fund Shuts Down Greek Fund After 90% Loss

    Despite having Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as an investor and being Bill and Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky (and two former colleagues from Goldman Sachs who manage Eaglevale Partners hedge fund) told investors in a letter last February they had been “incorrect” on Greece, generating staggering losses for the firm’s main Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, a/k/a the “Greek recovery” fund during most of its life. By ‘incorrect’ the Clinton heir apparent meant the $25 million Eaglevale Greek fund had lost a stunning 48% in 2014.

    Which is not to say the larger fund it was part of is doing any better: as of last February, Eaglevale had spent 27 of its 34 months in operation below its high-water mark. We are confident that 13 months later the numbers are 40 out of 47, respectively.

     

    As a reminder, 2013, Institutional Investor proclaimed Mezvinsky “a hedge fund rising star“…

    In late 2011, Marc Mezvinsky co-founded New York-based, macro-focused hedge fund firm Eaglevale Partners with Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon, two Goldman Sachs Group proprietary traders whom he’d gotten to know when they all worked at the bank. Best known as the husband of Chelsea Clinton, Mezvinsky, 35, who has a BA in religious studies and philosophy from Stanford University and an MA in politics, philosophy and economics from the University of Oxford, has been quietly building his finance career. Before launching his own firm, the longtime Clinton family friend was a partner and global macro portfolio manager at New York- and Rio de Janeiro-based investment house 3G Capital. Eaglevale manages more than $400 million.

    Alas, he was anything but, and instead of having a real grasp of macroeconomic events, or how to – you know – hedge, he decided to dump millions in Greece just before the country entered a death spiral that culminated with its third bailout, capital controls, insolvent banks and a terminally crippled economy.

    Meanwhile, things went from terrible to abysmal for both the clueless hedge fund manager and his LPs, and as the NYT reports, Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law is finally shutting down the Greece-focused fund, after losing nearly 90% of its value.  Investors were told last month that Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity would finally be put out of its misery and would shutter.

    The closure comes as the worst possible time: we are confident that Donald Trump will be quick to work it into his political attack routine.

    Mr. Chelsea Clinton and his partners began raising money in 2011 from investors for the firm’s flagship fund. Since then, that portfolio has posted uneven performance. A Stanford University graduate, Mr. Mezvinsky worked at Goldman for eight years before leaving to join a private equity firm. He left that job to form Eaglevale with two longtime Goldman partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon. The hedge fund firm is named after a bridge in Central Park.

    As noted above, some of the firm’s earliest investors were Goldman partners, including Lloyd C. Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive officer, who let Eaglevale use his name in marketing the flagship fund. Ironically this is in addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Goldman paid to Marc’s mother-in-law. One almost wonders who “benefits” Goldman was seeking to get out of this particular relationship.

    But on a less sarcastic note, we agree with the NYT that it is not at all clear why Eaglevale waited until this year to close the Hellenic fund, which already had lost about 40% of its value by early last year.

    Perhaps it was just hope that the Greek people would simply pick up and rebuild the devastated economy from scratch, ideally without getting paid (the word slavery comes to mind), thereby miraculously rescuing his investment. In letters to investors in 2014, Mezvinsky and his partners expressed confidence that Greece would soon be on the path to a “sustainable recovery.” But by the end of that year, Eaglevale’s leaders began to acknowledge that their perspective on the situation in Greece may have been wrong. The fund had earlier stopped taking in new money.

    We will conclude by stealing the NYT’s tongue in cheek humor:

    The one silver lining for the fund’s investors from all of this is that they will have a somewhat larger tax loss on investments to claim next year.

    True: it’s all funny if one assumes that none of the people who were invested in Mezvinsky’s pet fund actually needed the cash (we doubt Blankfein will lose sleep over a few million). For all those others who actually did, the joke’s on them.

  • API Reports Another 3.5 Million Barrel Build in Oil Inventories (Video)

    By EconMatters

     

    The EIA Report is tomorrow, but under any interpretation of the API numbers the Bulls will still be waiting for their big Drawdown EIA Report. It looks like we just keep replacing US Production with OPEC Production, namely Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran excess production.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  • The War In Afghanistan Has Turned A Generation Of Children Into Heroin Addicts

    Submitted by Michaela Whitton via TheAntiMedia.org,

    One of the many catastrophic legacies left behind by the longest war in U.S. history is that Afghanistan produces 90% of the world’s opium. As with most parts of the world, the most vulnerable pay the heaviest price of war, and the country has faced a harrowing escalation in the number of child heroin addicts.

    “What’s happened in Afghanistan over the last 13 years has been the flourishing of a narco-state that is really without any parallel in history,” Kabul-based journalist Matthieu Aikins told Democracy Now back in 2014.

    Adding that all levels of Afghan society are involved in the flourishing trade — which became undeniably worse after the U.S.-led invasion — Aikins accused both the Taliban and government-linked officials of profiting from the crisis. He claimed the U.S., in its quest for vengeance against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, not only cooperated with warlords but ignored corruption by criminals whose human rights abuses created the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place.

    As a result, Afghanistan now produces twice as much opium as it did in the year 2000, and the booming trade now accounts for 50% of the country’s GDP. Since the cartels began refining their poppy harvests into addictive and profitable heroin, the street price for “powder,” as it is known, is the cheapest in the world — and it costs less than food in the war-torn country.

    Lost childhoods

    The psychological damage of war, together with the flood of cheap heroin, has led to a doubling in addiction rates over the last five years. In the Channel 4 documentary, Unreported World, Ramita Naval explores a harrowing escalation in child addiction. In the ravaged country, where access to drug treatment is severely limited, she visits a rehabilitation centre where children as young four or five — haunted by horrors they have witnessed — attempt to regain lost childhoods.

    The only treatment centre in Kabul to help children, it was originally set up to treat women. The 20-bed unit, which forces kids off the drugs by making them go cold turkey is, ironically, funded by the U.S. State Department. Naval is introduced to a number of very small children who are at varying stages of the 45-day treatment programme.

    At one point, the reporter finds it hard to contain her dismay at being in a room full of drug-addicted children. One describes becoming addicted after taking the drug for toothache, while another became hooked after inhaling his father’s smoke. Doctor Latifa Hamidi said in the past two years she has seen a 60% increase in the number of child addicts at the centre. Claiming the future of the country is at stake, she added, “There is going to be a future generation of drug addicts that need help and aren’t going to be able to work.”

    The problem is so severe among the child population that many are taking desperate measures to fund their habits. Naval spoke to a 13-year-old boy at a safe house who began using when his parents were killed by shelling. From the age of eight, he was paid by drug addicts to guard them while they smoked. Unsurprisingly, he then developed his own habit, which he funds with child prostitution. Many addicted children sell their bodies, as there are no jobs or work.

    Fifteen-year-old Ali has been using heroin for the past two years. His mother is dead and his father fled to Iran. He smoked a gram of heroin, which cost £1, on camera as he explained how he became addicted.

    The young boy’s trauma began when, after witnessing a suicide bomb attack in Kabul, he went to stay with relatives in the countryside. While he was there, U.S. forces bombed his village, killing dozens of people; he described seeing bodies scattered everywhere. The young boy and other villagers had to pick up the body parts and put them in plastic bags. Claiming the war breaks his heart — and making his descent into drug use more understandable — he said, “I’d rather not live, than live through this war.”

    Behind closed doors

    With drug use haram, or forbidden, in Islam, addiction is seen as shameful. Consequently, many of society’s most vulnerable are often too ashamed to ask for help. As a result, a hidden epidemic has arisen, affecting thousands of parents and children behind closed doors. Naval accompanies a medical team of doctors and social workers who are frequently attacked and beaten during their work:

    “More and more children are becoming addicted because the country is awash with opium,” the doctor said. “If the government doesn’t do anything about this situation, Afghanistan is going to face another disaster,” she added.

    Claiming that of 130, 000 families in the area, 60% are addicted to drugs, the doctor explained many men pick up their addictions while working in neighbouring Iran and Pakistan. After using drugs as a stimulant to help them work longer hours, they return, bringing their addictions with them — often passing their new habits on to entire families.

    Opium is also part of daily life in Afghanistan’s refugee camps, where the internally displaced are left to fend for themselves. Government doctors rarely visit, and agencies are ill-equipped to deal with child addicts — many whom have fled fighting in other provinces and are left with devastating injuries as a result of the war. Locals claim that even if painkillers were available, opium is much cheaper and more effective.

    Three-year-old Zarima lost her arm when her village was attacked during fighting between the government and insurgents. With no doctors or medicine, her father had no option but to give her opium. He had tried to stop the treatment a number of times, but she suffered severe withdrawal symptoms. Other locals described being forced to perform amputations due to lack of medical help.

    Cheaper than food

    Entire villages of people are addicted to opium, and Naval visits one family where three out of six of children are addicted. One little boy, who began smoking at the age of three, was sprawled out next to his father, completely out of it. He explained that he needs to smoke three times a day or he suffers painful withdrawals. When asked if he ever goes out and plays with other kids, he shook his head.

    The boy’s mother originally gave him opium to cure a stomach ache. Now the family uses the drug for a very different reason. “There is not enough food to feed the whole family,” his mother said.“When you smoke you lose your appetite,” she added, explaining that while food for the family of nine costs £3 a day, a day’s worth of opium costs £2.

    Summing up the hidden side of the devastation in the war-ravaged country, Naval was frank and said that while the world is focused on the fight against the Taliban, the country is being consumed from within — by an equally serious and long-term threat.

  • Caught On Tape: This Is What Happened When An MEP Tried To Read The TTIP Text

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    TTIP is just one of several phony “trade” deals written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists, and negotiated in secret between the Obama administration and various world leaders. This particular scam involves the U.S. and Europe, and it has seen increased public resistance and attention as of late, something I highlighted in the post, Leaked Documents Expose the TTIP Trade Deal as a Subversive Imperial Scam.

    Now watch what happened when a MEP (member of European parliament) tried to read the thing. It’s very blurry, but you’ll get the point.

    Democracy this is not.

    Noam Chomsky recently summarized the true purpose of these so-called “trade” deals eloquently in the following paragraph:

    In the contemporary global order, the institutions of the masters hold enormous power, not only in the international arena but also within their home states, on which they rely to protect their power and to provide economic support by a wide variety of means. When we consider the role of the masters of mankind, we turn to such state policy priorities of the moment as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the investor-rights agreements mislabeled “free-trade agreements” in propaganda and commentary. They are negotiated in secret, apart from the hundreds of corporate lawyers and lobbyists writing the crucial details. The intention is to have them adopted in good Stalinist style with “fast track” procedures designed to block discussion and allow only the choice of yes or no (hence yes). The designers regularly do quite well, not surprisingly. People are incidental, with the consequences one might anticipate.

    Thanks for playin’ everyone.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th May 2016

  • Caught On Tape: This Is What Happened When An MEP Tried To Read The TTIP Text

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    TTIP is just one of several phony “trade” deals written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists, and negotiated in secret between the Obama administration and various world leaders. This particular scam involves the U.S. and Europe, and it has seen increased public resistance and attention as of late, something I highlighted in the post, Leaked Documents Expose the TTIP Trade Deal as a Subversive Imperial Scam.

    Now watch what happened when a MEP (member of European parliament) tried to read the thing. It’s very blurry, but you’ll get the point.

    Democracy this is not.

    Noam Chomsky recently summarized the true purpose of these so-called “trade” deals eloquently in the following paragraph:

    In the contemporary global order, the institutions of the masters hold enormous power, not only in the international arena but also within their home states, on which they rely to protect their power and to provide economic support by a wide variety of means. When we consider the role of the masters of mankind, we turn to such state policy priorities of the moment as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the investor-rights agreements mislabeled “free-trade agreements” in propaganda and commentary. They are negotiated in secret, apart from the hundreds of corporate lawyers and lobbyists writing the crucial details. The intention is to have them adopted in good Stalinist style with “fast track” procedures designed to block discussion and allow only the choice of yes or no (hence yes). The designers regularly do quite well, not surprisingly. People are incidental, with the consequences one might anticipate.

    Thanks for playin’ everyone.

  • How Much Liberty Do Americans Have Left?

    This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

    http://www.theispot.com/images/source/FredaLibertyUpended1.jpgPainting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

    First Amendment

    The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     

    The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.

    However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

    A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a “chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

    There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

    Mass spying by the NSA violates our freedom of association.

    The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny. (And the U.S. is doing the same things that tyrannical governments have done for 5,000 years to crush dissent.)

    For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:

    And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:

    And see this. (Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.)

    And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

    Additionally:

    Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

    Second Amendment

    The 2nd Amendment states:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.

    But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:

    Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

     

    ***

     

    It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

     

    Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

     

    ***

     

    More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

     

    Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

     

    None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

    And George Mason University School of Law Professor Nelson Lund and UCLA Law School Professor Adam Winkler note:

    Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

     

    ***

     

    The Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

    The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …

    However:

    Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield than for a country founded on freedom. Police shootings of unarmed citizens continue to outrage communities, while little is really being done to demilitarize law enforcement agencies. Indeed, just recently, North Dakota became the first state to legalize law enforcement use of drones armed with weapons such as tear gas, rubber bullets, beanbags, pepper spray and Tasers.

    Third Amendment

    The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    A recent lawsuit by a Nevada family – covered by (Mother Jones, Fox News and Courthouse News – alleges violation of the Third Amendment.

    The military is also arguably quartering “digital” troops within our homes.

    Gordon S. Wood – Alva O. Way University Professor and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University – points out:

    In its Declaration and Resolves on October 14, 1774, Congress protested the presence in a time of peace of a standing army and the quartering of troops in the colonies without their consent. Then in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, two of the many accusations Congress leveled against the king were his keeping “among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent or our Legislatures,” and his “quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.”

     

    ***

     

    Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the government’s response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and to issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.

    Indeed:

    With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil. Moreover, as a result of SWAT team raids (more than 80,000 a year) where police invade homes, often without warrants, and injure and even kill unarmed citizens, the barrier between public and private property has been done away with, leaving us with armed government agents who act as if they own our property.

    Indeed, the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War partly to stop the type of militarized police that we now have.

     In America, Journalists Are Considered Terrorists
    Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

    Fourth Amendment

    The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    But the government is spying on everything we dowithout any real benefit or justification (and see this).

    By one estimate,  the average American going about his daily business on any given day will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

    (And things are getting worse, and the government will greatly expand its spying in the near future.)

    Indeed, experts say that the type of spying being carried out by the NSA and other agencies is exactly the kind of thing which King George imposed on the American colonists … which led to the Revolutionary War.

    And many Constitutional experts – such as Jonathan Turley – think that the police went too far in Boston with lockdowns and involuntary door-to-door searches.

    In reality:

    The Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors. Case in point: Texas police forced a 21-year-old woman to undergo a warrantless vaginal search by the side of the road after she allegedly “rolled” through a stop sign.

     

    The use of civil asset forfeiture schemes to swell the coffers of police forces has also continued to grow in popularity among cash-strapped states. The federal government continues to strong-arm corporations into providing it with access to Americans’ private affairs, from emails and online transactions to banking and web surfing. Coming in the wake of massive leaks about the inner workings of the NSA and the massive secretive surveillance state, it was revealed that the government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 every day for failing to comply with the NSA’s mass data collection program known as PRISM. Meanwhile, AT&T has enjoyed a profitable and “extraordinary, decades-long” relationship with the NSA.

     

    The technological future appears to pose even greater threats to what’s left of our Fourth Amendment rights, with advances in biometric identification and microchip implants on the horizon making it that much easier for the government to track not only our movements and cyber activities but our very cellular beings. Barclays has already begun using a finger-scanner as a form of two-step authentication to give select customers access to their accounts. Similarly, Motorola has been developing thin “digital tattoos” that will ensure that a phone’s owner is the only person who may unlock it. Not to be overlooked are the aerial spies—surveillance drones—about to take to the skies in coming years, as well as the Drive Smart programs that will spy on you (your speed, movements, passengers, etc.) while you travel the nation’s highways and byways.


    Paintings by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

    Fifth Amendment

    The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detention and taking away our due process rights.

    The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

    For example, American citizens are being detained in Guantanamo-like conditions in Chicago … including:

    • Brutality
    • Being held in secret
    • Not even telling a suspect’s lawyer whether his client is being held?

    And see this, this and this.

    As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes. And the right to remain silent is gone.

    The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.

    HUNG LIBERTY (NYSE)Image by William Banzai

    Sixth Amendment

    The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury in the location where the crime allegedly occurred, to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a speedy and public jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving any trial at all … let alone a speedy or public one. In neither case do they get a jury, a defense lawyer, or the right to call their own witnesses. And they often never even hear the charges against them.

    Indefinite detentions usually don’t occur where the alleged crime occurred, but at a black site.

    More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.

    The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this.

    Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs.

    Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.

    Moreover, government is “laundering” information gained through mass surveillance through other agencies, with an agreement that the agencies will “recreate” the evidence in a “parallel construction” … so they don’t have to admit that the evidence came from unconstitutional spying. This data laundering is getting worse and worse.

    A former top NSA official says that this is the opposite of following the Fourth Amendment, but is a “totalitarian process” which shows that we’re in a “police state”. (A second former top NSA official agrees.)

    And there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is the main business model adopted by Wall Street. Indeed, the biggest financial crime in world history, the largest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.

    On the other hand, government prosecutors are using the legal system to crush dissent and to silence whistleblowers.

    And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.

    Constitutional lawyer John Whitehead explains:

    The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights. That’s the crux of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the government’s use of asset forfeiture to strip American citizens of the funds needed to hire a defense attorney of their choosing.

    Seventh Amendment

    The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    But there are two systems of justice in Americaone for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. So good luck going after the powers-that-be.

    And the World Justice Project – a bipartisan, independent group with honorary chairs including numerous current and former Supreme Court Justices – released a report saying that Americans have less access to justice than most wealthy countries … and many developing nations. The report finds that Americans have less access to justice than Botswanans, and that only the wealthy have the resources to protect rights using the court system:

    For example, Germans sue equally whether they are rich or poor … but in America, only the wealthy have the resources to protect rights using the court system:

    (And the austerity caused by the highest levels of inequality in world history – which are in turn is caused by socialist actions by our government, which have destroyed the Founding Fathers’ vision of prosperity – is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.)

    Federal judges have also recently decided that they can pre-judge cases before the plaintiff even has the chance to conduct discovery … and throw cases out if they don’t like plaintiff’s case.

    And:

    The populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that it’s “we the people” who can and should be determining what laws are just, what activities are criminal and who can be jailed for what crimes.

    Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

    Eighth Amendment

    The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Indefinite detention and assassination are obviously cruel and unusual punishment.

    The widespread system of torture carried out in the last 10 years – with the help of other countriesviolates the 8th Amendment. Many want to bring it back … or at least justify its past use.

    While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.

    And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.

    Moreover:

    A California appeals court is being asked to consider “whether years of unpredictable delays from conviction to execution” constitute cruel and unusual punishment. For instance, although 900 individuals have been sentenced to death in California since 1978, only 13 have been executed. As CBS News reports, “More prisoners have died of natural causes on death row than have perished in the death chamber.”

    Ninth Amendment

    The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to non-toxic food and water. You may disagree.

    But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation. However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedom, safe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).

    By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.

    Tenth Amendment

    The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:

    (1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people

     

    and

     

    (2) Separation of powers

    Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom. We’ve become more afraid of our government than of terrorists, and believe that the government is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed“.

    And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:

    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders.

    Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.

    Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the vast majority are under heavy assault.

    Other Constitutional Provisions … and The Declaration of Independence

    In addition to the trampling of the Bill of Rights, the government has also trashed the separation of powers enshrined in the main body of the Constitution.

    The government is also engaging in activities which the Founding Fathers fought against, such as taxation without representation (here and here), cronyism, deference to central banks, etc.

    As the preamble to the Declaration of Independence shows, the American government is still carrying out many of the acts the Founding Fathers found most offensive:

    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. [Background here and here]

     

    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [Background here, here, here, here and here]

     

    ***

     

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: [Background]

     

    ***

     

    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences [Background]

     

    ***

     

    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the

    Head of a civilized nation. [Background]

     

    ***

     

    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [Background here, here and here]

  • Paul Craig Roberts Warns 'Killary' Will Be "The Last American President"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Do you remember all the hopes Americans had for Obama when we elected him to his first term? Painful memories. He betrayed the voters on every one of his promises. There was no change, except for the worst as Obama went on to become one of the most vicious war criminals in world history. Despite his horrific record, we re-elected him, only to have US economic policy turn against the people in order to bail out at our expense the mega-banks and the One Percent.

    Now Obama is coercing Asia and Europe to turn the governments of their countries over to rapacious American corporations empowered by TPP and TTIP to subordinate all interests to their profits.

    Here is Pepe Escobar on how the great and wonderful United States treats its enserfed vassals:

    “Hardball, predictably, is the name of the game. Washington no less than threatened to block EU car exports [to the US] to force the EU to buy [Monsanto’s] genetically engineered fruits and vegetables.”

    Now we face the prospect of electing an even worse president than Obama—Killary Clinton. Killary is the bought-and-paid-for property of Wall Street, Israel, and the military-security complex. She will bring back to power the totally discredited neoconservatives, and the US will proceed with its butchery and slaughter of other countries and all reformist governments everywhere.

    The question is: will enough insouciant Americans align with the One Percent, the neocons, the men-hating feminists, homosexuals, the transgendered, and other “preferred minorities” to put the US presidency in the hands of an aggressive, corrupt person with a conscience deficit? That is the goal toward which the presstitutes are driving the brainwashed.

    If we end up with Killary, neither the US nor the world will survive the mistake. She will be the last American president.

    Killary is compromised with secret agendas, and secret agendas lead to conflict and war. With a crazed President Killary who declared Russian Presient Vladimir Putin, the world’s leading peacemaker, to be “the new Hitler,” with crazed American generals who declare Russia to be “an existential threat to the United States,” and with the insane neoconservatives back in the saddle determined to impose American hegemony on the rest of the world, Killary’s election will terminate life on earth.

    From the Archive:

    September 28, 2014

    Washington’s Secret Agendas

    One might think that by now even Americans would have caught on to the constant stream of false alarms that Washington sounds in order to deceive the people into supporting its hidden agendas.

    The public fell for the lie that the Taliban in Afghanistan are terrorists allied with al Qaeda. Americans fought a war for 13 years that enriched Dick Cheney’s firm, Halliburton, and other private interests only to end in another Washington failure.

    The public fell for the lie that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” that were a threat to America and that if the US did not invade Iraq Americans risked a “mushroom cloud going up over an American city.” With the rise of ISIS, this long war apparently is far from over. Billions of dollars more in profits will pour into the coffers of the US military security complex as Washington fights those who are redrawing the false Middle East boundaries created by the British and French after WW I when the British and French seized territories of the former Ottoman Empire.

    The American public fell for the lies told about Gaddafi in Libya. The formerly stable and prosperous country is now in chaos.

    The American public fell for the lie that Iran has, or is building, nuclear weapons. Sanctioned and reviled by the West, Iran has shifted toward an Eastern orientation, thereby removing a principal oil producer from Western influence.

    The public fell for the lie that Assad of Syria used “chemical weapons against his own people.” The jihadists that Washington sent to overthrow Assad have turned out to be, according to Washington’s propaganda, a threat to America.

    The greatest threat to the world is Washington’s insistence on its hegemony. The ideology of a handful of neoconservatives is the basis for this insistence. We face the situation in which a handful of American neoconservative psychopaths claim to determine the fate of countries.

    Many still believe Washington’s lies, but increasingly the world sees Washington as the greatest threat to peace and life on earth. The claim that America is “exceptional and indispensable” is used to justify Washington’s right to dictate to other countries.

    The casualties of Washington’s bombings are invariably civilians, and the deaths will produce more recruits for ISIS. Already there are calls for Washington to reintroduce “boots on the ground” in Iraq. Otherwise, Western civilization is doomed, and our heads will be cut off. The newly created propaganda of a “Russian threat” requires more NATO spending and more military bases on Russia’s borders. A “quick reaction force” is being created to respond to a nonexistent threat of a Russian invasion of the Baltics, Poland, and Europe.

    Usually it takes the American public a year, or two, three, or four to realize that it has been deceived by lies and propaganda, but by that time the public has swallowed a new set of lies and propaganda and is all concerned about the latest “threat.” The American public seems incapable of understanding that just as the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth threat was a hoax, so is the sixth threat, and so will be the seventh, eighth, and ninth.

    Moreover, none of these American military attacks on other countries has resulted in a better situation, as Vladimir Putin honestly states. Yet, the public and its representatives in Congress support each new military adventure despite the record of deception and failure.

    Perhaps if Americans were taught their true history in place of idealistic fairy tales, they would be less gullible and less susceptible to government propaganda. I have recommended Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s The Untold History of the United States, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, and now I recommend Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers, the story of the long rule of John Foster and Allen Dulles over the State Department and CIA and their demonization of reformist governments that they often succeeded in overthrowing. Kinzer’s history of the Dulles brothers’ plots to overthrow six governments provides insight into how Washington operates today.

    In 1953 the Dulles brothers overthrew Iran’s elected leader, Mossadegh and imposed the Shah, thus poisoning American-Iranian relations through the present day. Americans might yet be led into a costly and pointless war with Iran, because of the Dulles brothers poisoning of relations in 1953.

    The Dulles brothers overthrew Guatemala’s popular president Arbenz, because his land reform threatened the interest of the Dulles brothers’ Sullivan & Cromwell law firm’s United Fruit Company client. The brothers launched an amazing disinformation campaign depicting Arbenz as a dangerous communist who was a threat to Western civilization. The brothers enlisted dictators such as Somoza in Nicaragua and Batista in Cuba against Arbenz. The CIA organized air strikes and an invasion force. But nothing could happen until Arbenz’s strong support among the people in Guatemala could be shattered. The brothers arranged this through Cardinal Spellman, who enlisted Archbishop Rossell y Arellano. “A pastoral letter was read on April 9, 1954 in all Guatemalan churches.”

    ?A masterpiece of propaganda, the pastoral letter misrepresented Arbenz as a dangerous communist who was the enemy of all Guatemalans. False radio broadcasts produced a fake reality of freedom fighter victories and army defections. Arbenz asked the UN to send fact finders, but Washington prevented that from happening. American journalists, with the exception of James Reston, supported the lies. Washington threatened and bought off Guatemala’s senior military commanders, who forced Arbenz to resign. The CIA’s chosen and well paid “liberator,” Col. Castillo Armas, was installed as Arbenz’s successor.

    We recently witnessed a similar operation in Honduras and Ukraine.

    President Eisenhower thanked the CIA for averting “a Communist beachhead in our hemisphere,” and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles gave a national TV and radio address in which he declared that the events in Guatemala “expose the evil purpose of the Kremlin.” This despite the uncontested fact that the only outside power operating in Guatemala was the Dulles brothers.

    What had really happened is that a democratic and reformist government was overthrown because it compensated United Fruit Company for the nationalization of the company’s fallow land at a value listed by the company on its tax returns. America’s leading law firm or perhaps more accurately, America’s foreign policy-maker, Sullivan & Cromwell, had no intention of permitting a democratic government to prevail over the interests of the law firm’s client, especially when senior partners of the firm controlled both overt and covert US foreign policy. The two brothers, whose family members were invested in the United Fruit Company, simply applied the resources of the CIA, State Department, and US media to the protection of their private interests.

    The extraordinary gullibility of the American people, the corrupt American media, and the indoctrinated and impotent Congress allowed the Dulles brothers to succeed in overthrowing a democracy.

    Keep in mind that this use of the US government in behalf of private interests occurred 60 years ago long before the corrupt Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes. And no doubt in earlier times as well, as General Smedley Butler has attested.

    The Dulles brothers next intended victim was Ho Chi Minh. Ho, a nationalist leader, asked for America’s help in freeing Vietnam from French colonial rule. But John Foster Dulles, a self-righteous anti-communist, miscast Ho as a Communist Threat who was springing the domino theory on the Western innocents. Nationalism and anti-colonialism, Foster declared, were merely a cloak for communist subversion.

    Paul Kattenburg, the State Department desk officer for Vietnam suggested that instead of war, the US should give Ho $500 million in reconstruction aid to rebuild the country from war and French misrule, which would free Ho from dependence on Russian and Chinese support, and, thereby, influence. Ho appealed to Washington several times, but the demonic inflexibility of the Dulles brothers prevented any sensible response. Instead, the hysteria whipped-up over the “communist threat” by the Dulles brothers landed the United States in the long, costly, fiasco known as the Vietnam War.

    Kattenburg later wrote that it was suicidal for the US “to cut out its eyes and ears, to castrate its analytic capacity, to shut itself off from the truth because of blind prejudice.” Unfortunately for Americans and the world, castrated analytic capacity is Washington’s strongest suit.

    The Dulles brothers’ next targets were President Sukarno of Indonesia, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo, and Fidel Castro. The plot against Castro was such a disastrous failure that it cost Allen Dulles his job. President Kennedy lost confidence in the agency and told his brother Bobby that after his reelection he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. When President Kennedy removed Allen Dulles, the CIA understood the threat and struck first.

    Warren Nutter, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, later Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, taught his students that for the US government to maintain the people’s trust, which democracy requires, the government’s policies must be affirmations of our principles and be openly communicated to the people. Hidden agendas, such as those of the Dulles brothers and the Clinton, Bush and Obama regimes, must rely on secrecy and manipulation and, thereby, arouse the distrust of the people. If Americans are too brainwashed to notice, many foreign nationals are not.

    The US government’s secret agendas have cost Americans and many peoples in the world tremendously. Essentially, the Dulles brothers created the Cold War with their secret agendas and anti-communist hysteria. Secret agendas committed Americans to long, costly, and unnecessary wars in Vietnam and the Middle East. Secret CIA and military agendas intending regime change in Cuba were blocked by President John F. Kennedy and resulted in the assassination of a president, who, for all his faults, was likely to have ended the Cold War twenty years before Ronald Reagan seized the opportunity.

    Secret agendas have prevailed for so long that the American people themselves are now corrupted. As the saying goes, “a fish rots from the head.” The rot in Washington now permeates the country.

    It is a rot that threatens the entire world.

  • Remembering The Lessons Of WWII: Putin Calls For A "Non-Aligned System Of International Security"

    While celebrating V-Day (marking the day the allies accepted Nazi surrender in WWII), Russian president Vladamir Putin said that Russia is all for creating a non-aligned system of international security to counter global terror.

    Picking up where Obama couldn’t finish, Russia gave a complete and unrelenting pounding to ISIS in Syria (albeit to protect an interest in having Assad’s regime stay in tact), and proved that it will not mess around with ISIS or any other terrorist extremists. Russia’s stance was reiterated during the V-Day celebration in Moscow, where in his speech, Putin referenced the violence that these extremist groups have brought to the world, and indicated that it is a threat to be taken seriously: “Today our civilization has faced brutality and violence – terrorism has become a global threat.”

    Putin also implied that the evil the world faces today is akin to that of the Nazi threat during WWII, and called upon everyone to remember the lessons of history, unify, and defeat the terrorists. “The lessons of history show that peace on our planet doesn’t establish itself, that you need to be on high alert. We must defeat this evil, and Russia is open to join forces with all countries and is ready to work on the creation of a modern, non-aligned system of international security.

    Of course, even after seemingly extending an olive branch to the United States, Putin couldn’t resist taking a quick jab at the Obama Administration’s complete incompetence when it comes to its handling of ISIS, noting that one of the lessons that should be learned from history is that “double standards, and short-sighted indulgence to those who are nurturing new criminal plans” is unacceptable.

    Make no mistake about it, Putin is positioning himself yet again as the strong leader that Obama clearly is not. As the U.S. continues to lose credibility around the world, Putin is making sure to take every opportunity to be there for everyone when they need real leadershipwho could have possibly seen that coming.


  • Cell Phone Addiction: 15 Numbers That Show The Ridiculous Obsession Americans Have With Their Phones

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

    Have you ever had a family gathering, a social function or a business meeting ruined by someone that was obsessed with checking their cell phone?  I see this wherever I go, and it is one of the reasons why I don’t like to leave the house much.  No matter who is around and no matter how important what they are supposed to be doing may be, many Americans feel a deep, dark compulsion to constantly check their smartphones.  As you will see below, the average user checks his or her phone 35 times a day, but of course there are some people that are well into the triple digits.  Cell phone addiction is very real, and that is why there are actually rehab programs for this sort of thing.  Unfortunately, we simply can’t put the entire country into rehab, and this problem just keeps getting worse with each passing year.

    Below, I want to share with you 15 numbers that show how ridiculous our obsession with our smartphones has become.  I think that you will agree with me that our addiction to cell phones has gotten way out of control…

    1. The average smartphone user checks his or her phone 35 times a day.

     

    2. Common Sense media just released a new survey that found that 50 percent of American teens admit that they “feel addicted” to their smartphones.

     

    3. Close to 70 percent of parents and teens say that they have argued about smartphone usage.

     

    4. 77 percent of parents say that “their teenagers were sometimes distracted by their phones or tablets during time spent together with family”.

     

    5. Even though it is illegal in almost every state, 56 percent of parents confess that they check their mobile devices while drivig.

     

    6. 51 percent of teens admit that they have seen their parents check their smartphones while driving.

     

    7. A different survey found that 75 percent of all smartphone users admit that they have texted while driving at least once.

     

    8. 70 percent of smartphone users check their phones “within an hour of getting up”.

     

    9. 56 percent of smartphone users check their phones “within an hour of going to sleep”.

     

    10. 61 percent of smartphone users admit that “they regularly sleep with their cell or smartphone turned on under their pillow or next to their bed”.

     

    11. 48 percent of smartphone users check their devices over the weekend.

     

    12. 51 percent of smartphone users check their devices continuously during their vacations.

     

    13. 44 percent of smartphone users admit that they would experience “a great deal of anxiety” if the phone went missing and they were unable to replace it for a week.

     

    14. One survey discovered that the average cell phone user is on the device for 3 hours and 8 minutes a day.

     

    15. A different survey found that the average cell phone user actually spends 3.6 hours a day using it.

    No matter how you break these numbers down, they paint a very clear picture of a society that is absolutely addicted to these devices.

    Unfortunately, this is not something that a lot of us take very seriously.  For example, just consider the following excerpt from a CNN article.  The author openly acknowledges the obsession that she has with her smartphone, but she is obviously not too concerned about it…

    If you asked me whether I’m addicted to my smartphone or whether I overuse it, I would say absolutely not. I pride myself on not keeping my devices (I have two of them!) in my bedroom while I sleep, and keeping them out of reach on the kitchen counter when I’m home with my kids. But, every time I walk into the kitchen, I find myself checking my email and Twitter feed.

     

    There’s almost a gravitational pull toward my BlackBerry and iPhone even when I know the chance that there is anything I need to see at that moment is next to zero. I feel that same pull the minute I wake up and make checking my devices one of the first things I do once I get out of bed.

    To me, our society was so much better off when all we had were rotary phones that were physically tied to the wall.  In this day and age, we have a generation of people that have been trained to think that it is okay to pull out their mobile devices and stare into them like zombies wherever they are.  And especially among our young people there are many that start to get physically uncomfortable if they have to talk to you for more than five minutes without checking their phones.

    Of course this is just another indication of how “me-centered” our society has become.  Our phones have literally become extensions of ourselves, and we love to immerse ourselves in our own little worlds.

    There is something deeply narcissistic about our love affair with these smartphones.  Yes, I understand that millions of us have to use them for work, and in many ways they do make our lives much more convenient.

    But on the other hand they are greatly contributing to the sense of loneliness and isolation that so many Americans are feeling these days.

    Instead of having deep, meaningful relationships with our phones, perhaps we should try having deep, meaningful relationships with one another.

    After all, previous generations of Americans seemed to have done just fine without checking their phones every five minutes.

  • With A Historic -150% Net Short Position, Carl Icahn Is Betting On An Imminent Market Collapse

    Over the past year, based on his increasingly more dour media appearances, billionaire Carl Icahn had been getting progressively more bearish. At first, he was mostly pessimistic about junk bonds, saying last May that “what’s even more dangerous than the actual stock market is the high yield market.” As the year progressed his pessimism become more acute and in December he said that the “meltdown in high yield is just beginning.” It culminated in February when he said on CNBC that a “day of reckoning is coming.”

    Some skeptics thought that Icahn was simply trying to scare investors into selling so he could load up on risk assets at cheaper prices, however that line of thought was quickly squashed two weeks ago when Icahn announced to the shock of ever Apple fanboy that several years after his “no brainer” investment in AAPL, Icahn had officially liquidated his entire stake.

    As it turns out, Icahn’s AAPL liquidation was just the appetizer of how truly bearish the legendary investor has become.

    * * *

    As readers will recall, when it comes to what we believe is one of the world’s most bearish hedge funds, we traditionally highlight the net exposure of Horseman Global, which not only has been profitable for the past four years, it has done so while running a net short book. To the point, as of March 31, Horseman was net short by a record 98%.

     

    As it turns out this was nothing compare to Icahn’s latest net exposure.

    In the just disclosed 10-Q of Icahn’s investment vehicle, Icahn Enterprises LP in which the 80 year old holds a 90% stake, we find that as of March 31, Carl Icahn – who subsequently divested his entire long AAPL exposure – has been truly putting money, on the short side, where his mouth was in the past quarter. So much so that what on December 31, 2015 was a modest 25% net short, has since exploded into a gargantuan, and unprecedented for Icahn, 149% net short position.


    This is the result of a relatively flat long gross exposure of 164% resulting from a 156% equity and 8% credit long (a combined long exposure which is certainly far lower following the AAPL liquidation), and a soaring short book which has exploded from 150% as of March 31, 2015 to a whopping 313% one year later, on the back of 277% in gross short equity exposure and 36% short credit.

     

    Putting this number in context, in the history of IEP, not only has Icahn never been anywhere near this short, but just one year ago when he first started complaining about stocks, he was still 4% net long. Thos days are gone, and starting in Q3 and Q4, Icahn proceeded to wage into net short territory, with roughly -25% exposure, a number that has increased a record six-fold in just the last quarter!

    What is just as notable is the dramatic leverage involved on both sides of the flatline, but nothing compares to the near 3x equity leverage on the short side (this is not CDS). As a reminder, Icahn Enterprises used to be run as a hedge fund with outside investors, but Icahn returned outside money in 2011, leaving IEP and Icahn as the two dominant investors.  According to Barron’s, the entire fund appears to be about $5.8 billion, with $4 billion coming from Icahn personally. Which means that this is a very substantial bet in dollar terms.

    When asked about this unprecedented bearish position, Icahn Enterprises CEO Keith Cozza said during the May 5 earnings call that “Carl has been very vocal in recent weeks in the media about his negative views.” He certainly has been, although many though he was merely exagerating. He was not.

    We’re much more concerned about the market going down 20% than we are it going up 20%. And so the significant weighting to the short side reflects that,” Cozza added. 

    Icahn was not personally present at the conference call, however now that his bet on what is arguably a massive market crash has become public, we are confident he will be on both CNBC and Bloomberg TV in the coming days if not hours, to provide damage control and to avoid a panic as mom and pop investors scramble, and wonder just what does one of the world’s most astute investors see that they don’t. 

    Source

  • State Department "Unable To Find" Hillary Emails To IT Aide, Apologizes For Incompetence

    To say the least, it's going to be an interesting couple of months for Hillary Clinton. As the FBI probe into Clinton's handling of classified information makes its way to Clinton herself, the Clinton camp will also need be focused on trying to stave off attacks by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

    More on the FBI probe in a moment, but first, one of the key areas that Trump will inevitably be focused on is trying to frame Hillary Clinton as just another typical insider who despite the rhetoric, is as cozy with Wall Street as any other bought and paid for politician. To that end, the Republicans are not letting go of the fact that Hillary has yet to release any transcripts of her speeches given to Wall Street. As The Hill reports, Republican operatives are scouring the country for transcripts, notes, or secret recordings of those Wall Street speeches that the Clinton camp refuses to discuss in any great detail – probably because Goldman Sachs alone paid Clinton $675,000 to speak. We're going to go out on a limb here, but Clinton probably was not brought in to speak multiple times by Wall Street firms just so they could hear how bad they were, which is precisely why the GOP wants to get its hands on anything they can related to those speeches (recall: The Real Reason Hillary Clinton Refuses To Release Her Wall Street Transcripts).

    Ian Prior, communications director for Republican group American Crossroads, said that information on the Goldman speeches would prove cataclysmic for the Democratic party. "Just mail the Goldman Sachs transcripts to every Bernie supporter. There's your targeted mail program right there" Prior said, while also noting that it certainly would be one way to stop Bernie's supporters from voting for Clinton. Of course, the Democrats view the entire thing as a "total non-issue."

    Thus far, the Republicans have not been able to come up with anything significant outside of some attendee's recollection that the speech "was pretty glowing about us." One GOP official said the while efforts have been made, this is one of those situations where high profile and potentially damaging documents remain out of reach.

    Speaking of high profile and potentially damaging documents, as the FBI probe is winding down (with the conclusion of the investigation perhaps being an interview of Clinton directly), the State Department reiterated claims it made last December that it still can't seem to locate any emails to or from Clinton IT aide Bryan Pagliano

    Spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau told reporters Monday that the State Department hasn't been able to locate a single email Pagliano sent or received from May 1, 2009 to February 1, 2013. In addition to a gap in email correspondence, the State Department also does not have any text messages or BlackBerry Messenger messages sent to or from Clinton during her time in office according to The Hill.

    As The Weekly Standard notes, we know that at least one email was sent directly from Pagliano to Clinton during the missing time period…

     

    Of course, it has been able to locate emails for the time period after Clinton left the State Department…

    "The department has searched for Mr. Pagliano's e-mail PST file, and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton's tenure.

     

    To be clear, the department does have records related to Mr. Pagliano and we are working with Congress and FOIA requesters to provide relevant material. The department has located a PST for Mr. Pagliano's recent work at the department as a contractor.

     

    But the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the department. We are continuing to search for Mr. Pagliano's e-mails which the department may have otherwise retained.

     

    "The department does acknowledge, we must work to improve our systems for record management and retention as part of the ongoing effort, the department is not automatically archiving Secretary Kerry's e-mails as well as the e-mails of numerous senior staff."

    Here are some headlines from Bloomberg:

    • *DEPARTMENT SAYS HAS SOME RECORDS FROM AFTER CLINTON'S DEPARTURE
    • *STATE DEPT. SAYS STILL LOOKING FOR PAGLIANO E-MAILS
    • *STATE DEPT: WE HAVE WORK TO DO TO IMPROVE RECORDS MANAGEMENT
    •  *REPUBLICANS HAD SOUGHT E-MAILS FROM/TO BRYAN PAGLIANO

    We'll let the readers draw their own conclusions from the State Departments comments, but once again we remind everyone that the Justice Department has granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano in exchange for his cooperation with the FBI investigation. Also as a reminder, as former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker pointed out, if the FBI does interview Clinton, they will only be asking questions that they already have the answers to – answers that could be provided by Pagliano's own computer, which the FBI already has in its possession.

    For those that wish to have blood shoot out of their eyes and ears, here is the State Department press conference…

  • M. King Hubbert: The Limits To Oil

    Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    M. King Hubbert did more to raise awareness of the finite nature of global oil reserves than any other person, living or dead. He was a larger-than-life figure, who fought tirelessly to insert the limits of nature into the national dialog regarding the strategic use of resources. Yet surprisingly little has been publicly documented about the man, even though we are hurtling ever faster into a future shaped by the very limits he warned about.

    In today's podcast, Chris talks with Mason Inman about his new book The Oracle Of Oil, the first in-depth biography of M. King Hubbert, to learn more about the genesis of the Peak Oil theory:

    Hubbert was in a much higher position within the oil industry than I had realized. He was Head of Research at Shell Oil with the research for exploration and production of oil. At the time — this was in the 40’s through the 60’s when he was there — Shell’s lab was the most advanced in the industry, so he was really a leader within the industry.

     

    Also, it turned out there wasn’t a job for trying to forecast the future of oil. Basically, nobody was really doing anything rigorous. It had been growing quickly and they just kind of assumed that this would continue. He was doing this on his own, going against the grain in the industry to try to make forecasts that were rigorous. When he came out with bad news where he was saying that it looks like the oil production in the US will peak around the late 60’s or early 70’s, this was not a message that the industry wanted to hear. He had to fight to try to get people to take it seriously even though he had this really important position within the industry(…)

     

    He was very stubborn, which had some good sides to it and some bad sides to it. Even when people weren’t listening to him, he still kept hammering away at these issues about that growth can’t continue forever, that we’ll run into limits with oil production and that the economy is often shaped by forces that aren’t the best for common people necessarily. Even when people weren’t listening, he still kept trying to get these messages across for decades because he believed that education and rational discussion was the best way to try to change society.

     

    I really came to appreciate his persistence in his and it was remarkable how he never seemed to get bitter that it was difficult to get these messages across. Sometimes when other people did start to get attention for similar ideas, he wasn’t bitter that they were getting a lot of attention rather than he was. For example, in the early 1970’s there’s this report, The Limits to Growth that came out that got a lot of attention and in his talks Hubbert pointed out this was essentially what he had been talking about for years and the people who were behind The Limits to Growth report, these MIT researchers, they actually said that they got a lot of inspiration from Hubbert. I have a letter that I ran across in Hubbert’s papers from Dennis Meadows, who was one of the leaders of The Limits to Growth report and he was suggesting a collaboration with Hubbert and it never came about, but it’s kind of amazing to think about What if they had? (…)

     

    It's important for people to realize that conventional oil production did peak a decade ago in 2006. Conventional oil makes up about 90% of the oil that we consume now and it's from the kind of fields where you drill a hole in the ground and oil comes out. The unconventional oil that we hear a lot more about — like from fracking, where you have to pump all this fluid in to create fractures in the rocks in order to get any oil out, or tar sands where you have to dig things up and cook them down in order to get oil out — those unconventional sources get a lot of attention because they’re the marginal source that have a lot of influence on what the price of oil is. But, they actually make up a very small part of what we consume, so people have generated a lot of hype around fracking but it's a relatively small player in the overall oil market — though it can have a big influence on prices, as we’ve seen lately. Fracking is not the only reason why the price of oil has dropped lately. It’s also because the world economy is not doing well and the growth forecasts keep getting revised downward, but it definitely played a role that oil production in the US was able to increase so rapidly. But that’s tied up with a whole bunch of stuff like cheap credit being available to these companies so that they could boost production without really having to worry about the normal things that businesses worry about.

     

    That’s a big reason why we’re not seeing the death of peak oil I think, because we’ve hit this limit with conventional oil production. Companies have had every reason to try to boost production of conventional oil if they could, and so far it seems like they haven’t been able to. And now major forecasters like the International Energy Agency or Exxon Mobil or BP: they all say that conventional oil production isn’t going to go any higher than it is now. But those forecasters have also generally been overly optimistic about how much conventional oil production there would be. They didn’t foresee this peak coming so I’m inclined to think that their latest forecasts are probably also overly optimistic. If they’re saying it's just going to be flat from here on for the next quarter century, that’s probably too high. We’re probably looking at a decline in conventional oil production coming.

     

    I've definitely found a lot of reports from the military in the US and other countries that are raising concerns about peak oil or about limits to the oil that might be available to the military and the cost of that oil. They’re definitely thinking about these issues. 

    Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Mason Inman (38m:30s)

  • Options Traders Confidence Collapses Most Since August Crash

    The realized (actual) volatility of the US equity market has plunged in recent weeks to its lowest since April 2015 as an odd complacency washed across risk assets emboldened by "whatever it takes" synonyms spewing from every and any central banker in the world. However, options traders appear to be losing faith in the market turmoil cease-fire as implied volatility (the market's best guess at future uncertainty) trades at its largest premium to historical volatility in over a year.

    As Bloomberg reports, there have only been six days the S&P 500 swung more than 1 percent since the start of March, the longest comparable stretch of peace since May 2015. That’s lured automated funds that trade based on volatility trends to buy more U.S. stocks, increasing their ability to wreak havoc should markets start to crack.

    Price swings have been relatively muted the past two months, but options traders are betting it won’t last. The gap between the one-month historical volatility, a measure of actual price swings, and what traders are willing to pay for protection is at its widest since August.

    Implied volatility trades at a 55% premium to realized volatility – its highest in a year…

    The last time this happened, as the chart suggests, the 'market' is perceiving the fragility in the calm is going to end very soon – just as it did in the summer of 2015, before the August crash.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th May 2016

  • HSBC’s London Gold Vault: Is This Gold’s Secret Hiding Place?

    Submitted by Ronan Manly of Bullionstar

    HSBC’s London Gold Vault: Is This Gold’s Secret Hiding Place?

    HSBC’s main gold vault in London regularly comes under the media spotlight for a number of reasons. These reasons include:

    a) the HSBC London vault stores a very large amount of gold on behalf of gold-backed Exchange Traded Funds, primarily the well-known SPDR Gold Trust (GLD)

    b) along with the Bank of England vaults and JP Morgan vault, the HSBC vault is one of the 3 largest gold vaults in London

    c) the location of the HSBC vault in London is not publicised and so the secrecy creates intrigue

    d) HSBC every so often throws out some visual or audio-visual media bait about the vault, most famously in the case of CNBC’s Bob Pisani and his camerman and producer visiting and filming inside the actual vault

    Despite all of the above, no one seems to have ever tried to figure out where this gold vault is actually located. Until now.

    In some ways HSBC has done a very good job keeping the location of its London gold vault under wraps. The main challenge is where does one begin to look for a vault in London from scratch. At first it would appear that there is nothing in the public domain pointing to the HSBC vault location. This is not entirely true however. The gold bullion activities of HSBC in London stem from two companies that over time became part of the HSBC group. My approach was to start by thinking about which London locations HSBC used to be based at. I took this approach because it became obvious that the HSBC London gold vault being used was still a battered looking old vault space in 2004 and 2005, which was after the entire HSBC company had moved to its spanking new London headquarters in Canary Wharf by 2003.

    In New York, the location of the HSBC Bank USA precious metals vault in Manhattan is well-known and is even listed in CFTC documents such as here. The vault is at 1 West 39th Street, SC 2 Level , New York, New York 10018 , which is the same building as 450 Fifth Avenue, which is the former Republic National Bank building that HSBC took over in 1999-2000. This Republic building at 450 Fifth Avenue, when it was being built, “had special vault requirements that reportedly added significantly to the project’s cost“. So its hard to see why HSBC makes such a big deal of not revealing its London vault location.

    History of HSBC gold operations in London

    In 1993, HSBC Holdings plc relocated its headquarters to London after having acquired Britain’s Midland Bank the previous year. Midland in turn had fully acquired Samuel Montagu in 1974 to form Midland Montagu. Samuel Montagu & Co was a City of London bullion broker, and one of the 5 original gold fixing members of the London Gold Fixing, and in turn, Midland Montagu was also a Gold Fixer. In 1999, HSBC began using the name ‘HSBC’ for the Gold Fixing seat of Midland Montagu.

    Between 1999 and 2000, HSBC completed the acquisition of Republic National Bank of New York. Republic National Bank of New York had been a big player in the world gold markets, and in 1993, Republic National had bought one of the London Gold Fixing seats from Mase Westpac, meaning that from 1993 both Republic National and Midland Montagu held Gold Fixing seats, and that HSBC ended up with 2 of the 5 Gold Fixing seats. Therefore, in 2000, following the Republic National takeover, HSBC in London sold one of its newly acquired seats to Credit Suisse.

    I also have always thought that the HSBC vault is in central London, and not in some far-flung outer London location. The LPMCL website (www.lpmcl.com) still displays text that says that the bullion clearer’s vaults are in ‘central London locations’:

    “The five London bullion clearing members each maintain confidential secure vaulting facilities within central London locations, using either their own premises, or those of a secure storage agent…”

    Anyone who knows London will understand that ‘central London’ refers to a small number of central districts, and not some broader inside the M25 (ring road) definition. Before moving to Canary Wharf in circa 2003, HSBC occupied a number of buildings clustered around the north bank of the River Thames, including 10 Lower Thames Street (the Banks’ Headquarters), 3 Lower Thames Street (St Magnus House), 10 Queen Street Place at the corner of Upper Thames Street (Thames Exchange – containing a trading floor), and Vintners Place (adjoined to Vintners Hall on the other side of Queen Street Place and Upper Thames Street).

    HSBC Bank USA NA (London branch)

    Until late 2014, the HSBC entity that was the custodian of the SPDR Gold Trust was “HSBC Bank USA NA (London branch)”. NA means National Association. On 21 November 2014, effective 22 December 2014, the custodian for the SPDR Gold Trust switched from HSBC Bank USA, National Association to HSBC Bank plc.

    HSBC Bank USA NA (London branch), until 2015, was also the HSBC entity that was listed as a member of London Precious Metals Clearing Limited (LPMCL) on the LPMCL website. See, for example, September 2009 imprint of LPMCL website. The next step is therefore to see where HSBC Bank USA NA (London branch) was formerly located.

    The Financial Services Register (FSA Register) lists HSBC Bank USA, Reference number: 141298, effective from 24 January 2000, with a registered address of Thames Exchange, 10 Queen Street Place, London EC4R 1BE. Recalling the Republic National connection, the previous registered name for this entity was “Republic National Bank of New York”, with the same address, effective from 18 December 1995 to 24 January 2000. The FSA Register entry also lists various well-known names of the HSBC gold world alongside this HSBC Bank USA entity, including Jeremy Charles, Peter Fava and David Rose.

    Recalling the Samual Montagu / Midland Montagu connection to HSBC, an entity called Montagu Precious Metals is also listed with an old address at “2nd Floor, Thames Exchange, 10 Queen Street Place, London EC4R 1BQ.

    An old gold information website called GoldAvenue from the year 2000, written by Timothy Green, also lists HSBC Bank USA (London branch) address as:

    HSBC Bank USA
    London branch
    Thames Exchange
    10 Queen Street Place
    London EC4R 1BQ

    That same Gold Avenue web page also correctly listed the HSBC New York vault address as:

    HSBC Bank USA
    452 Fifth Avenue
    New York, NY 10018

    which is the same building as West 39th Street, New York, in Manhattan.

    The precursor to the SPDR Gold Trust was called Gold Bullion Ltd, a vehicle set up by Graham Tuckwell, promoted by the World Gold Council, and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Gold Bullion Ltd’s first day of trading was 28th March 2003. Following Gold Bullion Ltd’s launch, the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) was then launched in 2004, but originally it was called STREETracks Gold Shares, and it even had another former working title of ‘Equity Gold Trust’ in early 2004.

    A May 2003 Marketwatch article about Gold Bullion Ltd and the early incarnation of the SPDR Gold Trust (Equity Gold Trust) can be seen here, and a speech by Graham Tuckwell about Gold Bullion Ltd to the LBMA annual conference in Lisbon in 2003 can be seen here.  Most importantly, an early draft Prospectus of Gold Bullion Ltd (in MS Word), dated 10 February 2003, lists the Custodian of Gold Bullion Ltd as:

    CUSTODIAN BANK
    HSBC Bank USA
    Thames Exchange
    10 Queen Street Place
    London EC4R 1BQ

    Therefore, Thames Exchange goes to the top of the list for further consideration, as does it’s neighbour Vintner’s Place. Thames Exchange and Vintners Place were both HSBC buildings and both buildings are situated right across the road from each other, with Queen Street Place literally bisecting the 2 buildings. Queen Street Place is also the road that acts as the approach road to Southwark Bridge, with the 10 Queen Street Place building and the Vintners Place building literally creating a canyon either side of the road.

    You will see below why Queen Street Place is interesting. Queen Street Place is very near the Bank of England and is in the City of London, so it’s under City of London Police protection. It’s also very near the River Thames, as is the JP  Morgan London vault. To get to the Bank of England from Queen Street Place, you literally walk a mintute north up Queens Street, and then a few minutes north-east along Queen Victoria Street and you’re at the Bank of England.

    An official HSBC letter-headed note documenting the Thames Exchange address and proving HSBC occupied this building can be seen here. Similarly, an official letter-headed note documenting the Vintner’s Place address, and proving that HSBC occupied that building can be seen here.

    HSBC moves out of the City of London – 2002/2003

    A Property Week article from 20 April 2000, titled “JLL to mastermind HSBC’s City exodus“, covered the huge HSBC move out of the City to Canary Wharf in the early 2000s:

    Army of firms called in to help co-ordinate bank’s relocation to Docklands by 2002

    “HSBC has stepped up its retreat from the City of London by instructing agents to open negotiations on the disposal of its outstanding City liabilities.

    In one of the most hotly contested pitches of last year, Jones Lang Lasalle has beaten rivals to secure the lead role as strategic adviser for the bank’s relocation to Docklands [Canary Wharf] in 2002.

    In addition to JLL, the bank has instructed another seven firms to mastermind the disposal of its 121,000 sq m (1,302,445 sq ft) City portfolio.”

    “HSBC has ruled out acquiring freehold or long-leasehold interests and has instructed agents to negotiate the best surrender or assignment of the occupational leases on its 12 City buildings.”

    Morgan Pepper is advising on HSBC’s 17-year lease at Thames Exchange, 10 Queen Street Place, EC4. The Scottish Amicable building is currently under offer to Blackstone Real Estate Advisors for £73m.

    Insignia Richard Ellis, Chapman Swabey, Strutt & Parker and Wright Oliphant have positions on the bank’s remaining interests in Vintners Place EC3; Bishop’s Court at Artillery Street, and HSBC’s 37,160 sq m (400,000 sq ft) office complex at St Magnus House and Montagu House.

    By the time STREETracks Gold Trust (the original name for the SPDR Gold Trust) was launched in 2004, HSBC Bank USA’s address had moved to HSBC’s new headquarters in Canary Wharf, in the Docklands, east of the City of London. By early 2003, Equity Gold Trust also listed the HSBC custodian with the Canary Wharf address.

    An article by engineering company Arup  HSBC Headquarters – Canary Wharf – Arup), describing the new HSBC Canary Wharf building, dated 21 April 2004 stated:

    “The phased occupation of the [Canary Wharf] building was completed in February 2003 when the last of over 8000 staff moved in, with HSBC Group Chairman Sir John Bond officially opening the building as the Group’s new head office on 2 April 2003.”

    However, the old HSBC gold vault did not ‘move’ at the time the rest of HSBC moved lock, stock, and barrel to Canary Wharf between 2002-2003. In fact, the HSBC vault remained where it was in a slightly rundown shabby space with cream-colored walls. See multiple photos of the vault space below. The HSBC vault did however transform from an ‘old’ vault into a ‘new’ vault sometime between 2006 to early 2007. My belief, which I’ll explain below, is that this vault didn’t move, it just received an extensive renovation.

    A diagram of the HSBC headquarters in Canary Wharf where the whole London HSBC workforce moved to by early 2003 can be seen below. Notice the car parks in basements B2, B3 and B4. You can also read about the basement construction in the Arup document above. This is not the location for a beat-up old vault that can be seen in the below old gold vault shots. Besides, the vertical pillars/piles in the old and new HSBC vault are nothing like the huge structural pillars/piles found in the HSBC headquarters in Canary Wharf.

    The pillars in the old HSBC vault photos are pillars that would be found in an old arched vault, while the support pillars in the new HSBC vault photos are those that would be found in relatively shallow spaces under a road, such as pillars/supports used in the cut and cover New York subway system.

    HSBC Headquarters - Canary WharfArup diagram of HSBC Headquarters, Canary Wharf. lower section and basement

    HSBC Gold Vault Photos

    December 2004:

    Here you can see an early gold vault photo of Graham Tuckwell, joint managing director of Gold Bullion Securities, and Stuart Thomas, managing director of World Gold Trust Services, in the ‘old’ HSBC vault in December 2004 checking a HSBC bar list:

    DSC_0130_800.jpg

    Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20051125081854/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0130_800.jpg

    And another photo, taken at the same time, of Stuart Thomas in the vault in December 2004:

    dsc_0178_800.jpg

    Notice the very old piping around the top of the walls.

    Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20051125082702/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/images/dsc_0178_800.jpg

    In fact, there are lots more photos of the inside of the ‘old’ vault on the StreetTRACKS website here https://web.archive.org/web/20060518124841/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/us/media/gb_media.php

    June 2005:

    See five photos below of vault in June 2005:

    DSC_0008_800.jpg

    ‘Old’ vault looks quite beaten with concrete pillars, old floor, old air conditioning unit, and awful decor, and some type of desk an chair and wiring on the very right hand side of the photo.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070112174208/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0008_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070112174517/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0010_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070117114104/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0023_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070112174136/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0034_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070112174218/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0056_800.jpg

    October 2005:

    Managing Director Stuart Thomas, Director of Corporate Communications, George Milling-Stanley of World Gold Trust Services, and CFO and Treasurer James Lowe (wearing a gold tie) of World Gold Trust Services

    DSC_0137_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070223040356/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0137_800.jpg

    6 more vault shots of gold bars stacked on pallets:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061110002622/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0061_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070109203025/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0055_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070110123058/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0042_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070110204026/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0149_800.jpg

    DSC_0149_800.jpg

    When the gold is stacked 6 pallets high, as in the above photo, it nearly reaches up to where the pillars start to broaden out. Recall for a moment the definition of a vault. A vault is any space covered by arches, or an arched ceiling over a void. This is why the Bank of England ‘vaults’ are called vaults, because in the old vaults of the Bank of England (before the Bank of England was rebuilt in the 1920s/1930s), the gold was stored in the arched vaulted basements. The pillars in the shots of this ‘old’ HSBC vault look like pillars/piles that are the lower parts of arches, since they taper outwards as they go higher and they are positioned in a grid like formation.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20061110002907/http://www.streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0037_800.jpg

    http://web.archive.org/web/20070111113411/http://streettracksgoldshares.com/images/DSC_0065_800.jpg

    DSC_0042_800.jpg

    You can see how all the pallets of gold were located in a space with quite a lot of walls and chunky support pillars that broaden at the top (i.e. support pillars). Very similar pillars can be seen in old parts of the London Underground pedestrian tunnels, and also in the Vintner’s Hall wine vaults, which is next door to the vaults under Queen Street Place.

    The NEW HSBC Vault 2007

    During the second half of 2007, a series of 4 photos appeared on the STREETTracks website of a ‘New’ HSBC gold vault in London. The headline title of this series of images was

    “The gold in trust at HSBC’s gold vault in London. The gold is being held in Trust for the shareholders of GLD. These images as at June 2007?

     This STREETTracks web page can be accessed via the following link, however, the photos don’t render properly.
    June 2007 photos intro
    However, I did source the photos in other dated instances from a similar link, and uploaded them. See below.

    2007 George Milling-Stanley and possibly a bearded Stuart Thomas – June 2007

    dsc_0127_800.jpg

    George Millin-Stanley’s watch puts the time at 11:45am.

    https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dsc_0127_800.jpg

    Milling-Stanley and 3 others – probably from State Street and BONY – June2007

    dsc_0102_800.jpg

    https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dsc_0102_800.jpg

    New vault – wide angle shot 2007

    dsc_0018_800.jpg

    https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dsc_0018_800.jpg

    2nd wide angle new vault shot 2007

    dsc_0005_800.jpg

    https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/dsc_0005_800.jpg

    The MarketWatch website and a GLD SEC submission mentioned the ‘new’ vault move in an article on 11th January 2008:
    “…StreetTracks Gold Shares, a wildly popular exchange-traded fund so awash in investor cash that its backers recently scrambled to find a bigger vault to accommodate their ever-growing horde of the precious metal, now valued at $18 billion.”
    “Because the StreetTracks reserve expanded faster than expected, its managers had to move the stores to a bigger vault about six months ago to make more room, says George Milling-Stanley, a spokesman for the gold council.”
    Graham Tuckwell, Chairman of ETF Securities, also referred to the ‘old’ and ‘new’ vaults at the LBMA Conference in Hong Kong in November 2012. On page 3, section C “Is the Gold Really There?”, Tuckwell shows 2 photos to the audience, one from “10 years ago” and one a recent photo. In the old photo, which is probably this photo
    he says “the fellow on the left is a 10-year younger version of me“. He also says: “That was the old vault when we started doing it, and you can see that we are doing a bit of a check“.
    Then Tuckwell goes on to say: “This photograph was taken just over a year ago on a recent vault visit“… “Our gold, from the London product, the GBS, is on the left and the gold from the US product, the GLD, is on the right in this picture“. GBS was the Australian product and GLD being the State Street product, listed in November 2004. 
    As it turns out, there are vaults beneath the road under Queen Street Place, between 10 Queen Street Place (Thames Exchange) and Vintners Place, and these vaults were renovated during the period that would coincide with the HSBC London gold vault transforming from an ‘old’ vault to a ‘new vault’.

    George Milling-Stanley in New Vault

    Southwark Bridge and The Queen Street Place Vaults

    Southwark Bridge is a bridge over the River Thames connecting the City of London (financial district) on the north bank of the river, to the area of Southwark on the south bank. The first Southwark Bridge (Queen Street Bridge) opened in 1819 and was an arched bridge with “vaults under the north abutment of the bridge“. There is also a reference to the vaults under Queen Street Place in a 1908 Corporation of London Record Office record.

    A second bridge, the current Southwark Bridge, replaced the earlier bridge, and it opened in 1921.

    A book titled ‘Design Applications of Raft Foundations‘, when discussing the development that became Vintners Place, mentions the vaults under Queen Street Place and shows that the vault space begins maybe 2.0 metres under the roadway, and with the vault space height being about 5 metres high which looks a very similar height to both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ HSBC vault spaces.

    Q St Vaults

    vintners and vaults

     

    In fact, there were up to 17 vaults under Queen Street Place judging by a planning application from 1992 which listed a Vault Q (assuming Vaults A – Q), and the application said that the vaults had been used for storage.

    Vault Q 1992

     

    Alterations to Vaults under Queen Street Place

    Keeping in mind that the ‘old’ HSBC gold vault became a ‘new’ HSBC gold vault sometime in 2006, or early 2007, then the following, in my view, becomes highly relevant. In September 2004, a building control planning application was submitted to City of London planning department for Alterations to Vaults in the Thames Exchange building at 10 Queen Street Place. See link for the application. See screenshots also.

    http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ZZZZWDFHXC664

    10 Queen Street Place - Alteration to Vaults application - 15 September 2004

    10 Queen Street Place - Alteration to Vaults application - Date 15 September 2004

    Fit Out of Vaults under Queen Street Place

    Following this in November 2005, another building control planning application was received by the City of London planning department for “Fit out of Vaults between 10 Queen Street Place and Vintners Place“. See link below and also screenshots.

    http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ZZZZWDFHXC269

    Fit out of vaults between 10 Queen Street Place and Vintners Place - Vaults application - 4 November 2005

    Fit out of vaults between 10 Queen Street Place and Vintners Place - Vaults application - Date 4 November 2005

    Thames Exchange – 10 Queen Street Place

    Blackstone bought Thames Exchange from Scottish Amicable in 2000 while it was still being leased to HSBC. HSBC then surrendered the lease of the building when it moved to Canary Wharf in 2003. Blackstone then renamed Thames Exchange to 10 Queen Street Place and began renovating it while leasing it to City law firm SJ Berwin for its new London headquarters. However, SJ Berwin only moved its London headquarters from Gray’s Inn Road to 10 Queen Street Place sometime between February and April 2006, so the renovations appear to have gone on during 2003-2005. Norwich Property Trust purchased 10 Queen Street Place from Blackstone in 2006, after it had been renovated. Notably, Norwich retained TFT Consultants to inspect 10 Queen Street Place. TFT Consultants states in a case-study on its website that:

     “We inspected this prominent riverside mixed-use building including extensive vaults underneath Southwark Bridge approach road and prepared a TDD report for Norwich Property Trust.”

    Property investor Jaguar bought the 10 Queen Street Place building from Norwich in 2008, and then the Malaysian haji pilgrims fund purchased 10 Queen Street Place from Jaguar in September 2012.
    Coincidentally, Vintners Place, which adjoins Queen Street Place on the other side of the vaults was also sold in September 2012 when Downtown Properties and a South Korean consortium bought it from Atlas Capital. The tenants at the time included Jefferies International, and Sumitomo and Thomson Reuters. Vintners Place also adjoins Thames House, Five Kings House, and The Worshipful Company of Vintners also has its headquarters in a building called Vintner’s Hall on the corner of Queen Street Place and Upper Thames Street.

    The Plans of the Vaults under Queen Street Place

    Detailed plans of the vaults under Queen Street Place before and after the ‘Alterations’ and ‘Fit Out’ can be seen here ( Vault Plans – Before 10 Queen Street Place – Vaults – Lower Ground Floor Plan – Before alterations) and here (Vault Plans – Proposed 10 Queen Street Place – Vaults – Lower Ground Floor Plan – After alterations). Both sets of plans were drawn up by Hurley, Robertson Architects. Click on the links to bring up the actual pdf files of the full plans.

    vaults before aVaults under Queen Street Place – old layout – dated 28 November 2002

     

    And more zoomed in. Notice all of the individual vaults and doors, and all of the walls with rows of pillars marked between the walls.

     

    vaults before bVaults under Queen Street Place – old layout zoomed in

     

    Compare the above plans to the ‘proposed’ plans. In the proposed plans, which are revision C08 dated 06 April 2006, all of the individual vaults have been removed by removing all the doors and walls, leaving just rows of pillars, and beams (given that it’s a top-down view looking down).

    vaults after aVaults under Queen Street Place – proposed vaults – 2006 updates

    You can see the changes a bit more clearly in the following slightly zoomed in version. Notice the facilities added on the right, such as toilets, kitchen, changing rooms, office, telecoms room etc, and also the rows of supports/ pillars on the left hand side, which is about 7 rows of supports / pillars in the open space, 5 of which run at the same angle, then there is a V shape where the pillars then run at a different angle.

    vaults after bVaults under Queen Street Place – proposed vaults – 2006 updates – zoomed in

    Anyone who has the inclination, given these sets of plans of the vaults under Queen Street Place, please check back over the photos of the ‘old’ HSBC vault and ‘new’ HSBC vault and decide for yourself if the photos in the ‘old’ cramped vault with the pillars and cream wall is reminiscent of the pre-alteration plans above. Likewise, decide for yourself if the ‘new’ HSBC London gold vault with the open plan design and layout of vertical steel support columns looks like the plans above of the ‘proposed’ alterations and ‘Fit Out’ of the vaults under Queen Street Place.

    When G4S built its subterranean gold vault in Park Royal, London in 2013 / 2014, it fitted it out the area beside the vault with toilets and a kitchen – See second last sentence in red box below from the G4S building contractor document. Because, if you are working down in a vault all day, there will need to be toilets and a kitchen area, as well as changing rooms, phones and desktop computers etc. For background to G4S vault, see “G4S London Gold Vault 2.0 – ICBC Standard Bank in, Deutsche Bank out“.

     

    GT4

     

    The Pisani Files – “This is it folks, this is the Motherlode!”

    Now we come to the Bob Pisani videos that were filmed by CNBC in the HSBC London gold vault in 2011. I say videos in plural because there are 4 video segments, and actually 5 segments in total including a trailer. The videos are quite exciting and fast-paced but frustrating because the camera is quite shaky and moves around rapidly for a lot of the vault segments, possibly on purpose. The background music is quite catchy also (at first).

    1. The Motherlode

    The first video is on a CBNC web page and embedded in an article titled “Gold’s secret hiding place”, however the video is titled “Gold Rush – The Mother Lode”. Its dated Wednesday, 31 Aug 2011 with a byline of “CNBC’s Bob Pisani recently got an exclusive inside look at the HSBC gold vaults in London, where the gold for the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) is stored.” The video is  4:55 mins long, and introduced by Pisani from the New York studio. The vault shots begin at 1:18, and interestnigly, at 0:40 mins, the camera is in a vehicle travelling down Lower Thames Street.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/44343442

    2. Gold’s Secret Hiding Place

    Let’s call this 2nd video “Gold’s Secret Hiding Place”. This version, which is different to the Motherlode, is on YouTube. I’m not sure of the official segment name. This version is 5:06 mins long, and Bob says the vault is “in a super-secret location only known to a few people”. This is also the version where Bob hands in his cellphone and travels in a blacked-out vehicle saying “we have no idea where we’re going. We only know our final destination. The vault!”

    There is a neat online app called Pause House which allows you to look at any YourTube clip frame-by-frame, and can be used on the above clip for those who want to get a good look at the vault interior. (Pause House).

    3. The Third version

    Lets call this the Third version. Its 2:43 mins long. Pisani starts on Waterloo Bridge on the River Thames and he points towards Westminster Bridge (the exact opposite direction to Southwark Bridge). Then he is in the blacked-out vehicle, and then in the vault from 1:04 mins. At this stage the music might be annoying, so luckily, there is no background music when Bob talks in the vault.

     

    4. Inside the Secret Vault

    This clip is 2:42 mins long and is dated Thursday, 8 Mar 2012 with a byline of “CNBC’s Bob Pisani gets unprecedented access inside the largest private gold reserve in the world.” Its slightly similar to version 3 above

    http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000077579

    5. Version 5 is just a 31 second trailer about the CNBC 2011 gold series, published in March 2012, with gold vault footage only appearing for a few seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUSqbqYOnRY&feature=youtu.be

    2005 vs 2011

    There is one sentence in both “Motherlode” and “Gold’s Secret Hiding Place” that I consider very interesting. And it relates to the ‘old’ and ‘new’ vaults. What Bob Pisani says has obviously been told to him by someone at HSBC, since he would not know anything about the vault in advance.

    At 3:37 mins in Motherlode, Pisani says  “In 2005, there was less than 200 tonnes of gold here, now there’s 6 times as much“. 

    At 4:05 mins in  Gold’s secret hiding place, Pisani says “In 2005, there was less than 200 tonnes of gold in this vault backing the GLD. Now there’s 6 times as much.”

    Pisani is essentially saying, probably without realising, that it is the same vault. i.e. that the vault in 2005 is the same vault as in 2011. However, given that the vault in 2005 was the ‘old’ vault, and that the vault in 2011 was the ‘new vault’, this suggests that it is the same space, and that the vault space was just renovated. It therefore supports the view that the vaults under Queen Street Place are a very strong candidate to be the HSBC London Gold Vault that stores the GLD gold and the ETF Securities gold.

    Fruiterers Passage

    You might have spotted above that one of the existing vaults under Southwark Bridge was turned into a riverside walkway. This was probably vault Q, which looked to be the vault nearest the river. This walkway runs under the beginning of the abutment on the north of SouthWark Bridge and is called the slightly humorous name ‘Fruiterers Passage’. The Passage was opened circa the year 2000 (and named after the Worshipful Company of Fruiterers), and is ornately tiled with ceramics, even around its pillar enclosures. Take a look at a photo of Fruiterers Passage and compare it to a photo of the new ‘HSBC’ gold vault that features the yellow-painted steel support pillars. The dimensions and spacings of the pillars in both photos look very similar, even identical.

     

    Fruity

    dsc_0005_800.jpg

    A video walk-through (2:45 mins) of Fruiterers Passage can be seen here. The first 20-30 seconds shows Southwark Bridge, and then the walk through the Passage begins:

     

    Although there are lots of security cameras around the City of London, the cameras in Fruiterers Passage and security warnings near the entrance to the Passage seem particularly explicit.

    CCT 1

    Sign

    Size Matters

    A MarketWatch article from 11 January 2008 quoted  George Milling-Stanley as saying that the vault was sizable but “not quite as big as a cricket pitch.” On another occasion, Milling-Stanley used another sporting analogy and described the ‘new’ vault as “about the size of a football field“. Can a sporting analogy (or two) help determine the size of the HSBC London gold vault? Possibly, but it’s not as clear-cut as you might think.

    Notwithstanding that a ‘cricket pitch’ is the (smallish) 22 yard strip between the wickets, the quotation was presumably referring to a ‘cricket field’.  However, there is no standard shape of a ‘cricket field’, let alone standardised dimensions, since the ICC rules only state that the field can be circular or oval with a variable diameter of between 450 and 500 feet on the ‘long’ side (sometimes giving 16,000 sq yards). Regarding Milling-Stanley’s ‘football field’, analogy, it’s not clear whether this analogy was intended for a US audience or non-US audience. So it could mean ‘American’ football, or soccer or rugby.

    In soccer, there is no standard size ‘field’. The sidelines (touch lines) have to be between 100 and 130 yards (110 to 120 yards for international matches), while the goal lines (end lines) must be between 50 and 100 yards (70 to 80 yards) in international matches. This could result in over 7000 sq meters or over 1.75 acres. The American football field is thankfully standardised, being 120 by 53.33 yards or 6400 sq yards.

    Overall, Milling-Stanley’s descriptions give a flavour for permissible dimensions, but based on Bob Pisani’s video tour, I see the vault as a rectangular space but not quite as big as a soccer pitch. So lets look at the space in Google Earth. I’ve just added a yellow rectangle for illustrative purposes to show where the vaults under Queen Street Place are located.

    QSP 3DBird’s Eye View – Queen Street Place looking north from Southwark Bridge – 10 Queen St Place on right, Vintners Place on left

    See also some cross-sectional plans that were part of the 2004 Blackstone Thames Exchange planning applications (Cross Section width 10 Queen St Place – from river view and Cross Section length 10 Queen St Place).

    QSP night shotNight shot – Queen Street Place without traffic

    The Marketwatch January 2008 article also said that the HSBC vault was “located on the outskirts of London” but how would the journalist know this since the same article also said that “a spokeswoman for HSBC declined to provide vault details, citing security policies”. As financial journalists mostly repeat what is told to them, I think this “located on the outskirts of London” bone was thrown out as a red-herring, and means the exact opposite.

    Conclusion

    At its peak holdings in December 2012, the SPDR Gold Trust stored 1353 tonnes of gold. Some observations from looking at the vault space in the Pisani videos and from talking to other people, are that:

    a) the HSBC vault looks quite full in 2011, but it still looks like the space would be hard pushed to store the 1200 tonnes of gold that Pisani says were there

    b) based on modelling the number of realistic-sized pallets that could conceivably fit into the Queen Street Place vault space (as per the vault plans), it also seems that it would be hard pressed to store 1,200 tonnes, unless they were crammed in. And the pallets in the CNBC segments are not fully crammed in to the space.

    Remember also that the 1200 tonnes of gold reference only referred to the SPDR Gold Trust holdings in mid-2011 around the time the CNBC video segment was filmed. See blue line in chart below (chart from www.sharelynx.com) for GLD holdings over its lifetime. HSBC is also the gold custodian for ETF Securities’ gold-backed ETF which held about 170 tonnes at the time of Pisani’s visit. That would be nearly 1,400 tonnes of gold just between the GLD and ETFS holdings, which would be about 228 piles of pallets stacked 6 high crammed in. Furthermore, that’s not even taking into account any gold holdings of other HSBC customers, and Pisani also says in the videos that HSBC confirmed to him that its vault also stores gold for a range of clients.

     

    SPDR 2

     

    When GLD held 1353 tonnes in December 2012, this in itself would be 225 piles of pallets, each 6 high. ETFS held about 170 tonnes in December 2012 also, which would be another 28 piles of pallets stacked 6 high. If this location is the famous storage area for the SPDR Gold Trust then possibly during the boom times when GLD holdings peaked, the HSBC vault may not have been big enough to accommodate the GLD gold let any other gold. Which would mean that HSBC was storing GLD gold elsewhere such as at the Bank of England vault,  or the JP Morgan vault, both very close to Queen Street Place. It would also mean that GLD sources new gold inflows from gold that is at the Bank of England, i.e. leased central bank gold.

    Another point to consider is that if the vaults under Queen Street Place are the correct location for the HSBC vault, then where did the gold that was being stored there in late 2005 / early 2006 go to during the vault alterations? This would have been at least 200 tonnes of gold as of late 2005, rising to over 350 tonnes of gold by late 2006. As the Bank of England is literally up the road from Queen Street Place,  moving it to the Bank of England vaults would be the most likely option during the renovation.

    In summary, using publicly available information and evidence, I have described where I think the HSBC London gold vault may be located. Whether I am correct is another matter.

  • China's Crashing – Stocks, Commodities Plunge After "Top Authority" Implies "Abandoning Loose Policy"

    "After comprehensive judgment, our economic recovery cannot be U-shaped, cannot be V-shaped, but will be L-shaped," warns an 'authoritative' person according to a shocking report published by Government mouthpiece People's Daily. The report, explaining why investors should not expect growth to pick up soon or expect more stimulus to come soon further sets expectations for China to "face the issue of rising non-performing loans" and not continue to create zombie companies. The result –  a bloodbath in stocks and commodities…

    Chinese stocks are down 4.5 to 7% in the last 2 days… as turmoil returns…

     

    The report (found here), as Bloomberg summarizes, suggests China shouldn't loosen monetary conditions to enable growth…

    • China should abandon idea of loosening money conditions to accelerate economic growth, People’s Daily reports, citing interview with an “authoritative” person who wasn’t identified.
    • Monetary conditions shouldn’t be loosened to cut levels of leverage
    • China won’t use stock, forex and property-market policies as tools to ensure economic growth
    • Economic growth won’t be too low without stimulus as potential is sufficient
    • China should face the issue of rising non-performing loans of banks and not cover it up or delay handling it
    • Economy’s performance will be L-shaped for quite some time, instead of just 1-2 yrs
    • Economy’s performance won’t be U- or V-shaped
    • China will limit bankruptcies for “zombie” cos; at the same time it will definitely close cos. that can’t be saved, instead of converting debt to equity or forced restructuring

    And the impact on stocks and commoditiers (as the latter's bubble implodes) is clear – Short-term…

     

    And Long-term…

     

    As the churn collapses, volume disappears and Iron ore, Steel rebar, and copper all collapse back to un-credit-speculated reality – smashing The Baltic Dry lower also.

     

  • The New Normal: Cold War 2.0

    Authored by Pepe Escobar, Op-Ed via SputnikNews.com,

    We are all living in Hybrid War time. From R2P (“responsibility to protect”) to color revolutions, from currency attacks to stock market manipulations.

    From judicial-financial-political-media enabled “soft” coups – as in Brazil – to support for “moderate” jihadis, multiple stages of Hybrid War now cross-pollinate and generate a vortex of new mutant viruses.

    Hybrid War, a Beltway concept, has even been turned upside down by the conceptualizers. NATO, affecting puzzlement at the very existence of the concept, interprets the Russian “invasion” of Ukraine as Hybrid War. That serves prime Hybrid War purveyors such as the RAND corporation to take it further, peddling war game scenarios of Russia being able to invade and conquer the Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — in less than 60 hours.

    And that, in turn, foments even more Western military hysteria, encapsulated by the new NATO commander, a.k.a. Dr. Strangelove; Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, who made sure he would come up with a stage entrance worthy of his predecessor, Philip Breedlove/ Breedhate. 

    Slightly amused at the whole conceptual circus, Russians respond with actions. Extra deployments in our Western borderlands? No problem; here’s your asymmetrical answer. And say hello, soon, to our new toy: the S-500s.

    What Hillary wants

    The notion that Moscow would have any interest at all to capture Baltic states is ludicrous in itself. But with the evidence of direct occupation of Afghanistan (the Taliban will never quit) and R2P in Libya (a failed state devastated by militias) spelling miserable failure, NATO badly needs a “success”. Enter warmongering rhetoric and conceptual manipulation – and this when it’s actually Washington that is deploying Hybrid War all across the chessboard.

    Reality occurs beyond NATO’s looking glass. Russia is way ahead of the Pentagon/NATO in A2AD — anti-access/area denial; Russian missiles and submarines may easily prevent NATO fighter jets from flying in Central Europe and NATO ships from “patrolling” the Baltic Sea. For the “indispensable nation”, that hurts – so bad.

    Relentless rhetorical hysteria masks the real high-stakes game in play. And that’s where US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton fits in. Throughout her campaign, Clinton has extolled “a major strategic objective of our transatlantic alliance”. The major “strategic objective” is none other than the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a NATO-on-trade complementing political and military NATO.

    The fact that TTIP, after the latest Dutch leaks, now runs the risk of being mired in Walking Dead territory may be a temporary setback. The imperial “project” is clear; to configure NATO, which already mutated into a global Robocop (Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), into an integrated political-economic-commercial-military alliance. Always under Washington’s command, of course. And including key peripheral vassals/contributors, such as the Gulf petromonarchies and Israel.

    The imperial “enemy”, of course, would have to be the only authentic project available for the 21st century: Eurasia integration – which ranges from the Chinese-led New Silk Roads to the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union; BRICS integration, which includes their New Development Bank (NDB), in tandem with the Chinese Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); a resurgent, still independent Iran – Eurasia-connected; and all other independent poles among Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) nations.

    This is the ultimate, ongoing 21st confrontation that will keep generating multiple, localized hybrid warfare forms – as it takes place not only across Eurasia but across the whole Global South. It’s all interlocked – from Maidan to the secret TTIP negotiations; from provoking China in the South China Sea to an oil price war and an attack on the ruble; from the NSA spying on Petrobras feeding a slow motion, legalistic regime change process in Brazil to an EU ravaged by twin plagues; a refugee crisis ultimately provoked by NATO’s wars (and instrumentalized by Turkey) coupled with Salafi-jhadi terrorism also spawned by the same wars. 

    Even with France and Germany still dithering – as in paying too heavy a price for sanctions on Russia — Washington’s “project” counts on a ravaged EU being a perpetual hostage of NATO. And ultimately, a hostage of NATO on trade – because of those US geostrategic imperatives against Eurasia integration.

    This implies another necessity; the conceptual war – it’s the evil Russians who are waging Hybrid War, not us! —  must be won at all costs, by instilling constant fear into the average EU citizen. In parallel, it’s also essential to put on a show; thus one of the most massive US-designed military operations on European soil since the end of the Cold War – complete with Navy and Air Force displaying nuclear capability.

    This is the new normal; Cold War 2.0, 24/7. 

  • Hillary Doubles Down As FBI Probe Enters Final Stages

    After interviewing Hillary Clinton's top aides last week, the question now becomes whether or not the FBI will interview Clinton next as the investigation enters its final stages.

    In an interview today with CBS' "Face The Nation", Hillary said nobody had contacted her regarding an interview.

    "No one has reached out to me yet, but last summer, I think last August, I made it clear I'm more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime."

    Clinton also doubled down on her claims that she did nothing wrong.

    "It's a security inquiry, I always took classified material seriously. There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me."

    Of course, there's classified and then there's "classified", but we'll save that for another day.

    As far as whether or not the FBI will eventually interview Clinton, although the FBI hasn't said Hillary is the target of the probe, many experts are saying that's how they see the situation unfolding.

    "This certainly sends the signal that they are nearing an end to their investigation. Typically, the way we structured investigations when I was a federal prosecutor is that we would seek to interview the target last. As you begin to interview people who are extremely close to the target of an investigation, people who are considered confidants, you typically interview those people towards the final stages of the investigation. So that way if they tell you something that is contrary to something you've already learned, you can immediately challenge them on that information." said Steven Levin, a former federal prosecutor.

    "It's very high-stakes. They're only going to ask her questions that they know the answers to already." added former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker.

    As far as one angle that may be played if Clinton is found to have mishandled classified information, that it was not intentional, national security lawyer Bradley Moss says that's irrelevant.

    "The extent to which the person intended to remove classified documents is irrelevant. All that matters for strict legal purposes of culpability is whether the person, by virtue of their official position, came into possession of classified information and affirmatively removed the information to an unauthorized location."

    Outside of whether or not the FBI decides to interview Clinton, there are two interesting elements to the case that we're interested in learning more about.

    The first, what comes of the capture and extradition to the United States of notorious hacker Guccifer, who claimed he gained access to Clinton's "completely unsecured" server. Will the FBI interview him and gather information from the hacker (who since he's already arrested for hacking other officials, doesn't have anything to lose by disclosing evidence of the Clinton hack). And finally, what information has been provided by Bryan Pagliano, the IT specialist believed to have set up and maintained Clinton's server. Pagliano was given full immunity in exchange for his help with the investigation, and perhaps that specific event will be enough to trip up Clinton when the FBI asks one of those questions that they already know the answer to.

  • "The Death Of The Gold Market" – Why One Analyst Thinks A Run On London Gold Vaults Is Imminent

    When it comes to tracking the nuances at the all important margin of the gold market, few are as observant as ADMISI’s Paul Mylchreest, whose December 2014 analysis showed the stunning role gold holds in the new normal as a funding “currency” for BOJ interventions in the form of a long Nikkei/short gold (and vice versa) pair trade, indicating that central banks directly intervene in gold pricing (by selling, of course) when seeking to push paper asset prices higher.

    In his latest report he follows up with an even more disturbing analysis on the state of the gold market. Specifically, he looks at what historically has been the hub of gold trading, the London bullion market, and finds that it “is running into a problem and is facing the biggest challenge since it collapsed from an insufficient supply of physical gold in March 1968.

    We suggest readers set aside at least an hour, and two coffees for this “must read” report. For those pressed for time, the executive summary is as follows: using data from the LBMA and Bank of England on gold stored in London vaults and net UK gold export data from HM Revenue & Customs, Mylchreest calculates that the “float” of physical gold in London (excluding gold owned by ETFs and central banks) has recently declined to +/- zero.

     Summarizing the data in the report.

     

    The full details of how Mylchreest gets to this number are broken out in detail in the attached report; fast-forwarding to his troubling summary we read the following conclusion, one we have observed numerous times when analyzing the troubling trends within the gold vaults of none other than the Comex itself: “if we are correct, the London Bullion Market is running into a problem and is facing the biggest challenge since it collapsed from an insufficient supply of physical gold in March 1968.”

    Some more of the report’s core findings, most of which should come as no surprise to regulatr readers:

    * * *

    Besides the growth in physical gold demand from existing sources, there is more than US$200 Billion of trading every day in unallocated (paper) gold. If buyers lose confidence in the market’s structure and ability to deliver actual bullion, the market could become disorderly (via an old fashioned “run” on the vaults) as it seeks to find the true price of physical gold.

     

    Intuitively, we think that central banks might have lent/leased gold to maintain the status quo and mask what is technically a default. However, rather than being used to provide temporary liquidity, it is possible that loans/leases are being rolled. This is not sustainable and implies dual ownership claims.

    Going forward, the market is vulnerable to several trends in physical gold trading patterns:

    • Since 2009, central banks have switched from net sellers to net buyers ;
    • The extraordinary strength in Chinese gold demand as indicated by withdrawals of bul-lion on the Shanghai Gold Exchange, e.g. an astonishing 2,597 tonnes, or more than 80% of all of the gold mined worldwide, in 2015;
    • The rebound in gold held by London-based gold ETFs, which has been increasing since January 2016, as western investors dip their toes back into physical gold; and
    • Net gold exports by the UK – mainly to support strong Asian (especially Chinese) demand – which have been a feature of the market since 2013.

    But the vulnerability is not confined to current trends in physical bullion.

    If there is no gold float, there is nothing supporting more than US$200 Billion of trading every day in unallocated (paper) gold instruments which accounts for more than 95% of gold trading in London.

    The convention of trading unallocated gold has been based on a fractional reserve system. It works as long as gold buyers retain confidence that the banks could deliver physical gold if demanded, but our analysis suggests that they could not.

    For more than four years, selling of paper gold overwhelmed growing demand for physical gold from the likes of China and central banks (in aggregate). The “gold market” became a chimera as fundamentals were turned upside down. Banks added paper “gold supply” in almost elastic fashion on occasions when western investors increased net gold exposure via paper gold instruments.

    We’ve argued for many years that a breakdown and bifurcation in the gold market between physical and paper gold substitutes would be necessary for accurate price discovery of physical gold bullion. The lead article in the January 2016 edition of the LBMA’s quarterly magazine was titled “Wholesale Physical Markets are Broken”, which might be confirmation that this process is reaching an advanced stage.

    In the interim, we could move towards a two-tier gold market – where physical gold trades at a premium to paper gold instruments, such as unallocated gold in London and COMEX gold futures in the US.

    It saddens us that London’s position and reputation as the hub of the world gold market is in jeopardy unless the LBMA, BoE and other stakeholders embrace rapid and far-reaching reform. The London Bullion Market is structurally flawed and overdue for reform – it is not an exchange, it is under-regulated and there is near zero transparency. More than anything, it is primarily a system of paper credits/debits which benefits the banks and undermines the investment case for gold and, consequently, interests of gold investors.

    Seeing the Achilles Heel of London’s gold market, China’s Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) launched a Yuan-denominated physical gold benchmark gold contract on 19 April 2016. Examining the SGE’s white paper, it’s clear that China acknowledges that its introduction should lead to a more realistic price for physical gold and that its strategy is to shift price discovery in the gold market from London to Asia.

    Unfortunately time is running out for London and meanwhile…

    The vast pools of western capital are not underweight gold, they are almost zero–weighted. Ultimately, gold is a bet on financial system mismanagement in many guises – such as inflation, deflation, rising credit risk, declining confidence in policy makers, etc. The fact that mainstream investors and commentators have started to have doubts about central bank policies has been positive for gold.

    For years, the typical pushback on investing in gold by western investors was that it had no yield. In a bizarre twist of investing, more than US$7 Trillion of bonds now have negative yields thanks to unconventional monetary policies like ZIRP/NIRP, and gold investing can be justified on a yield basis. Unlike every other financial asset, including sovereign bonds, physical gold has no counterparty risk.

    We have been here before…

    “Someone once said, ‘no one wants gold, that’s why the US$ price keeps falling.’ Many thinking ones laugh at such foolish chatter. They know that the price of gold is dropping precisely be-cause ‘too many people are buying it’! Think now, if you are a person of ‘great worth’ is it not better for you to acquire gold over years, at better prices? If you are one of ‘small worth’, can you not follow in the footsteps of giants? The real money is selling ALL FORMS of paper gold and buying physical! Why? Because any form of paper gold is losing value much, much faster than metal. Some paper will disappear all together in a fire of epic proportions! The massive trading continues at LBMA, but something is now missing”

    Anonymous quote from many years ago (the 1990s!)

    * * *

    Mylchreest full must read report below (pdf):

  • Obama: TTIP Necessary So As To Protect Megabanks From Prosecution

    Authored by Eric Zuesse,

    On May 7th, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or German Economic News, headlined, "USA planen mit TTIP Frontal-Angriff auf Gerichte in Europa” or “U.S. Plans Frontal Attack on Europe’s Courts via TTIP,” and reported that, “America’s urgency to sign TTIP with Europe has solid reason: Megabanks must protect themselves from claims by European investors who allege that they were cheated during the debt crisis. … The U.S. Ambassador to Italy has now let the cat out of the bag on this — probably unintentionally.”

    In this particular case, the megabank that’s being sued isn’t American but German, Deutsche Bank, which the U.S. Ambassador to Italy has cited as his example to defend, perhaps so as to appeal to Germans to protect their megabanks against lawsuits from foreign investors (such as Italians) who complain. In that case it was investors in the Italian city of Trani, population 53,000. The smallness of the city was an issue the Ambassador raised against the suit’s having been brought there.

    Reuters headlined on May 6th, "Italian prosecutor investigates Deutsche Bank over 2011 bond sale”, and reported that, "An Italian prosecutor is investigating Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) over its sale of 7 billion euros ($8 billion) of Italian government bonds five years ago, an investigative source told Reuters. A prosecutor in Trani, a town in southern Italy, is investigating because Deutsche Bank allegedly told clients in a research note in early 2011 that Italy's public debt was no cause for concern, and then sold almost 90 percent of its own holding of the country's bonds.” The U.S. bond-rating agencies are also subjects in this suit, because Trani had relied upon their ratings of those bonds.

    The Obama Administration (through its Italian Ambassador) seems thus to be saying, in effect, that unless TTIP is passed into law, Europe’s megabanks (and the U.S. bond-rating agencies, S&P, Moody’s and Fitch) will be able successfully to be sued by cheated investors, just as has been happening with such American banks as JPMorgan/Chase and Goldman Sachs in the United States, which — since TTIP hasn’t yet been in force anywhere, including in the U.S. — were forced to pay billions to cheated investors. Apparently, Obama would be happier if those suits had been impossible in the U.S. The argument here, though only implicitly, seems to be that TTIP is the way to protect megabanks and the bond-rating firms. It concerns specifically the selling of sophisticated derivative investments.

    If this is the argument behind the remarks by Obama’s Italian Ambassador, John Phillips, he’s obliquely warning Europeans that unless TTIP gets signed, their megabanks might similarly be forced to pay billions to investors who were cheated. As quoted by Reuters, he said that, in the U.S., it's "highly unlikely that such a case would be brought outside the major financial centers, where prosecutors have both jurisdiction and expertise in securities fraud prosecutions,” and that megabanks need the protection that’s provided by such prosecutors, since they possess “expertise in securities fraud prosecutions.” Phillips was clearly implying that small-city prosecutors (such as are allowed to prosecute such cases in Europe) aren’t such “experts,” as are needed in order to protect the megabanks. Reuters characterizes Phillips’s argument as asserting, “Italy’s justice system was deterring investors.” However, no clarification of the meaning of that statement was provided by Reuters.

    DWN alleges that under the TTIP such a court-issue would probably not even have been raised but would simply have ended before an arbitration panel, in which the aggrieved investors exert no influence and where it would be almost impossible for these investors’ rights to be protected.

    Another example is cited, where the German city of Pforzheim successfully sued, at the Federal Court of Justice, the U.S. megabank JPMorgan/Chase, and where that court allowed Pforzheim to seek “accumulated damages of 57 million euros.”

    Under TTIP, a megabank fined this way might in turn sue the nation’s taxpayers to restore the megabank’s ensuing loss of profits. If the cheated investors win, taxpayers might thus end up bearing the cheated investors' losses. Under TTIP, the fined company would be arguing that the law under which it had been fined is in violation of TTIP and thus constitutes a violation of that treaty, so that the violating government is obliged to be paying the fine — the law against fraud would itself be violating the fined company’s rights. If the three-arbitrator TTIP panel rules in the megabank’s favor, the government would need to pay the fine it had assessed against the bank, and no appeals court exists for any of these arbitration-panels’ rulings — these rulings are final. Obama and other proponents of that system, which is called ISDS for Investor State Dispute Settlement, say that it’s a more efficient way of handling such disputes. In international commercial affairs, it not only eliminates appeals courts, it gradually eliminates democracy, by fining the government into ultimate submission to these three-person panels of international-corporate-accountable arbitrators.

    On the same basic idea, Benito Mussolini was praised for “making the trains run on time.”

    *  *  *

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • "Love The Communist Party" – China Threatens Its Entrepreneurs Not To Become "Trumpeters Of Western Capitalism"

    China’s leadership is trying to manage a tenuous balancing act between letting the private sector grow the economy, and making sure that its focus remains true to the party message.

    In 2002, then president Jiang Zemin welcomed entrepreneurs to the party, and according to Bloomberg, the private sector has since grown to make up more than 60% of China’s economy. As the private sector developed, however, it has done so in a way that is concerning to current president Xi Jinping. Some Chinese have “unwittingly become trumpeters of Western capitalistic ideology” which could lead to “disastrous consequences.” Xi said in a speech at Beijing’s Party School last December.

     

    Thus, through speeches of his own, and through government media outlets, president Xi is setting out to remind the private sector of just what its role is, and what its priorities should be.

    Xi’s speeches are very clear about the party message. In March, Xi told businessmen that entrepreneurs shouldn’t simply make money, they must “love the motherland, love the people, love the Communist Party, and actively practice socialist core values.” The media arm of the government is doing its part by picking up the rhetoric as well. China Daily wrote that tycoons colluding “with corrupt officials” have sparked “wide doubt over the private sector and its role.” While the party periodical Red Flag Manuscript joined in, saying “some business people in the nonstate economy, especially some entrepreneurs, are having errors in their thinking.” They “lack faith in Marxism, socialism, and communism.”

    One businessman who felt the brunt of China’s expanding propaganda, is Ren Zhiqiang, a retired real estate tycoon who must serve a one-year probation for publishing “erroneous views” that “seriously violate the Party’s political discipline,” according to a May 2 statement by a Beijing party committee. A party member, he got in hot water after questioning the president’s call for tighter controls over the media.

    With about 73 million private enterprises and family businesses in China, the private sector has become a very important piece to the overall economy, but not too important to be outside of the party message of course. “Private enterprises, for the government, are an indispensable part of the economy. But if they develop too well, officials may knife them. A strong state can at any time bankrupt or eliminate them.” says Hu Xingdou, an economist at the Beijing Institute of Technology.

    Bankrupt or eliminate the business, or as the first step, simply disappear people until they’ve been reminded enough of the message that they’re deemed fit to return to public life, which is something we’ve seen a lot of in the past (here, here). In the first eight months of last year, senior managers from 34 companies went “missing” as they were picked up in connection with investigations. The phrase “shilian”, or lost contact, has become how people refer to the practice.

    It’s clear that China will certainly have its hands full if it’s going to add enforcement of party message to its already growing list of issues such as a slowing economy and social unrest. We are, however, curious to find out if the creation of a massive debt bubble in an effort to try and jump start the economy will fall under “disastrous consequences of Western capitalist ideology” when it implodes, or if that will be something the central planners take credit for.

    Finally, with all this taking place as China is clearly cracking down on any dissent, most notably in its recent gag order on “bearish” economists, analysts, pundits and media voices as reported in “A Panicked China Orders Media To Stick To “Positive Reporting” Or Risk “The Stability Of The Country” and of course “China Threatens Its Economists And Analysts To Only Write Bullish Reports, Or Else” one wonders if there is any “data” out of China that is even remotely credible, let alone accurate, any more?

    To be sure, headlines like these only reinforce the fear that China’s economy is doing far, far worse thatn the official data suggest:

    • CHINA’S ECONOMY WITHIN, OR EVEN BETTER THAN EXPECTATION: CHINA DAILY

    Because if you repeat it enough times, it becomes the truth?

  • If Everything Is So Great, Where Are The Unicorn IPOs?

    Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

    Over the course of the last week it seemed no matter where I turned in the business media one meme was being pushed above all others: It’s still a great time to be a private tech unicorn. Implying, that funding rounds were still “robust.”

    What wasn’t said, so I will, is this: It’s a great time to be a private “unicorn” rather, than take the chance and become the poster-child for the IPO apocalypse. For it’s better to be assumed a $BILLION dollar success story rather, than IPO and officially open the books to the market and remove all doubt – that you’re not.

    It would seem “additional funding rounds” is the story (the only story I’ll contend) that keeps the whole “unicorn” meme alive. For if these were great companies, at great valuations, with great prospects to earn or reward investors, founders, employees and so forth untold riches (which of course is told as to lure and keep talent and others) during the same period the “markets” were within a trading days movement of reaching never before seen in human history highs. How many tech unicorns of the over 150 now residing in the “unicorn stable” even hinted at a date, never-mind actually announced? __________ (Insert crickets here.)

    At this stage a few questions must now be addressed. One would be: If it not now, when? And not a vague “when.” But rather: precisely when?

    If a company today that has been raising funds to even be within this so-called “exclusive club” can’t articulate a date, or time period, with specificity. In other words: Definitive announcements that have meaning with dates such as those declaring “within the next 30, 90…,” whatever days. Or, something reminiscent of stating “November of this year barring a market panic or sell off etc., etc.” Not some lame “Market conditions warranted us deciding to postpone setting a date blah, blah, blah…” PR trash. Than are they to be believed of any metrics?

    Why is this so important one might be asking? Easy, let’s put this into some context:

    For all intents and purposes, 2016 is close to being over for just an announcement and the time needed to follow up with the subsequent roadshow to price and launch. Remember, we are currently 5 weeks away from the half-year point of 2016 without either an announcement or actual IPO. (Oh wait, there was one – Dell™. Need I say more?)

    Again, it must be reiterated: 2016 is now well into its 5th month and within spitting distance of “the first-half is history” mark. And during this period the “markets” have been within a percentage point of breaking the all time highs and still remain at elevated levels.

    The rise from the lows of February were not only meteoric, they were actually historic in both their percentage gains, as well as, time frame.

    Add to this the Fed. has all but conceded “extraordinary monetary measures and policy” are the norm, rather than temporary. While reiterating: will remain for the foreseeable future. And there’s not a one?

    Think about that. Does all that square with what you’ve been told (or sold) when it comes to everything “The Valley?” And speaking of “square….”

    It would seem the price for one of the “The Valley’s” most recent (recent as in Nov. of 2015) IPO’d unicorn’s: Square™ isn’t doing all that well. As a matter of fact, it seems to be doing as well as its other CEO’s responsibility: Twitter™.

    Remember when all the chatter and twit-storms were about how great it would be to have one CEO run two “disruptive” companies simultaneously? Especially when the “Jobs” reference was invoked? How’s that all working out? If you really want to know – just look to their stock chart. If you own them in your 401K? I’ll wager you already know even without looking at your last statement.

    As I’ve stated many times, I take no issue with Mr. Dorsey, or the companies he’s founded. Both he and his companies show great value, as well as, potential for the future. However, with that said, the idea that the valuations and metrics used were both “reasonable” as well as “sustainable” along with the idea that Mr. Dorsey should be applauded to take the reins as CEO of two publicly traded, highly competitive, as well as, ever evolving companies simultaneously? All while one is flailing in its stock valuation while the other debuts with an IPO? It was ludicrous at best – moronic at worst and I stated so.

    To this I was (as always) scorned and vilified by many a Valley aficionado. Yet, today? Well, let’s just say I’ve watched, read, or heard more revisionist statements about that “great idea” than I’ve heard a politician “clarify” their previous position.

    I’ve argued ad nauseam about the whole Valley’s “It’s different this time” knee-jerk response to criticism. Especially when it has come to the once coveted title of “IPO’d.”

    However, there’s also been another attribute which seems to be just as ensconced, as well as, obvious to those who are paying attention. e.g., Once rarefied air seems to be turning into exhaust fumes. And nowhere is this more apparent than with Apple™.

    Nearly two years ago to the day I penned the following article, “Did Apple Just Become Microsoft? At the time this was a complete and utterly opposing viewpoint to anyone comparing Apple to _______(fill in the blank.) There was the acquisition of Beats™ along with what I depicted as a complete and utter cave in to Wall Street. As quoted in MarketWatch™ To wit:

    “But St. Cyr takes it a step forward by comparing Apple to the lumbering software giant. In a “complete and utter cave-in to Wall Street,” Apple’s latest report wasn’t consumer-products based; rather, it was designed to play Wall Street’s game, he says.

     

    “Dividends, debt, splits, and more,” he said. “I don’t think the iPhone has added as many new features at once as the new features released in Apple the stock.” That’s how Microsoft MSFT does it, said St. Cyr as he waxed on about the Apple you knew is no longer. “ I hope I’m wrong, but the actions are beginning to not only speak for themselves – they’re screaming.

    At this time Apple was the; and I do mean the darling of both Wall Street, as well as, most 401K holders. During that time it was basically insinuated; to question anything Apple whether in terms of strategy, products, acquisitions, and more. It was implied: “You – just don’t get it!” Fair point. The only problem? As of today, near two years to the day – the value of your shares are worth about the same as they were then. And, for some – the same as two years prior in 2012. To even think of such a possibility during 2014 never-mind articulate or postulate the idea was met with dismissal as well as scorn. And guess what the current meme surrounding Apple is today? Hint: Has Apple become Microsoft?

    Which brings me around to another postulate which I’ve articulated that today is being met with just as much revile as well as repulsion to even consider the possibilities: Social media.

    Today much like Apple during the wake of the release of the iPhone 6S®, Facebook™ latest earnings release is being heralded as “the earnings report that should put all the nay-sayers to rest.”

    After all, it’s touted “just look at what they’re doing with mobile!” And it’s a fair point. However, what I thought was interesting that went either unnoticed, or, blatantly under-reported was the fact that Mark wants to add some new class shares so that when he sells his current shares he can remain “in charge.” OK, fair enough. It’s not like this type of thing hasn’t been done before. (If memory serves me, I believe Google™ for one did something similar) Yet, when you put it into context with another announcement made similar by Amazon™? It’s just one of those things that make you go hmmm…. What was the announcement?

    It seems (to borrow from my previous article) “In a complete and utter cave-in to Wall Street” (in fairness also with some impending pressure from regulators) Facebook along with Amazon it has been reported will declare more GAAP refined metrics as opposed to Non-GAAP when it comes to “equity-based pay costs.” i.e., reporting them as real expenses on the earnings reports. As it should be in my opinion.

    However, what does such a move hold for others? Others such as – new competitors? Older ones? Ones not even IPO’s as of yet? Or, better yet: how about when competing for those precious “to be allocated” sovereign wealth/central bank funds? After all, such a move would make most, if not all “unicorns” scrambling for funding rounds not only look worse than unprofitable. But probably looking closer to – insolvent.

    Imagine closing the door on future rivals with the possibility of making your own earnings statement appear worse. Now that takes not only some chutzpah, but if it were to work? It borders on genius!

    If you think Twitter, Square, or others have an issue reporting investor friendly incentive now? Just wait if their demanded (whether by regulators or peer pressure) to report using only GAAP. And for those remaining in the “Unicorn stables” awaiting cashing out in the IPO horse-race to riches? You’d be better off investing in any company that uses unicorn tears in its glue formulation. For you would all but drive a stake into the heart of most in the current batch of tech IPO’s in waiting.

    Imagine for a second you’re a rival to Facebook like, Oh I don’t know, let’s say Snapchat™. If you have yet to IPO: what are the chances you’re going to get anywhere near those implied valuations (I believe it’s somewhere around $16 BILLION) if now you’ll need to report using GAAP? Are you beginning to see my point?

    A move like this (if it actually was an intentionally executed tactic, to which I would commend from a business perspective as: brilliant) would all but surely close a door behind you stifling anyone rivaling your acquisitions or future customers. That and surely just as important – cutting off nearly all their future investment dollars.

    Any upstart or potential rival that is “cash burn” sensitive would be all but scorched out of business in no time. Then, all one would need to do is wait for the bankruptcy trial and pick up any patents and more on the cheap. As in very cheap.

    And it is precisely this which increases the potential as to keep more IPO’s off the market, rather, than on. And for one very often, overlooked reason: VC’s net worth can remain (or at least appear) more robust the longer it’s off the IPO scene – rather than on it.

    I know this sounds counter-intuitive at first but remember: For a few million dollars you could “invest” in a startup at the right funding level and have your “assets” stated to be worth multiples more. Much more, as in BILLIONS more.

    And don’t forget these “valuation metrics” for most of today’s tech unicorns are worth $BILLIONS and billions because? Hint: Because they say they are. That’s it.

    If you think Non-GAAP accounting was “inflationary” when it comes to a company’s worth. The stated metrics for valuing whether or not a “unicorn” is a “unicorn” makes Non-GAAP look conservative!

    So when it comes to all this nascent talk about “unicorns” and their subsequent funding rounds just remember: Is it really a great time to be a private unicorn? Or – has that window not only closed, but maybe, just nailed shut by two of the biggest to ever profit from the meme?

  • Venezuelan Opposition Leader Assassinated Days After 1.8 Million Sign Petition To Oust Maduro

    The situation in hyperinflating socialist paradise Venezuela just moved one step closer to chaotic totalitarianism. With President Maduro clinging to power (thanks to his military 'assistance') amid growing social unrest (1.8 million signatures gathered seeking a referendum to remove him), FoxNews Latino reports German Mavare, leader of the opposition UNT party, died Friday after being shot in the head, asassinated in the western state of Lara, according to his organisation. Maduro has appeared on State TV tying Mavare to "armed groups" and suggested that more right-wing politicians are potential targets.

    The Venezuelan people are growing increasingly angry at the nightmare of economic squallor Nicolas Maduro appears to have laid at their door (thanks in large part to an overly-generous socialist agenda runnining out of other people's petrodollars)…

    In less than a week, more than 1.8 million people in Venezuela signed petitions seeking a referendum to remove President Nicolas Maduro from office. That's nine times the required 200,000 signatures.

     

    The opposition said in a statement they delivered the petitions in 80 sealed boxes early Monday morning without notifying the media to avoid potential clashes with Maduro’s supporters.

     

    Ousting Maduro will not be an easy task despite his approval rating plummeting amid triple-digit inflation, widespread food shortages and near-daily power blackouts. Recent polls suggest two-thirds of Venezuelans want him out.

     

    If the National Electoral Council verifies the signatures in the coming days, it would trigger a second petition drive during which 20 percent of the electorate, almost 4 million people, would have to sign before a referendum could be scheduled on removing Maduro before his term ends in 2019.

     

    If a vote were held, the president would be removed only if the number of anti-Maduro votes exceeded the 7.6 million votes he received in the 2013 election. In December's parliamentary elections, opposition candidates mustered only 7.7 million even though they won control of the legislature by a landslide.

    President Maduro has recently dug in against what he calls opposition attempts to destabilize Venezuela…

    "If the oligarchy were to do something against me and take this palace by one means or another, I order you, men and women of the working class, to declare yourselves in rebellion and undertake an indefinite strike."

    And now, it appears 'someone' has "rebelled"…Venezuelan politician German Mavare, leader of the opposition UNT party, died on Friday after being shot in the head, an assassination that occurred in the western state of Lara, his organization said.

    "The board of the UNT expresses its deepest sorrow for the slaying of colleague German Mavare. We demand justice and an end to violence," was the message posted on the Twitter account of the UNT party, headed by jailed ex-presidential candidate and former governor of Zulia state, Manuel Rosales.

     

    The mayor of Iribarren in Lara state, Alfredo Ramos, said on his Twitter account minutes after the incident occurred before dawn Friday: "German Mavare, of the popular urbanization of Carucieña, a tireless fighter for social causes, has just been hit by a bullet in the head."

    For his part, Luis Florido, an opposition lawmaker of the Voluntad Popular party, said on Twitter: "German Mavare died. A red bullet ended his life. Politics today is high risk. We demand an investigation of the case #NoMoreViolence #Lara".

    The authorities have not yet issued a statement about the matter. Bloomberg reports that Maduro, speaking on on state television, said:

    “The people we captured are talking and more than one far right-wing politician is mentioned."

     

    "Authorities this week killed leaders of armed groups with ties to paramilitaries."

     

    "Government is pursuing armed groups."

    In conclusion, things just went to 11 on the spinal tap amplifier of failed-state-ness, and we leave it to R. Evan Ellis to discuss what happens next,

    The question for businessmen and governments with a stake in the deteriorating situation in Venezuela is no longer if the regime of Nicholas Maduro will come to a premature end, but under what circumstances.

     

    This reality has little to do with the determination or sophistication of the Venezuelan opposition, nor of the resiliency of its almost completely compromised institutions. Rather, the Maduro regime has locked the country on a course of national self-destruction, responding to the deepening economic crisis with counterproductive, and simply bizarre measures, such as criminalizing the attempt of the market to respond to shortages, or reducing the federal work week, destroying the little productive capacity that remains in the country.

     

    Similarly, in the face of the population’s demand for a change in course, evinced by the massive opposition victory in the December 2015 mid-term elections, Maduro’s intransigence increases the probability that the suffering and frustration of the Venezuelan people will eventually give rise to violence.
     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 8th May 2016

  • Mind Control as a method to support the US Dollar

    There is a paradox of capitalism, we’ve reached a point where those at the top, have an unlimited budget to maintain the status quo, increase their wealth, and develop an ever increasing sophistocated toolbox to manage empire and maintain their dominance.  As we explain in Splitting Pennies – this is no where more obvious than Forex.  The last 100 years we’ve seen capitalism evolve brightly.  Industries that shouldn’t be industries, now employ millions of workers.  Paradigm shift, revolution, can now be artificially created by means of automated computer algorithm.  The political process, has been hacked by this technology.  And it’s all controlled by a central banking Elite – it’s all controlled by THEY (Them).  At the top of the pyramid of society, groups such as the CIA, MI6, KGB, Mossad, and others – are responsible for maintaining safety and security, that is, from change.  They cull the herd when necessary, whether it be a revolution in Libya, or bringing down the twin towers.  But these are all physical ops, their most important missions are the ones least talked about – that is, PsyOps, and most significantly, PsyOps that support the financial system.  I believe that if ZH readers can understand this matrix, it will help make better more objective investing decisions.  Because although the market is a free entropic environment, it is controlled by humans, by institutions, and well – it’s only free when it’s allowed to be free.  These PsyOps are what make such a state of hypocrisy possible – otherwise, people would ‘wake up’ and realize that we are programmed with oxi moron hypocrisy.  “We had to bomb the village to save it.”  The tools they use to implement mind control are very simple and have been around for 50 years – the most successful one is Television (TV).  According to testimony by CIA analyst who was involved in domestic PsyOps, he said when asked how can the average person avoid such programming, “Unplug your TV.”  In case you aren’t aware of modern mind control techniques, checkout this well compiled article by Activist Post about 10 methods commonly used. 

    The connection between the global social control paradigm and the US Dollar runs deep.  In support of the US Dollar, it’s important that people are blindly hypnotised into submission by using US Dollars.  This is more important than any Fed operations to prop the markets.  Because ultimately, the only real threat to the US Dollar is if people start THINKING.  At the end of the day, the US Dollar, like any fiat currency, provides a basic accounting service for economic activity.  Never before in history has a single currency enjoyed such widespread global use.  And the marketing and propoganda campaigns in support of the USD support it more than the Petro Dollar system, more than CIA operations in Switzerland, and more than any financial algorithm employed by groups such as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT).  Understanding something, isn’t criticizing – maybe it’s a good thing, maybe not – it’s not for the teacher to make any conclusive opinion.  It is however something that all investors should be aware of, especially those who are subject to daily Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in support of this financial system.  Why is Hollywood so successful?  Because they make magic – they make the artificial, seem real… if only for a few moments, it is enough to rewire your brain, already filled with advertising, chemicals in the food, air, and water, and various radio and radiation pumped into populated areas.  The Fed, controlled by a similar group of people like Hollywood is, also makes magic.  They make people believe in this paper they print numbers on called “Federal Reserve Notes” – even though it’s backed by nothing.  US Dollars are only backed by BELIEF and FAITH in them – which is why Mind Control – or in more plain language, aggressive advertising; is necessary to support the US Dollar.  

    Maybe watching some of these lunatics that have coined phrases such as “King Dollar” are enough for the average busy businessman to be lulled into a sense of semi-consciousness, where rational, objective thought is impossible.  Buy buy buy.. drill drill drill.. Investors are whipped into a bullish frenzy easily with such programming.  They meet the first criteria – they are open to it.  Admitting you have a problem, is step number one.  The mind is like a parachute, you must open to use.  Not only that, they actually want to hear what TV personalities want to say, to help them make investing decisions!  I remember when I learned Bill OReilly wrote a book – I was shocked.  I didn’t think that someone with his mental disability could even read – let alone write!  (Still, I’m not sure he actually wrote any book, probably he hired someone to do it.)  Anyway, this guy is a great example of someone who fits the role needed to be played perfectly – slightly mentally retarded, aggressive abrasive personality, with a lot of opinions about meaningless issues that will guarantee that it is impossible to receive any valuable information by watching such a program.

    So how does this all work?  Clearly, the Elite have decided that financial services – it’s not for the people.  People should work hard, obey, consume, watch sports, and watch TV, and eat, and drink.. So they embed advertising in subtle ways, when discussing financial issues.  For example, during the 911 commission reports and investigation, there’s no mention of the post 911 US Dollar, or transactions that took place short USD just before 911.  There’s a little talk about PUT options on UAL but they’ve tried confusing the issue by releasing snopes reports that its a myth, even though you can see what really happened here:

    FTW, October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades — which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed — the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations”. In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.

    Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.

    No mention of Forex – no USD short.  No reports about the missing Gold from the Fed depository, which was at Ground Zero.  This type of subtle manipulation goes on today.  It’s not what they say, it’s what they don’t say.  As long as the American population is fat, happy, and stupid – they will be happy to use US Dollars, which continually decline in value.  Alternatives such as community currencies, gold, Bitcoin, and others – which are readily available for use – should be avoided at all costs.  Most Americans aren’t even aware that other currencies exist.  As we explain in our book Splitting Pennies – this brainwashing of the domestic population is critical to the global advertising campaign that supports the US Dollar.  The USD is the one world currency.  The Euro, backed by USD and run by CIA agent “Super Mario” – is simply the other side of the same coin.

    The goal of this programming is simple – don’t question the US Dollar.  It’s not about convincing people to buy USD in a Forex account.  In fact, they’re betting that by not questioning the value of the USD or questioning the USD as an accounting functional currency, people aren’t going to want to trade Forex, where they can potentially hedge themselves from Forex exposure, or even make a fortune on Forex like Stan did.  What’s the point of this article?  Turn off your TV, or just obey.  

    They are investing billions to control your mind.  All they want is your time.  Just a few moments of your time.  It’s all they need.  Who cares, whatever, nevermind.

  • For Russia & China, It's "Accept American Hegemony" Or "Go To War"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Somnolent Europe, Russia, and China – Can the world wake up?

    On September 19, 2000, going on 16 years ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph reported:

    “Declassified American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

     

    “The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen. William J. Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.”

    The documents show that the European Union was a creature of the CIA.

    As I have previously written, Washington believes that it is easier to control one government, the EU, than to control many separate European governments. As Washington has a long term investment in orchestrating the European Union, Washington is totally opposed to any country exiting the arrangement. That is why President Obama recently went to London to tell his lapdog, the British Prime Minister, that there could be no British exit.

    Like other European nations, the British people were never allowed to vote on whether they were in favor of their country ceasing to exist and them becoming Europeans. British history would become the history of a bygone people like the Romans and Babylonians.

    The oppressive nature of unaccountable EU laws and regulations and the EU requirement to accept massive numbers of third world immigrants have created a popular demand for a British vote on whether to remain a sovereign country or to dissolve and submit to Brussels and its dictatorial edicts. The vote is scheduled for June 23.

    Washington’s position is that the British people must not be permitted to decide against the EU, because such a decision is not in Washington’s interest.

    The prime minister’s job is to scare the British people with alleged dire consequences of “going it alone.” The claim is that “little England” cannot stand alone. The British people are being told that isolation will spell their end, and their country will become a backwater bypassed by progress. Everything great will happen elsewhere, and they will be left out.

    If the fear campaign does not succeed and the British vote to exit the EU, the open question is whether Washington will permit the British government to accept the democratic outcome.

    Alternatively, the British government will deceive the British people, as it routinely does, and declare that Britain has negotiated concessions from Brussels that dispose of the problems that concern the British people.

    Washington’s position shows that Washington is a firm believer that only Washington’s interests are important. If other peoples wish to retain national sovereignty, they are simply being selfish. Moreover, they are out of compliance with Washington, which means they can be declared a “threat to American national security.” The British people are not to be permitted to make decisions that do not comply with Washington’s interest. My prediction is that the British people will either be deceived or overridden.

    It is Washington’s self-centeredness, the self-absorption, the extraordinary hubris and arrogance, that explains the orchestrated “Russian threat.” Russia has not presented herself to the West as a military threat. Yet, Washington is confronting Russia with a US/NATO naval buildup in the Black Sea, a naval, troop and tank buildup in the Baltics and Poland, missile bases on Russia’s borders, and plans to incorporate the former Russian provinces of Georgia and Ukraine in US defense pacts against Russia.

    When Washington, its generals and European vassals declare Russia to be a threat, they mean that Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in her own interest rather than in Washington’s interest. Russia is a threat, because Russia demonstrated the capability of blocking Washington’s intended invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran. Russia blunted one purpose of Washington’s coup in the Ukraine by peacefully and democratically reuniting with Crimera, the site of Russia’s Black Sea naval base and a Russian province for several centuries.

    Perhaps you have wondered how it was possible for small countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yeman, and Venezuela to be threats to the US superpower. On its face Washington’s claim is absurd. Do US presidents, Pentagon officials, national security advisors, and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff really regard countries of so little capability as military threats to the United States and NATO countries?

    No, they do not. The countries were declared threats, because they have, or had prior to their destruction, independent foreign and economic policies. Their policy independence means that they do not or did not accept US hegemony. They were attacked in order to bring them under US hegemony.

    In Washington’s view, any country with an independent policy is outside Washington’s umbrella and, therefore, is a threat.

    Venezuela became, in the words of US President Obama, an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” necessitating a “national emergency” to contain the “Venezuelan threat” when the Venezuelan government put the interests of the Venezuelan people above those of American corporations.

    Russia became a threat when the Russian government demonstrated the ability to block Washington’s intended military attacks on Syria and Iran and when Washington’s coup in the Ukraine failed to deliver to Washington the Russian Black Sea naval base.

    Clearly Venezuela cannot possibly pose a military threat to the US, so Venezuela cannot possibly pose an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the US.” Venezuela is a “threat” because the Venezuelan government does not comply with Washington’s orders.

    It is absolutely certain that Russia has made no threats whatsoever against the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Europe, or the United States. It is absolutely certain that Russia has not invaded the Ukraine. How do we know? If Russia had invaded Ukraine, the Ukraine would no longer be there. It would again be a Russian province where until about 20 years ago Ukraine resided for centuries, for longer than the US has existed. Indeed, the Ukraine belongs in Russia more than Hawaii and the deracinated and conquered southern states belong in the US.

    Yet, these fantastic lies from the highest ranks of the US government, from NATO, from Washington’s British lackeys, from the bought-and-paid-for Western media, and from the bought-and-paid-for EU are repeated endlessly as if they are God’s revealed truth.

    Syria still exists because it is under Russian protection. That is the only reason Syria still exists, and it is also another reason that Washington wants Russia out of the way.

    Do Russia and China realize their extreme danger? I don’t think even Iran realizes its ongoing danger despite its close call.

    If Russia and China realize their danger, would the Russian government permit one-fifth of its media to be foreign owned? Does Russia understand that “foreign owned” means CIA owned? If not, why not? If so, why does the Russian government permit its own destabilization at the hands of Washington’s intelligence service acting through foreign owned media?

    China is even more careless. There are 7,000 US-funded NGOs (non-governmental organizations) operating in China. Only last month did the Chinese government finally move, very belatedly, to put some restrictions on these foreign agents who are working to destabilize China. The members of these treasonous organizations have not been arrested. They have merely been put under police watch, an almost useless restriction as Washington can provide endless money with which to bribe the Chinese police.

    Why do Russia and China think that their police are less susceptible to bribes than Mexico’s or American police? Despite the multi-decade “war on drugs,” the drug flow from Mexico to the US is unimpeded. Indeed, the police forces of both countries have a huge interest in the “war on drugs” as the war brings them riches in the form of bribes. Indeed, as the crucified reporter for the San Jose Mercury newspaper proved many years ago, the CIA itself is in the drug-running business.

    In the United States truth-tellers are persecuted and imprisoned, or they are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-semites,” and “domestic extremists.” The entire Western World consists of a dystopia far worse than the one described by George Orwell in his famous book, 1984.

    That Russia and China permit Washington to operate in their media, in their universities, in their financial systems, and in “do-good” NGOs that infiltrate every aspect of their societies demonstrates that both governments have no interest in their survival as independent states. They are too scared of being called “authoritarian” by the Western presstitute media to protect their own independence.

    My prediction is that Russia and China will soon be confronted with an unwelcome decision: accept American hegemony or go to war.

    NOTE: The Saker’s take on Russian media openness to Western anti-Russian propaganda.

  • Japan's "Coma Economy" Is A Preview For The World

    The 1980s were the apex of Japanese culture and economic might. Back then, Japan’s economy was growing so fast, it was thought they would overtake the US. But that all came to a screeching halt. Truth is, Japan’s meteoric rise was fueled by an epic lending bubble. Similar to the Roaring 20s in America.

    And when the bubble popped, the government launched massive and misguided measures that set Japan back decades. Their economy hasn’t expanded since. They are stuck in the 1980s. There’s been no growth for 30 years. And as Mike Maloney and Harry Dent explain, the United States could be going down the same path…

    “For more than 20 years now, Japan has proved that Keynesian economics does not work… they’ve tried to print their way to prosperity… and failed…they didn’t let the reset happen…”

     

    See more here…

  • The Next Big Bailout? Treasury Rejects Proposal To Cut Pension Benefits

    UPS, and roughly 270,000 retired truck drivers, construction workers, and other service workers can breathe a collective sigh of relief… for now. As we previously reported, the Central States Pension Fund had submitted a plan to Treasury that if approved would have cut member benefits, and triggered UPS to take an estimated $3.8 billion charge.

    As the WSJ reports, Kenneth Feinberg (who was appointed by the Treasury to review all such applications) rejected the plan presented by the CSPF. Feinberg cited a few reasons for his decision, one being that it imposed cuts in a disproportionate manner, another was that the notifications sent to participants were too technical to be understood, but namely Feinberg didn't agree with the assumption that the fund would achieve 7.5% yearly investment returns going forward. Those returns "were too optimistic and unreasonable" Feinberg said.

    "You get to breathe again, you get to exhale. Our life was on hold." said Bill Orms, a 69 year-old retired truck driver from Akron, Ohio who would have seen his $2,400 a month benefit cut in half had the proposal been accepted.

    Absent an injection of funds or benefit cuts, the fund which pays out $2.8 billion in benefits a year will be insolvent within ten years according to Thomas Nyhan, the plan's executive director. Nyhan added that he was "disappointed" by the Treasury's decision. According to the WSJ, the fund currently has $16.8 billion in assets against $35 billion in liabilities, and has roughly one active worker contributing to the fund for every four retirees that draw from it.

    So we're now back to where we started. The Central States Pension Fund will by its own estimates be insolvent within ten years, and the government safety net, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp cannot be counted on to pick up the benefits because it too is well on its way to insolvency.

    If the Treasury won't allow any pension cuts, and the government created safety net won't be there to keep the benefits flowing, how will the cash continue to flow to members? With the precedent now set by the Treasury that no cuts will be allowed, the answer will likely come in the form of a massive bailout.

  • Trumped! Why It Happened And What Comes Next, Part 3 – The Jobs Deal

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    Donald Trump’s patented phrase “we aren’t winning anymore” lies beneath the tidal wave of anti-establishment sentiment propelling his campaign and, to some considerable degree, that of Bernie Sanders, too.

    As we demonstrated in Part 1, and Part 2, what’s winning is Washington, Wall Street and the bicoastal elites. The latter prosper from finance, the LA and SF branches of entertainment ( movies/TV and social media, respectively) and the great rackets of the Imperial City – including the military/industrial/surveillance complex, the health and education cartels, the plaintiffs and patent bar, the tax loophole farmers and the endless lesser K-Street racketeers.

    But most of America’s vast flyover zone has been left behind. Thus, the bottom 90% of families have no more real net worth today than they had 30 years ago and earn lower real household incomes and wages than they did 25 years ago.

    Needless to say, the lack of good jobs lies at the bottom of the wealth and income drought on main street, and this week’s April jobs report provided still another reminder.

    During the last three months goods-producing jobs have been shrinking again, even as the next recession knocks on the door. These manufacturing, construction and energy/mining jobs are the highest paying in the US economy and average about $56,000 per year in cash wages. Yet it appears that the 30 year pattern shown in the graph below——lower lows and lower highs with each business cycle—-is playing out once again.

    So even as the broadest measure of the stock market—-the Wilshire 5000—–stands at 11X  its 1989 level, there are actually 22% fewer goods producing jobs in the US than there were way back then.

    This begs the question, therefore, as to the rationale for the Jobs Deal we referenced in Part 1, and why Donald Trump should embrace a massive swap of the existing corporate and payroll taxes for new levies on consumption and imports.

    The short answer is that Greenspan made a giant policy mistake 25 years ago that has left main street households buried in debt and stranded with a simultaneous plague of stagnant real incomes and uncompetitively high nominal wages. It happened because at the time that Mr. Deng launched China’s great mercantilist export machine during the early 1990s, Alan Greenspan was more interested in being the toast of Washington than he was in adhering to his lifelong convictions about the requisites of sound money.

    Indeed, he apparently checked his gold standard monetary princples in the cloak room when he entered the Eccles Building in August 1987. Not only did he never reclaim the check, but, instead, embraced the self-serving institutional anti-deflationism of the central bank.

    This drastic betrayal and error resulted in a lethal cocktail of free trade and what amounted to free money. It resulted in the hollowing out of the American economy because it prevented American capitalism from adjusting to the tsunami of cheap manufactures coming out of China and its east Asian supply chain.

    So what would have happened in response to the so-called “china price” under a regime of sound money in the US?

    The Fed’s Keynesian economists and their Wall Street megaphones would never breath a word of it, of course, because they have a vested interest in perpetuating inflation. It gives inflation targeting central bankers the pretext for massive intrusion in the financial markets and Wall Street speculators endless bubble finance windfalls.

    But the truth is, sound money would have led to falling consumer prices, high interest rates and an upsurge of household savings in response to strong rewards for deferring current consumption. From that enhanced flow of honest domestic savings the supply side of the American economy could have been rebuilt with capital and technology designed to shrink costs and catalyze productivity.

    But instead of consumer price deflation and a savings-based era of supply side reinvestment, the Greenspan Fed opted for a comprehensive Inflation Regime. That is, sustained inflation of consumer prices and nominal wages, massive inflation of household debt and stupendous inflation of financial assets.

    To be sure, the double-talking Greenspan actually bragged about his prowess in generating something he called “disinflation”. But that’s a weasel word. What he meant, in fact, was that the purchasing power of increasingly uncompetitive nominal American wages was being reduced slightly less rapidly than it had been in the 1980s.

    Still, the consumer price level has more than doubled since 1987, meaning that prices of goods and services have risen at 2.5% per year on average. Notwithstanding all the Fed’s palaver about “low-flation” and undershooting its phony 2% target, American workers have had to push their nominal wages higher and higher just to keep up with the cost of living.

    But in a free trade economy the wage-price inflation treadmill of the Greenspan/Fed was catastrophic. It drove a wider and wider wedge between US wage rates and the marginal source of goods and services supply in the global economy.

    That is, US production was originally off-shored owing to the China Price with respect to manufactured goods. But with the passage of time and spread of the central bank driven global credit boom, goods and services were off-shored to places all over the EM. The high nominal price of US labor enabled the India Price, for example, to capture massive amounts of call center activity, engineering and architectural support services, financial company back office activity and much more.

    At the end of the day, it was the Greenspan Fed which hollowed out the American economy. Without the massive and continuous inflation it injected into the US economy, nominal wages would have been far lower, and on the margin far more competitive with the off-shore.

    That’s because there is a significant cost per labor hour premium for off-shoring in terms of a 12,000 mile pipeline of transportation charges, logistics control and complexity, increased inventory carry in the supply chain, quality control and reputation protection expenses, average productivity per worker, product delivery and interruption risk and much more.

    In a sound money economy of falling nominal wages and even more rapidly falling consumer prices, American workers would have had a fighting chance to remain competitive, given this significant off-shoring premium. But the demand-side Keynesians running policy at the Fed and US treasury didn’t even notice that their wage and price inflation policy functioned to override the off-shoring premium, and to thereby send American production and jobs fleeing abroad.

    Indeed, they actually managed to twist this heavy outflow of goods and services production into what they claimed to be an economic welfare gain in the form of higher corporate profits and lower consumer costs.

    Needless to say, the basic law of economics—-Say’s Law of Supply—-says societal welfare and wealth arise from production; spending and demand follow output and income.

    By contrast, our Keynesian central bankers claim prosperity flows from spending, and they had a ready solution for the gap in spending that initially resulted when jobs and incomes were sent off-shore.

    The de facto solution of the Greenspan Fed was to supplant the organic spending power of lost production and wages with a simulacrum of demand issuing from an immense and contiunuous run-up of household debt. Accordingly, what had been a steady 75-80% ratio of household debt to wage and salary income before 1980 erupted to 220% by the time of Peak Debt in 2007.

    The nexus between household debt inflation and the explosion of Chinese imports is hard to miss. Today monthly Chinese imports are 75X larger than the were when Greenspan took office in August 1987.

    At the same time, American households have buried themselves in debt, which has rising from $2.7 trillion or about 80% of wage and salary income to $14.2 trillion. Even after the financial crisis and supposed resulting deleveraging, the household leverage ratio is still in the nosebleed section of history at 180% of wage and salary earnings.

    Stated differently, had the household leverage ratio not been levitated in the nearly parabolic fashion shown below, total household debt at the time of the financial crisis would have been $6 trillion, not $14 trillion. In effect, the inflationary policies of the Greenspan Fed and its successors created a giant hole in the supply side of the US economy, and then filled it with $8 trillion of incremental debt which remains an albatross on the main street economy to this day.

    Then again, digging holes and refilling them is the essence of Keynesian economics.

    Household Leverage Ratio - Click to enlarge

    Household Leverage Ratio – Click to enlarge

    At the end of the day, the only policy compatible with Greenspan’s inflationary monetary regime was reversion to completely managed trade and a shift to historically high tariffs on imported goods and services. That would have dramatically slowed the off-shoring of production, and actually also would have remained faithful to the Great Thinker’s economics. After all, in 1931 Keynes turned into a vociferous protectionist and even wrote an ode to the virtues of “homespun goods”.

    Alas, inflation in one country behind protective trade barriers doesn’t work either, as was demonstrated during the inflationary spiral of the late 1960s and 1970s. That’s because easy money does lead to a spiral of rising domestic wages and prices owing to too much credit based spending; and this spiral eventually soars out of control in the absence of the discipline imposed by lower-priced foreign goods and services.

    In perverse fashion, therefore, the Greenspan Fed operated a bread and circuses economy. Unlimited imports massively displaced domestic production and incomes—even as they imposed an upper boundary on the rate of CPI gains.

    The China Price for goods and India Price for services, in effect, throttled domestic inflation and prevented a runaway inflationary spiral. In the face of ever increasing credit-funded US household demand, there was virtually unlimited labor and production supply available from the rice paddies and agricultural villages of the EM.

    Free trade also permitted many companies to fatten their profits by arbitraging the wedge between Greenspan’s inflated wages in the US and the rice paddy wages of the EM. Indeed, the alliance of the Business Roundtable and the Keynesian Fed in behalf of free money and free trade is one of history’s most destructive arrangements of convenience.

    In any event, the graph below nails the story. During the 29 years since Greenspan took office, the nominal wages of domestic production workers have soared, rising from $9.22 per hour in August 1987 to $21.26 per hour at present. It was this 2.3X leap in nominal wages, of course, that sent jobs packing for China, India and the EM.

    At the same time, the inflation-adjusted wages of domestic workers who did retain there jobs went nowhere at all.

    That’s right. There were tens of millions of jobs off-shored, but in constant dollars of purchasing power, the average production worker wage of $383 per week in mid-1987 has ended up at $380 per week 29 years later

    During the span of that 29 year period the Fed’s balance sheet grew from $200 billion to $4.5 trillion. That’s a 23X gain during less than an average working lifetime. Greenspan claimed he was the nation’s savior for getting the CPI inflation rate down to around 2% during his tenure; and Bernanke and Yellen have postured as would be saviors owing to their strenuous money pumping efforts to keep it from failing the target from below.

    But 2% inflation is a fundamental Keynesian fallacy, and the massive central bank balance sheet explosion which fueled it is the greatest monetary travesty in history. Dunderheads like Bernanke and Yellen say 2% inflation is just fine because under their benign monetary management everything comes out in the wash at the end——-wages, prices, rents, profits, living costs and indexed social benefits all march higher together with tolerable leads and lags.

    No they don’t. Jobs in their millions march away to the off-shore world when nominal wages double and the purchasing power of the dollar is cut in half over 29 years.

    These academic fools apparently believe they live in Keynes’ imaginary homespun economy of 1931!

    The evident economic distress in the flyover zone of America and the Trump voters now arising from it in their tens of millions are telling establishment policy makers that they are full of it; that they have had enough of free trade and free money.

    What can be done now?

    The solution lies in the contra-factual to the Greenspan/Fed Inflation Regime. Under sound money, the balance sheet of the Fed would still be $200 billion, household debt would be a fraction of its current level, the CPI would have shrunk 1-2% per year rather than the opposite and nominal wages would have shrunk by slightly less. But real wages would be far higher than the $380 per week shown above and good jobs in both goods and services would be far more plentiful than reported last Friday by the BLS.

    Needless to say, the clock cannot be turned back, and a resort to Keynes’ out-and-out protectionism in the context of an economy that suckles on nearly $3 trillion of annual goods and services imports is a non-starter. It would wreak havoc beyond imagination.

    But it is not too late to attempt the second best in the face of the giant historical detour from sound money that has soured the practice of free trade. To wit, public policy can undo some of the damage by sharply lowering the nominal price of domestic wages and salaries in order to reduce the cost wedge versus the rest of the world.

    It is currently estimated that during 2016 social insurance levies on employers and employees will add a staggering $1.8 trillion to the US wage bill. Most of that represents social security and medicare payroll taxes at the Federal level, along with state unemployment insurance taxes that are induced by Federal policy.

    The single greatest things that could be done to shrink the Greenspan/Fed nominal wage wedge, therefore, is to rapidly phase out all payroll taxes, and thereby dramatically improve the terms of US labor trade with China and the rest of the EM world.  Given that the nation’s total wage bill (including benefit costs) is about $10 trillion, elimination of Federal payroll taxes would amount to a 11% cut in the cost of US labor.

    On the one hand, such a bold move would also dramatically elevate actual main street take-home pay owing to the fact that half of the payroll tax levy is extracted from worker pay packets in advance.

    Moreover, elimination of payroll taxes would be far more efficacious from a political point of view in Trump’s flyover zone constituencies. That’s because nearly 160 million Americans pay social insurance taxes compared to less than 50 million who actually pay any net Federal income taxes after deductions and credits.

    At the same time, elimination of Federal payroll taxes would reduce the direct cost of labor to domestic business by upwards of $575 billion per year. And as we have proposed in the Jobs Deal, the simultaneous elimination of the corporate income tax would reduce the burden on business by another $350 billion annually.

    Zeroing-out the corporate income tax happens to be completely appropriate and rational in today’s globalized economy in its own right. The corporate tax has always posed an insuperable challenge to match business income and expense during any arbitrary tax period, anyway. But in a globalized economy in which capital is infinitely mobile on paper as well as in fact, the attempt to collect corporate profits taxes in one country is pointless and impossible.

    It simply gives rise to massive accounting and legal maneuvers such as the headline grapping tax inversions of recent years. Yet notwithstanding 75,000 pages of IRS code and multiples more of that in tax rulings and litigation, corporate tax departments will always remain one step ahead of the IRS. That is, the corporate tax generates immense deadweight economic costs and dislocation—including a huge boost to off-shoring of production to low tax havens——while generating a meager harvest of actual revenues.

    Last year, for example, corporate tax collections amounted to just 1.8% of GDP compared to upwards of 9% during the heyday of the American industrial economy during the 1950s.

    Needless to say, you don’t have to be a believer in supply side miracles to agree that a nearly $1 trillion tax cut on American business from the elimination of payroll and corporate income taxes would amount to the mother of all jobs stimulus programs! 

    Self-evidently, the approximate $1.5 trillion revenue loss at the Federal level from eliminating these taxes would need to be replaced. We are not advocating any Laffer Curve miracles here——although over time the re-shoring of jobs that would result from this 11% labor tax cut  would surely generate a higher rate of growth than the anemic 1.3% annual GDP growth rate the nation has experienced since the turn of the century.

    In the next section we will delve deeper into the tax swap proposed here. But suffice it to say that with $3 trillion of imported goods and services and $10 trillion of total household consumption, the thing to tax would be exactly what we have too much of and which is the invalid fruit of inflationary monetary policy in the first place.

    To wit, foregone payroll and corporate tax revenue should be extracted from imports, consumption and foreign oil. An approximate 15% value added tax and a variable levy designed to peg landed crude prices at $75 per barrel would more than do the job. And revive the US shale patch, too.

    *  *  *

    As we began, there is a sliver of hope if Donald Trump does not capitulate to mainstream policies and is willing to set aside his potpourri  of shibboleths and panaceas in favor of a disciplined and coherent game plan that builds on his bedrock political insight that American families are losing the economic battle. To repeat, there is a way forward for the self-proclaimed world class deal maker to move the whole mess out of the hopeless paralysis of governance that now afflicts the nation.

    A President Trump would need to make Six Great Deals

    Peace Deal with Putin for cooperation in the middle east, defeat of ISIS, withdrawal from NATO and a comprehensive worldwide disarmament agreement.

     

    A Jobs Deal based on slashing taxes on business and workers and replacing them with taxes on consumption and imports.

     

    A Federalist Deal to turn back much of Washington’s domestic programs and meddling to the states and localities in return for a 4-year freeze on every single pending regulation and statue.

     

    Health Care Deal based on the repeal of Obamacare and tax preferences for employer insurance plans and their replacement with wide-open provider competition, consumer choice and individual health tax credits.

     

    A Fiscal Deal to slash post-disarmament spending for defense, devolve education and other domestic programs to the states and cities and to clawback unearned social security/medicare entitlement benefits from the affluent elderly.

     

    And a Sound Money Deal to end the Fed’s war on savers and retirees, repeal Humphrey-Hawkins and limit the central bank’s remit to providing last resort liquidity at a penalty spread over market interest rates based on good commercial collateral.

     

  • According To Deutsche Bank, The "Worst Kind Of Recession" May Have Already Started

    One week ago, Deutsche Bank’s Dominic Konstam unveiled, whether he likes it or not, what the next all too likely step will be as central bankers scramble to preserve order in a world in which monetary policy has all but lost effectiveness: “It is becoming increasingly clear to us that the level of yields at which credit expansion in Europe and Japan will pick up in earnest is probably negative, and substantially so. Therefore, the ECB and BoJ should move more strongly toward penalizing savings via negative retail deposit rates or perhaps wealth taxes.”

    Many were not happy, although in reality the only reason why the DB strategist proposed this disturbing idea is because this is precisely what the central banks will end up doing.

    Today, he follows up with an explanation just why the central bankers will engage in such lunatic measures: quite simply, he thinks that economic contraction is now practically assured – and may have already begun – for a simple reason: contrary to popular belief, this particular “expansion” will die of old age after all, and won’t even need the Fed’s intervention to unleash the next recession (if not depression).

    There is an old saying amongst market watchers that economic expansions do not die of old age. Rather, during the course of the business cycle dynamics emerge that threaten to become unacceptable from a policy perspective. In the context of economic expansion, that dynamic has been inflation. The conventional pattern has been that as expansions mature, demand for labor outstrips the available supply, creating upward pressure on wages. In the presence of pricing power, higher wages are passed along to end consumers through higher prices. Profits decline to the extent that wage acceleration outstrips price increases. The point is that the historical template has the Fed, as an exogenous agent, raising rates to slow wage growth and inflation and to restore profits. In this sense the cycle is actively terminated, rather than “dying of old age”.

     

    A number of stylized facts about the business cycle are apparent historically. Recessions always occur as part of an effort to restore profit growth. Profits are almost always dependent on productivity growth. Productivity recoveries almost always involve reduced labor demand. Productivity recoveries usually follow a period of stronger wage growth – and in that way productivity and wages are correlated. It is the strength in wages, however, that pressures profits unless passed through into higher prices. It is therefore always the case that recessions involve a period of central bank monetary tightening aimed at curbing any pass through of higher wages into prices and thus forcing a slowdown in labor demand to boost productivity via a recession and to then curb the rise in wages. Recessions are effectively created by policymakers to counter otherwise accelerating inflation.

    However, this time it’s different. As Konstam writes, “the current cycle is distinct in that pricing power is generally lower than in the past… This is likely because of the now well worn theme of global competition: production can be moved to lower wage centers, allowing constant or larger profits in an environment of steady or even lower prices. Lower pricing power reduces the ability of the corporate sector to pass along even mild wage increases to consumers and makes profits that much more vulnerable.

    Then there is the issue of plummeting productivity, something discussed here extensively in the past:

    A second unique aspect of the current cycle is that productivity growth across major economies has been stubbornly low throughout the cycle. We have particular sympathy for the idea that demographic changes are at least in part responsible. The aging of the baby boomer generation has been reflected in an aging workforce, and productivity growth in older workers is lower than in younger workers for life cycle reasons: these workers are further removed from education or vocational training in the use of technology and at any rate have already acquired a set of job related skills.

     

     

     

    Because in equilibrium workers are paid their productivity, stagnant productivity growth implies static wage growth. It is incorrect, however, to presume that faster wages imply concurrent faster productivity growth. Higher productivity might have followed higher wages in the past, but only by virtue of reduced labor input that was meant to contain wage growth relative to consumer prices and restore profits.

     

     

    If imbalances arise in the supply of and demand for labor, wages might temporarily accelerate more rapidly than underlying trend productivity growth. This creates a profits problem. The Fed restores productivity by slowing aggregate demand, allowing labor input to decline more rapidly than output. Higher productivity restores profits: wage increases are “paid for” by increasing output per unit labor input. As with lower pricing power, stubbornly low productivity growth makes (falling) profits weaker on the margin.

    Konstam then flips the entire “old age” question on its head and asks the relevant question namely whether the Fed is still needed to create a recession given the characteristics of the current economic cycle.

    We would argue that it is not. Last week’s employment report illustrates that there is still very little or no wage pressure. This points to the persistent presence of slack in labor markets, perhaps because NAIRU is lower than even the latest estimates. Moreover, to the extent that the Fed is seeking to increase wage share, they should be biased to remain “behind the curve” pursuant to optimal control. Note that the absence of wage and price pressure and a static Fed are more or less consistent with the current level of yields and the shape of the curve, while optimal control would bias the curve steeper in a bearish fashion.

    So if Fed action (read tightening) is not needed to induce a recession, what could be the catalyst? According to DB, two things.

    The first is a demand shock. This could in principle occur as a result of Fed tightening as during the 2007/2008 housing shock which occurred well after the Fed effort to curb wage growth was under way. In these instances the demand shock forces rapid reductions in labor demand due to the profit drain from higher wages. The central bank usually reverses course quickly with monetary easing, and fiscal stimulus is deployed to counteract the negative demand shock. In terms of market movement, the reaction of policy makers to a demand shock would bias the curve to steepen bullishly.

     

    In the current environment, savings rates are rising and likely to continue to do so. We have recently argued that demographics are pushing the labor force participation rate lower, which exerts upward pressure on the savings rate. It is not clear the consumer has experienced a shock sufficient to create a recession. However, to a larger extent a slow rise in savings is to be expected given the demographic picture – a large proportion of baby boomers are approaching retirement, when savings rates are typically highest – and because twenty-somethings need to save for homeownership for longer than previously given more stringent credit standards. A shock rise in savings would require a collapse in risk assets including house prices. Such a shock could emanate from a disorderly deleveraging in China, perhaps accompanied by a lumpy devaluation. We would argue that – thanks to the unfolding relent – scenarios such as these are less likely now.

    Maybe, although as we showed recently, as of March, the US savings rate following numerous revisions, was already at the highest in over three  years and rising.

     

    Which brings us to Konstam’s worst case scenario, one which is quickly starting to smell like the credit analyst’s “base-case” namely the “third avenue for recession” which Deutsche Bank believes is the worst of the three. “This is an endogenous slowdown in labor demand that results because corporations are not just tired of negative profit growth, but also because they are drawing a line in the sand from the perspective of defending margins. No one knows where that line is. But payroll reports like last week’s suggest it could be around here. We have had the worst profit recession since 1971 but profit share is still in the low 20 percent range, having peaked around 24 pct. The worst level has been in the mid to low teens.”

    And the punchline:

    An endogenous recession – not due to a negative demand shock or Fed policy tightening – is the worst because not only does it speak to policy impotence, but it also highlights the inherent contradiction in capitalism that has worried economists for over a century. That contradiction is that profits, savings or “surplus” must be continually plowed back into the economy to support growth, yet doing so runs the risk of undermining the next profit cycle through over supply. If profits are not plowed back, corporations run the risk of deficit demand. In simple terms, a line in the sand for profit share means that corporations end up firing workers who just happen to be consumers as well.

    But why plow back profits into the economy when one can just buy back stock instead and make owners of capital wealthy beyond their wildest dreams when you have every central bank, and in the case of the ECB explicitly, backstopping bond purchases so that the use of proceeds can just to to fund buybacks.

    Or, god forbid that the “inherent contradiction” not in capitalism but in the neo-Keynesian model is revealed, exposing all those tenured economists and central bankers as clueless cranks, and finally vaulting Austrian economics to the pinnacle of economic thought.

    The irony, of course, is that once the global economy falls into the deepest economic depression the world has seen – perhaps ever – everyone will be shocked and confused hot it is that we go there when “markets” kept rising, and rising, and rising…

    Sarcasm aside, let’s summarize: according to Deutsche Bank the worst kind of a recession, an “endogenous one” in which labor demand plunges as “corporations are not just tired of negative profit growth, but also because they are drawing a line in the sand from the perspective of defending margins” may be imminent… or is already here because based on “payroll reports like last week’s suggest it could be around here.

    Surely, that alone should be enough to send the S&P to new all time highs.

    * * *

    And for those wondering: yes, according to DB things will get worse simply because they have to get worse to offer some hope for an actual mean reversion-based recovery. Sadly, as DB is all too correct, the only way that central banks have ahead of them now involves more negative rates, more wealth transfers, and of course, the infamous “wealth tax” DB touched upon last week.

    Things will need to get worse before policy can become radically better. That may involve piling more debt from government onto existing debt, coupled with “helicopter money” elements to reduce some of the burden for existing debtors. It could involve a direct transfer away from profits and savers to workers and spenders via negative rates and wealth taxes that banks collect either way. There is light at the end of the tunnel. But we have yet got to the right tunnel and probably won’t until the US falls into a recession.

    Actually, make that a depression, because when central banks have really nothing left to lose, that’s when the terminal step in fiat debasement can finally begin.

  • Supermodels And Other Productivity Measures

    Submitted by Nick Colas of Convergex

    Supermodels And Other Productivity Measures

    One of the livelier debates in economics at the moment relates to the intersection of productivity growth and the role of technology in modern society.  At its core, the problem is a simple one: for all the smartphones, Internet access, apps and other technological advancements of the last decade, productivity growth is close to zero (0.3% in Q4 2016).  One popular rebuttal from tech land is essentially “You economists are doing it wrong – missing critical items like free apps and other benefits of an interconnected world.”

    Today we look this problem through a novel lens, measuring the inflation adjusted price of productivity-enhancing consumer items from the 1920s. The idea is that these products – cars, washing machines, electric refrigerators, sewing machines and typewriters – helped play a role in forming the golden age of U.S. productivity growth (1939-2000).  Our conclusion: if current day technology is so helpful to productivity, why is it so cheap?

    * * *

    Audrey Munson was the world’s first supermodel, but unlike her modern day counterparts, hers was a life of genuine trouble and suffering.  She worked in the first years of the 20th century, modeling primarily for sculptors who were creating works for both public display and private homes.  She had three things going for her which made her an extremely popular model with the artists of the day:

    • She closely resembled the classical Greco-Roman ideal of beauty, with a symmetrical face and what was deemed at the time an appropriately proportional body type.
    • She was very entrepreneurial, going from door to door looking for work with New York’s very best artists.
    • She would work in the nude but purely in a professional capacity, which engendered tremendous respect among her peers.

    Sadly, as modernism shifted artistic tastes away from classical forms she eventually fell on hard times.  By her 40s, mental illness set in and she was committed to a psychiatric hospital.  She died at the age of 104, in 1996, having spent the majority of her life in the St Lawrence State Hospital for the Insane in upstate New York.

    There is a recent book out about Audrey’s life – aptly called “The Curse of Beauty” – which I can recommend if you want to learn more.  If you want to see a few images of the sculptures she inspired, here is a small sample:

    We know what Audrey made as a model: $0.50/hour, or $12.03 adjusted for inflation today.  Compare that to Linda Evangelista, who once famously proclaimed “I don’t get out of bed for less than $10,000/day”, and you have a bit of an economic conundrum.  Why are models worth so much more today?  After all, they aren’t any more “productive”…

    The answer, or at least “an” answer, is that photography is a more scalable medium than sculpture and less open to the artist’s interpretation of the model.  Audrey was famous in her time, to be sure, but Kate Moss and Adriana Lima have the benefit of thousands of photographic images to build and maintain their brands on a global basis.  And while a good photographer can help, in the end “The camera never lies”. 

    All of this reminds me of the current debate in economic circles: why is U.S. productivity growth so slow (all of 0.3% in Q4 2014, and well below post-War trends of 2% since the Great Recession) when we have so much new technology around?  This puzzle even has a name – Solow’s paradox – after Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow’s offhand comment “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics”.  Explanations from Silicon Valley, who aren’t fans of this line of reasoning, range from “You’re measuring productivity incorrectly” to “wait for it, it’s coming” to “it’s concentrated in the services sector”.

    You can read a good review of the debate here, in a 2014 article in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher-productivity-and-better

    One way to consider the question is to look at what productivity-enhancing technology cost in the 1920s and compare it to popular consumer products today.  The idea is simple: technology that truly boosts productivity should be expensive since buyers will happily pay a price premium for that benefit.

    Take one nearly antediluvian example: the sewing machine.  In the 1850s one of these devices cost $100 – about $2,700 in today’s dollars.  Why so much? First, they increased household productivity dramatically since most clothes were homemade. Second, the better designs enjoyed strong patent protection. Fun fact, and not surprising given these numbers: sewing machines were the first product sold in the U.S. on an installment plan.  After all, who could afford $100 all at once?

    Fast forward a bit to the 1920s, and consider the prices of other household appliances:

    • A washing machine for $81.50. That is $970.39 today. Actual current price of a nice GE or Whirlpool top loading washer (courtesy of PC Richard’s website): $450.
    • A vacuum cleaner for $28.95, or $344.70 today. Actual current price of a Shark Navigator on Amazon: $179.00
    • An electric refrigerator for $285.00, or $3,393.38 today. A nice chrome one from Best Buy today: $899.99.
    • If you are feeling nostalgic, here are the ads: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/20selectrical.html

    As for office productivity, the typewriter was all the rage at the turn of the 20th century, costing all of $39.80 around 1915.  That is $627.66 today.  Funny enough, a medium range Dell desktop with screen costs $699 today on Amazon.

    Now, if we are getting so much productivity out of the current range of offerings from Silicon Valley, I have a question: why aren’t these products really expensive, as the technology of the 1920s clearly was?  In fairness, a cell phone is costly – good monthly deals from major carriers usually make you pay about $600 for the phone. Which, funny enough, is what the typewriter cost (inflation adjusted) exactly 100 years ago.

    But what about all the free apps and services?  Even Uber has to pay bonuses to recruit drivers. Why is that, if the model is so good? Yes, getting to scale is important for the service, but shouldn’t drivers come running if their productivity is so much better in the new model? Something is off.  Either the competitive pressures of excess venture capital in the system is dampening pricing power, or perhaps the latest wave of tech just doesn’t hold a candle to the real productivity enhancements of sewing machine, typewriter, washer and fridge.

    I know – none of this really answers the question of Solow’s paradox satisfactorily.  At the margin, it does seem that the technologists have it right: something is wrong in the measurement of productivity.  The world has changed dramatically in the last decade, from iPhones to Uber and Facebook.  Whenever I write on this topic I get one consistent retort: productivity is flat because we’re all on social media.  Maybe so…  But then why isn’t Facebook expensive to use? In fact, I hear it is basically free.

  • Tesla and GM Will Probably Both Be Bankrupt in 10 Years (Video)

    By EconMatters


    I was originally looking at Tesla from a trading standpoint, but in comparing GM, both company`s Financial internals look bleak longer term. GM is a debt accumulating machine, and Tesla is the starter version of this model. The Automobile manufacturing Industry is a capital intensive business, but both these companies are laggards to best practices in the Industry at large. There is major trouble ahead for both companies at this level of financial mismanagement. Tesla is trying to grow too fast, and GM is a bloated Government style bureaucracy that requires major pruning to say the least.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  • The King Of Crony Capitalism

    Via Eric Peters Autos blog,

    If Elon Musk’s various projects are so Iron Man fabulous, why do they all need so much government “help”? Shouldn’t Tesla – and Solar City and SpaceX – be able to stand on their merits… if they actually have merit?

    musk lead

    Tesla fanbois – and Musk himself – will tell you all about the virtues of his electric cars. They are sleek and speedy. This is true. But they are also expensive (the least expensive model, the pending Model X, will reportedly start around $35k, about the same price as a luxury sedan like the Lexus ES350) and come standard with a number of significant functional deficits such as a best-case range about half that of most conventional cars and recharge times at least 4-5 times as long as it takes to refuel a conventional car.

    That’s if you can find a Tesla “supercharger” station.

    If not, then the recharge time becomes hours rather than half an hour.

    But the real problem with Tesla cars is that no one actually buys them.

    Well, not directly.

    Their manufacture is heavily subsidized – and their sale is heavily subsidized

    Either way, the taxpayer (rather than the “buyer”) is the one who gets the bill.

    Musk lead 2

    On the manufacturing end, Tesla got $1.3 billion in special crony-capitalist  “incentives” from the state of Nevada to build its battery factory there. This includes an exemption from having to pay any property taxes (unlike you and I) for the next 20 years. Another inducement was $195 million in transferable tax credits – which Tesla could sell for cash.

    California provides similar inducements – including $15 million from the state of California to “create jobs” in the state.

    Tesla does not make money by selling cars, either.

    It makes money by selling “carbon credits” to real car companies that make functionally and economically viable vehicles that can and do sell on the merits – but which are not “zero emissions” vehicles, as the electric Tesla is claimed to be (but isn’t, actually, unless you don’t count the emissions produced by the utility plants that provide the electricity they run on, or the emissions produced mining the materials necessary to make the hundreds of pounds of batteries needed by each car).

    Laws in nine states (including California) require each automaker selling cars in the state to sell a certain number of “zero emissions” vehicles, else be fined. Since only electric cars qualify under the law as “zero emissions” vehicles – and the majority of cars made by the real car companies are not electric cars – they end up having to “purchase” (air quotes for the same reason that you are a “customer” of the IRS’s)  these “carbon credits” from Tesla, subsidizing Tesla’s operations and adding to the expense of manufacturing their own functionally and economically viable cars.

    Musk 3

    The amount Tesla has “earned” this way is in the neighborhood of $517 million.     

    Tesla is a newfangled take on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card – which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment.

    Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government – that is, on taxpayer “help” – in order to survive.

    Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Tesla’s could survive.

    It is estimated that Tesla’s various ventures – including his new SolarCity solar panel operation and SpaceX – have cost taxpayers at least $4.9 billion, with Tesla accounting for about half of that dole.

    And he still loses money.

    Musk fanbois will counter by pointing out that other businesses – including the car business – also get “help” from the government (that is, from taxpayers) which is perfectly true. But that’s not much of a defense – much less a refutation of the charge that Musk is a crony capitalist.

    Which is all he is.

    Tesla 5

    The real difference between Musk’s operations and those of say General Motors is that General Motors’s products are fundamentally viable while Tesla’s are not. GM is happy to accept government “help” when offered but it is not necessary for taxpayers to bankroll the production of Corvettes – nor provide thousands of dollars in cash incentives to each prospective buyer in order to “stimulate” sales.

    The straight dope is that Tesla could not build a single car without the government’s help. Take away that “help” and the actual cost would be so prohibitive that virtually no one except perhaps fellow billionaires like Musk with money to burn on toys would buy a Tesla.

    As it is – even with massive subsidies at the manufacturing level and then again at the retail level – each Tesla still “sells” at a loss of several thousand dollars per car … adding up to almost $400 million so far this year (the company just announced this; see here).

    The typical Tesla “buyer,” meanwhile, has an annual income in excess of $250,000.

    Why are taxpayers – the majority of them not earning $250k annually – being taxed to support the “purchase” of electric exotic cars by extremely affluent people?

    Why should taxpayers be made to subsidize any of Musk’s “businesses”?

    crony pic

    He’s a billionaire.

    And – we’re constantly told – a really smart guy.

    Surely he could fund (or find) the private capital necessary to fund his various projects. The fact that he could not find private – that is, willing – investors but instead has to rely on the coercive power of the government to fund his projects speaks volumes about the fundamental worth of his projects.

    He “succeeds” only because of his ability to game the system, not by offering products that people are willing to pay for (using their own money, that is).

    The heroic real-life Tony Stark image notwithstanding, Musk is an operator – not a creator of value.

    He has more in common with the vulture capitalist oligarchs of the former Soviet Union than with the namesake of his electric car company.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 7th May 2016

  • Are Electric Cars a Threat to the Oil Industry (Video)

    By EconMatters


    Paradigm Shifts happen throughout human evolution, are we experiencing just such a case in the automobile marketplace and Energy space? Additional Technological Breakthroughs necessary for knock out punch against the Oil Market.

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  • Showdown! In Leaked Letter IMF Tells Germany “Debt Relief For Greece Or IMF Drops Out”

    Submitted by Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

    Showdown! In Leaked Letter IMF Tells Germany “Debt Relief For Greece Or IMF Drops Out”

    It’s showdown time.

    The IMF has threatened it will pull out of the Greek bailout program unless Greece gets debt relief.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Austria, Finland, and the other Eurozone creditors will not like today’s development one bit.

     

    Showdown!

    Please consider IMF Tells Eurozone to Start Greek Debt Talks.

    The International Monetary Fund has told eurozone finance ministers they must immediately begin negotiations to grant debt relief for Greece despite German opposition, upending carefully orchestrated negotiations ahead of an emergency meeting on Monday.

     

    In a letter to all 19 ministers sent on Thursday night and obtained by the Financial Times, Christine Lagarde, the IMF chief, said stalemated talks with Athens to find €3bn in “contingency” budget cuts, which have gone on for a month, had become fruitless and that debt relief must be put on the table immediately, or risk losing IMF participation in the programme.

     

    Athens is facing €3.5bn in debt payments in July that it needs bailout aid to pay, and EU officials have told Greek government officials they do not want messy negotiations to continue during the Brexit campaign — meaning if no agreement is reached this month, leaders will not begin discussions again until just weeks before a possible default.

     

    Similar last-minute talks a year ago rattled the Greek economy and raised questions about whether Greece could be ejected from the eurozone.

     

    Relations between the IMF and Athens, already strained after last year’s brinkmanship, have reached a new low in recent weeks following WikiLeaks’ publication of a transcript of a private teleconference between Mr Thomsen and other IMF officials — a transcript Greek officials claimed showed the IMF was negotiating in bad faith.

     

    Ms Lagarde stuck by the IMF’s assessment that such reforms would only produce a primary surplus of 1.5 per cent in 2018 — not the 3.5 per cent the EU has mandated.

     

    “We do not believe that it will be possible to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP primary surplus by relying on hiking already high taxes levied on a narrow base, cutting excessively discretionary spending, and counting one-off measures as has been proposed in recent weeks.”

    Leaked Letter

    Dear minister:

     

    Program discussions between Greece and the institutions have made progress in recent weeks, but significant gaps remain to be bridged before an agreement can be reached that would include the IMF under one of our program facilities. I think it is time for me to clarify our position, and to explain the reasons why we believe that specific measures, debt restructuring, and financing must now be discussed simultaneously.

     

    In particular, a clarification is needed to clear unfounded allegations that the IMF is being inflexible, calling for unnecessary new fiscal measures and – as a result – causing a delay in the negotiations and the disbursement of urgently needed funds.

     

    First, together with the other institutions we have negotiated in good faith with our Greek partners on a package of fiscal measures yielding 2.5 per cent of GDP – close to being agreed – that will in our view be sufficient to reach a primary surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2018. Our assessment is based on realistic assumptions informed by Greece’s track record, the international environment, and the latest data released by Eurostat.

     

    Second, this target falls short of what Greece promised its European partners in July last year – namely that it would achieve a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of GDP in 2018. If the Eurogroup decided to hold Greece to this target, we could support an additional effort to temporarily reach this level, although it is higher than what we consider economically and socially sustainable in the long-run (see below).

     

    However, let there be no doubt that meeting this higher target would not only be very difficult to reach, but possibly counterproductive. Greece’s fiscal adjustment has in the past fallen short of what was needed because of the lack of structural reforms underlying the adjustment effort. We do not believe that it will be possible to reach a 3.5 per cent of GDP primary surplus by relying on hiking already high taxes levied on a narrow base, cutting excessively discretionary spending, and counting on one-off measures as has been proposed in recent weeks. The additional adjustment effort of 2 per cent of GDP would only be credible based on long overdue public sector reforms, notably of the pension and tax system.

     

    Unfortunately, the contingency mechanism that Greece is proposing does not include such reforms. Instead, the authorities have offered to make short-term across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending – which has already been compressed to the point where the provision of public service is severely compromised – or transitory cuts in pension and wages not supported by fundamental parametric reforms. Based on past performance, such ad-hoc measures are not very credible, but they are also undesirable as they add to uncertainty and fail to resolve the underlying imbalances. I should also add that Greece has legislated a dozen contingency-type mechanisms in the past that have largely not worked.

     

    Third, going forward, we do not expect Greece to be able to sustain a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of GDP for decades to come. Only a few European countries have managed to do so, carried by a strong social consensus that is not in evidence in Athens. It would be unrealistic to expect future governments to resist pressure to relax fiscal policy over political cycles stretching far into the future. The recent experience – when first a center-right and then a center-left government quickly succumbed to easing pressures once a small primary surplus was achieved – should inform us against making such exceptional assumptions in the case of Greece. In our view, maintaining a primary surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP over the foreseeable future may be achievable in the context of a successful program and strong European budget surveillance for many years to come thereafter.

     

    understand the urgency of the situation in the case of Greece and Europe as a whole, and our common objective is to quickly agree on a way forward. This requires compromises from all sides, and we have contributed our part by focusing conditionality on what we see as the absolute minimum, leaving important structural reforms to a later stage. However, for us to support Greece with a new IMF arrangement, it is essential that the financing and debt relief from Greece’s European partners are based on fiscal targets that are realistic because they are supported by credible measures to reach them. We insist on such assurances in all our programs, and we cannot deviate from this basic principle in the case of Greece. The IMF must apply the same standard to Greece as to other members of our institution.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Christine Lagarde

    Loaded Gun

    I am uncertain if the emphasis in bold is by Lagarde or the Financial Times, but I suspect the latter.

    This “purposely leaked” letter puts enormous pressure on German chancellor Angela Merkel who is already under severe strain due to her complete bungling of the refugee crisis.

    Pick Your Poison

    1. The German parliament only agreed to do this deal if the IMF was in it.
    2. The Germany parliament only agreed to do this on the specific terms previously offered.

    The terms included no more debt relief, Greece primary surplus (budget surplus not counting interest on debt) of 3% of GDP by 2018.

    I said that would never happen and it won’t.

    Lagarde’s letter stated “Third, going forward, we do not expect Greece to be able to sustain a primary surplus of 3.5 per cent of GDP for decades to come.

    By the way, Lagarde knew all along Greece could not meet a primary surplus of 3.5% of GDP for decades to come. So, why did it sign the deal in the first place?

    Lagarde now proposes a primary surplus of 1.5%.

    Well guess what? That is nearly as unlikely as a surplus of 3.5%.

    And at a rate of 1.5%, it will take decades longer for Greece to pay back the hundreds of billions of euros it owes in these programs.

    So… that means outright debt reductions.

  • Army Captain Sues President Obama Over Illegal And Unconstitutional War On ISIS

    Submitted by Mike Krieger Of Liberty Blitzkrieg

    Army Captain Sues President Obama Over Illegal And Unconstitutional War On ISIS

    Before I get into the heart of this piece, I want to once again applaud Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale, and author of “The Decline and Fall of the American Republic.” Mr. Ackerman has sustained a laser-like focus in recent years on exposing Obama’s brazen and unconstitutional penchant for illegal war-making.

    I’ve highlighted his powerful opinion pieces on the topic twice before, first in the 2014 post, Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar. Here are a few excerpts:

    President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

     

    Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

     

    But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks. 

     

    Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.

     

    Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

    Mr. Ackerman was back the following year with some additional words. From the post, The New York Times Admits – Despite Going to Congress, Obama is Still Defending Unlimited War Powers:

    President Obama is going before Congress to request authorization for the limited use of military force in a battle of up to three years against the Islamic State. On the surface, this looks like a welcome recognition of Congress’s ultimate authority in matters of war and peace. But unless the resolution put forward by the White House is amended, it will have the opposite effect. Congressional support will amount to the ringing endorsement of unlimited presidential war making.

     

    The problem is the double-barreled position advanced by Mr. Obama. He asserts that he already has sufficient congressional authority for an open-ended war with the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS. He bases this claim on an expansive reading of Congress’s 2001 resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to make war on Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. As long as this resolution remains on the books, Mr. Obama claims, he can continue fighting, even if Congress never agrees to a new resolution.

     

    For political cover, Mr. Obama now wants Congress to grant him new authority, and yet he opposes repeal of the 2001 authorization in exchange for that new authority. Although he has pledged to refine, and ultimately repeal, the old resolution, he has failed to follow through on similar commitments in the past. If Congress contents itself with another empty promise, it is highly likely that the old act will remain on the books when the new resolution runs out in 2018. This will allow Mr. Obama’s successor to reassert his current position and continue fighting on the basis of the authority he inherited from the Bush era.

     

    People who take the Constitution seriously, on both sides of the aisle, must not allow this to happen. They should insist on the repeal of the 2001 resolution and an explicit repudiation of the “associated forces” doctrine. Only then will the next president be required to return to Congress to gain its consent if he or she wants to continue the war past the 2018 deadline. If it fails to take a stand now, its sham debate will generate another destructive cycle of distrust that will further alienate Americans from their representatives.

    Not one to give up, Bruce Ackerman is back in the news, this time emerging as a consultant to a lawsuit filed by Army Captain, Nathan Michael Smith, against President Obama for launching illegal wars.

    The Washington Post reports:

    An Army captain filed suit against President Obama on Wednesday, claiming that the president is engaged in an “illegal war” against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

     

    Nathan Michael Smith, who is deployed to Kuwait as an intelligence officer at Camp Arifjan, argues in the lawsuit that the president lacks the proper authorization for his campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, because he failed to get congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

     

    “In waging war against ISIS, President Obama is misusing limited congressional authorizations for the use of military force as a blank check to conduct a war against enemies of his own choosing, without geographical or temporal boundaries,” reads the lawsuit, filed by Smith and his counsel, human rights lawyer David Remes. Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman is a consultant in the suit.

     

    “I began to wonder, ‘Is this the Administration’s war, or is it America’s war?’ The Constitution tells us that Congress is supposed to answer that question, but Congress is AWOL,” he said, according to the suit. “My conscience bothered me.”

     

    The Constitution grants only Congress the authority to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution limits the president’s ability to deploy forces into hostile situations for more than 60 days without congressional approval, Smith argues. As a result, he was conflicted about the engagement.

     

    The lawsuits rests on five counts.

     

    First, Smith and his lawyers argue that Obama violated the War Powers Resolution, which requires that a president obtain congressional authorization for use of force within 60 days of deploying troops into a hostile situation.

     

    Second, they say he violated the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution by failing to publish a legal justification for the conflict.

     

    Third and fourth, they say Obama has exceeded his authority under the 2001 and 2002 authorizations of the use of military force. Finally, Smith and his lawyers say that Obama’s campaign against the Islamic State represents executive overreach under the Constitution.

     

    Smith asks that a judge declare the ongoing campaign illegal unless Obama obtains congressional authorization, and he asks that the administration cover his legal fees.

    Finally, toward the end of this same Washington Post piece, we are informed of the following…

    Just last month, Obama outlined plans to expand the military’s presence in Syria to as many as 300 troops in order to continue to apply pressure to ISIS, he said. Three service members have died in combat with the Islamic State.

    So more boots on the ground, despite Obama repeatedly saying “no boots on the ground” (he said it 16 times) Remarkably, the U.S. State Department is now saying he never said that, which of course he did.

    For some proof, watch the incredible video below.

     

    If you’re going to lie, at least be good at it.

  • How El Chapo Used Gold To Move Money Out Of The U.S.

    With blue lights flashing and a SWAT team in front of the warehouse, a black sedan pulled up. A man got out, popped the trunk, grabbed a briefcase and headed for Natalie Jewelry. Once there, the man was heard to say "I just need to drop off this gold and get a receipt. I need a receipt."

    That's a first hand account of how gold was delivered to a Miami jewelry store by drug cartels, to later be melted down and sold for cash.

    As Bloomberg reports, court documents from a federal court case in Chicago allege that El Chapo's Sinaloa drug cartel laundered tens of millions out of the U.S. not through secret shell companies wiring funds from bank to bank, but by simply buying gold and selling it.

    Here's how the money laundering process allegedly worked. When the Sinaloa cartel needed to get the proceeds from its drug activities in the U.S. back to Mexico, it would first go buy up gold bars and other scrap gold pieces (sometimes silver as well) from jewelry stores and other businesses in the Chicago area. Then, the gold would be put into boxes, and under the name "Chicago Gold", or on occasion "Shopping Silver", would ship the boxes via FedEx to a company near Miami called Natalie Jewelry.

    Once the gold arrived at Natalie Jewelry, the second leg of the operation was set in motion. The gold would then be sold to companies referred to as refineries, who melted down the gold. The refinery would take a commission, and send the rest of the proceeds back to Natalie Jewelry.

    Now came the difficult part, which was getting the cash out of the country and into Mexico. This part of the operation called for a little bit more creativity, so the cartel set up a company in Mexico called De Mexico British Metal. De Mexico British Metal would invoice Natalie Jewelry, making it appear that it had sold the gold to them. Natalie Jewelry would in turn take their commission, and send the final proceeds to De Mexico British Metal.

    The invoices made the entire transaction appear legitimate, and it worked for a period of time, as the cartel was able to launder an estimated $98 million using this process. However, the Department of Homeland Security eventually caught on to the scheme. "There was just way too much gold going through Miami" said retired DHS agent Lou Bock. The fact that U.S. customs records showed a large volume of gold being processed by a company in Miami, coupled with the fact that virtually no jewelry is made in Miami, made the agency very suspicious.

    In January 2014, based on Customs reports showing discrepancies between the volume and value of gold processed by Natalie Jewelry, federal agents converged on the office located in an industrial park just north of Miami. They seized cash and hundreds of kilograms of gold and silver, along with documents linking the company to the Sinaloa cartel.

    * * *

    This incredible scheme has us wondering, with the move to banish cash from the system in order to "make it harder for the bad guys", how long until gold is also banned? What an incredibly convenient excuse to get gold out of circulation and under the direct control of the central planners.

    “If I had a lot of money to launder, I would choose gold,” says John Cassara, a former U.S. Treasury special agent and author of books on money laundering. “There really isn’t anything else like it out there.” Once it’s melted down, the commodity’s origins are difficult to trace. It can quickly be converted to cash. Many of the companies that deal in gold aren’t held to the same compliance standards as banks.

  • These 9 Charts Explain The Global Economic Slowdown (And Why Central Banks Can't Fix It)

    Submitted by John Mauldin via MauldinEconomics.com,

    GDP growth has only two basic components: growth in productivity and growth in the workforce size. That’s it. There are two and only two ways you can grow an economy: increase the (working-age) population or productivity.

    There is no magic fairy dust you can sprinkle on an economy to make it grow. To increase GDP you have to actually produce more. That's why it's called gross domestic product.

    Therefore—and I'm oversimplifying quite a lot here—a recession is basically a decrease in production (as, normally, population doesn't decrease). Two clear implications emerge: The first is that if you want the economy to grow, there must be an economic environment that is friendly to increasing productivity.

    Productivity growth, unfortunately, is slowing down in much of the developed world and there’s no reason to think the trend will change soon.
     
    Let me offer a few rather disconcerting charts showing the continuing decline in productivity and major shifts in demographics that are worsening the situation.

    Annual productivity growth is below the 1947–2005 average of 2.1%

    Productivity grew at an annual rate of less than 1% in each of the last five years. The average annual rate of productivity growth from 2007 to 2015 was 1.2%, well below the long-term rate of 2.1% from 1947 to 2015.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

     
    Productivity grew only 0.6% over the last two years

    The next chart shows that actual productivity has grown less than 0.6% in the last two years. The numbers suggest that productivity growth has become hard to achieve in the developed world.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    Part of the problem for the developed world is that the services sector makes up much of its economy.

    Getting higher productivity in dry cleaners, restaurants, and hairdressers is much harder than it is in manufacturing or in agriculture. While productivity grows in the services sector, that sector alone cannot deliver significant increases in the overall productivity rate.

    Now, let’s look into major demographic trends to understand the roots of this slowdown.

    Working-age populations are shrinking and the dependency ratio is growing

    Here’s a chart from Eurostat on the projections for the EU population from 2014 to 2080.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    Some 65.9% of the EU was aged 15–64 in 2014, or what we might call “prime working age.” The number shrinks steadily to around 56% by 2050 and then levels out.

    Why does it level out? The forecasters basically assume that birthrates won’t drop much lower and that there is a limit on how long people will live. But in this next chart, we see the steep rise in the percentage of the elderly compared to those of working age, all over the developed world.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

     
    The number of children (ages 0–20) changes only slightly in the decades to come.

    The big change occurs in the top two segments on the previous chart, those aged 65–79 and 80+. Combined, they will grow from 18.5% of the population in 2014 to 28.7% in 2080.

    In 2014, 66% of the EU working population supported the 34% who were not working because they were either too old or too young. By 2040, the EU is projected to have 58.5% working to support 41.5% who are dependents. About two-thirds of the dependents will be those age 65 and over.

    Active labor force in the US has plunged

    The number of people aged 15 to 65 doesn’t really equal the number of workers. We measure the number of actual workers by something called the participation rate.

    The participation rate is a measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force. It defines the percentage of the population that is either employed or actively looking for work.

    Let’s look first at the actual Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate for the United States.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    This rate has been falling since 2000. A big part of the drop-off reflects Boomers retiring, but there is something odd going on besides it.

    We see a decline in the participation rate of 25 to 54 year-olds (prime working age), though the rate for this group had risen continually for 50 years.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    And now we delve into an even stranger phenomenon. Young people, 20 to 24, are increasingly opting out of the workforce.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    Research tells us that a lot of those people are still going to school. But there are other things happening here, and we need to try to understand them.

    Look at this chart from the Atlanta Fed.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    Notice how many young people are out of the labor force because they are taking care of family. That brings us back to the increasing dependency ratio I talked about earlier. It also shows that shrinking working-age populations already have a visible impact on economic growth.

    Central banks are powerless

    Here’s a chart that wraps up everything.

    These_9_Charts_Explain_the_Global_Economic_Slowdown—and_Why_Central_Banks_Can’t_Fix_It

    This one shows the percentage change in the labor force participation rate year over year. The rate has declined since the late 1970s, except for a few years of very modest growth within the last 16 years.

    The trends we have looked at are not likely to change much, which means we are facing a long period of restrained GDP growth throughout the developed world.

    This demographic cast iron lid on growth helps explain why the Federal Reserve, ECB, and other central banks seem so powerless.

    Can they create more workers? Not really. They can make a few adjustments that help a little—confident consumers are more likely to have children, but it takes time to grow the children into workers.

  • Big Brother Arrives In Public Schools – Biometric Scanners Track Students Every Move

    The world is disintegrating on every front – politically, environmentally, morally – and for the next generation, the future does not look promising. As we detailed previously, those coming of age today will face some of the greatest obstacles ever encountered by young people.  

    They will find themselves overtaxed and struggling to find worthwhile employment in a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion. They will be the subjects of a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies and on guard against domestic acts of terrorism, blowback against military occupations in foreign lands. And they will find government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice. As such, they will find themselves forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences. And perhaps most crucially, their privacy will be eviscerated by the surveillance state.

    It appears that day is drawing closer as PlanetFreeWill.com's Joseph Jankowski details, all over the United States, school districts have been implementing biometric identification technology for the purpose of allowing students to purchase lunch with no cash or card, and to track them getting on and off the school bus.

    This technology has many worried that school districts are going to far with collecting personal information on students and are putting their privacy at risk.

     

    In Illinois, the Geneva Unit District 304 has recently installed a biometric scanner in their cafeterias that will take student’s thumbprints for lunch purchases.

     

    The biometric scanner, made by PushCoin Inc, will allow parents to closely monitor their children’s lunch accounts through email updates. Also, PushCoin’s CEO, Anna Lisznianski contends the scanners can help school officials use lunch time more efficiently, reports EAG news.

     

    Officials in several area school districts have said they plan on implementing similar technology in the coming months and years.

     

    “I will tell you that many of the kids aren’t very good about keeping track of their ID cards,” District 95 board President Doug Goldberg told the Daily Herald. “And so moving to biometrics was felt to be sort of the next generation of that individual, unique ID. We’ll record their thumbprints, there will be thumbprint readers at all the cash registers, and they’ll simply come by and — bang — hit their thumbprint. It makes it faster and, also, there’s a lot less opportunity for any kind of misuse or fraud when they’re using biometrics.”

     

    Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the ACLU-Chicago, says that lunch line thumb scanners and other biometric data collection in schools sends the wrong message to students about protecting their privacy.

     

    “I think it undermines the notion of really thinking about the importance of your biometrics as a matter of privacy,” Yohnka said. “I think in this age, when so much is available and so much is accessible online about us and there is all this information that floats out there, to begin to include in this one’s biometrics, it really does raise some legitimate concerns.”

     

    Local law enforcement officials, for example, could subpoena fingerprints from a vendor like PushCoin to track down student criminals, Yohnka said.

     

    University of Washington psychology professor Laura Kastner shares the same privacy concerns.

     

    “At some point, Big Brother is going to have a lot of information on us and where is that going to go?” Kastner told the Daily Herald. “And that’s just for parents to consider. But from a kid point of view, they have no idea what they’re giving up and, once again, the slippery slope in what’s called habituation.”

     

    “We’re getting so used to giving up data about ourselves,” Kastner said.

     

    Along with privacy risks, this technology could be aiding in the acceptance of the obvious war on cash that is being waged globally.

     

    With an entire generation of young people being acclimated to accept biometric identification technology, there is no telling no how far reaching this technology will go in the future and what it will collect.

    As we concluded previously, with the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

    It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

    What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate. Computers now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks—all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

  • Dramatic Timelapse Footage Of Fort McMurray House Burning Down As Owner Watches On WebCam

    Yesterday we showed dramatic footage from various dash cams capturing the “apocalyptic” inferno that has made a burning ghost town out of Fort McMurray and is still raging in the heart of the Alberta oil sands. Today we present something more personal: in the following clip, Fort McMurray resident James O’Reilly watches on his iPhone as his home of almost 20 years burned to the ground just minutes after he and his wife fled the oncoming wildfire.

    As The Star reports, when thousands fled the flames in Fort McMurray Tuesday most wondered if they’d ever see their homes again but James O’Reilly didn’t have to wonder: he watched his home of almost 20 years burn to the ground in 5 minutes.

    The video shot by an indoor security camera about twenty minutes after O’Reilly and his wife had just barely enough time to grab some clothing and go, starts with a clear view of their living room, front window and two clown fish in a tank.

    At the beginning, the only thing out of the ordinary is the intense crackling. Then, the south-facing window goes dark. Only minutes after the video begins, the window shatters and plumes of ashy smoke pour into the room. The smoke eventually blocks out the light, and all that is left is just sound, popping and breaking, until the video cuts out.

    O’Reilly was in his truck, his wife in a vehicle behind, at Gregoire Lake south of town when he watched his home destroyed. “We’ve been talking for two days about all the things we left behind,” he said. “We left pretty much all our important papers, some important pictures.” He feels bad about the two clown fish left in the tank, just two of many animals that were left behind.

    But for him and his wife the order to evacuate had come swiftly. The voluntary order came as he was driving. By the time they arrived home, it was mandatory, leaving them minutes to pack and go. “I could feel the wind and it wasn’t wind from outside. It was wind from the fire,” he said.

    Despite the short notice, they’re very thankful for the firefighters and police who braved rapidly progressing flames to help them get out. “We’re better than most,” he said. “We made it through, and we have our camper, so we have a home on the road.”

    The following is a time-lapse of the original 5 minute video.

  • Election 2016 – The Next "Advance Auction On Stolen Goods"

    Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

    (Doug Casey updates readers about his take on the current crop of would-be presidents… and why he believes most Americans will vote for Trump. It was originally published on April 14th.)

     

    It appears there are two candidates running from the left wing of the Demopublican Party (Hillary and Bernie), and two and a half from the right wing (Trump, Cruz, and Kasich). Note: The media identifies the Lefties by their first names, a friendly and personal thing, unlike the Righties.

    I find it distasteful discussing current political figures. But since somebody new is going to be president come November, it makes sense to figure out who that might be, in order to insulate yourself as much as possible from the damage they’ll do.

    Let me start by saying that this is not just the most entertaining election I’ve ever witnessed. But after the 1860 election, which Lincoln won with 40% of the popular vote (the remainder split between Stephen Douglas and two other candidates), I suspect it will also be the most divisive, hostile, and critical to the future of the country. Ever.

    Why do I say that? Because the U.S. hasn’t been this unstable since the unpleasantness of 1861–1865.

    The figures show that the average American’s standard of living has been dropping since about 1971. This is manifestly true relative to the rest of the world. But it’s also true in absolute terms, especially after you back out extraneous factors. For instance, today’s families usually need two breadwinners just to make ends meet. Huge amounts of debt have also helped disguise the decay. The situation is becoming critical with real unemployment closer to 20% than the official 5%. Interest rates are being held at zero to maintain unsupportable levels of debt.

    But this isn’t the place for a full economic analysis of the Greater Depression. Let’s just say times are going to get very tough.

    When times are tough, people vote for something new. That’s why, at the height of the 2008 crisis, the electorate chose Obama over John McCain. Aside from being old, hostile, and mildly demented, McCain was sure to continue on the then current and unsustainable economic path. Obama’s re-election in 2012 is explained by the fact things improved during his first term. That, and the Republican, Romney, was widely (and correctly) perceived as a politically wired beneficiary of the Deep State.

    As you know, I believe we’re now leaving the eye of the great financial hurricane we entered in 2007. Even with (or in many ways because of) the trillions of dollars created over the last eight years, the average guy’s standard of living has continued falling.

    People are now widely aware that the rich have been getting radically richer because of QE and ZIRP, and they resent it. Any further hardship occasioned as we go into the hurricane’s trailing edge will likely cause that resentment to become violent.

    That accounts for the popularity of Trump and Sanders, but especially Trump. Let’s take a look at the candidates. But first, let’s look at the two dysfunctional wings of America’s Warfare/Welfare Party

    The Two-Party Charade

    I find there’s actually little to distinguish the Democrats and the Republicans, besides their rhetoric and the type of people who join them. In terms of what they do and the direction they steer the country, the differences are surprisingly marginal. The ethos of 300 million people has a life of its own; changing it is like turning a super tanker. But I suspect there’s a huge change afoot. The country itself is fragmenting.

    There’s a good chance that, at a minimum, this election will destroy the Republican Party, no matter who they nominate. And will take the Democrats even further to the left.

    Remember, there are essentially two types of freedom. Economic freedom (mainly how you can produce and own things) and social freedom (mainly what you can say and do regarding other people). The principal difference between the parties is that the Reps say they believe in economic freedom—which is a lie—while they definitely, and overtly, don’t believe in social freedom.

    The Dems, on the other hand, say they believe in social freedom—which is a lie—while they definitely, and overtly, don’t believe in economic freedom. Pretty much the difference between Hitler and Stalin. And in the popular mind, Hitler was the devil incarnate, while Uncle Joe was only good bad, not evil.

    The Dems, therefore, come off as morally superior. They claim to care about people, while the Reps appear to care mostly about things. The Dems are “progressive,” believing we should move toward collectivism and more State control, which they posit as good and fair and moral.

    In contrast, the Reps don’t really believe in anything. In fact, they completely accept the Dems underlying premises. Their only real objection is the lefties are going too far too fast. So, of course they never have the moral and philosophical high ground and always come off looking like selfish hypocrites. The Republicans are the Stupid Party, and the Democrats are, in fact, the Evil Party.

    At this point, the Republican Party is religious fundamentalists, social conservatives, and those who feel the government should spend even more on the bloated military congregate. Those who oppose foreign intervention and those who are friendly to free markets hang around its edges because there’s nowhere else for them to go; the Libertarian Party is laughably ineffectual, a non-starter. But the Republican party is not a natural or comfortable fit for them. The party should splinter. In fact, it will likely self-destruct if it doesn’t accept the nomination of Trump if he wins the popular vote. Which I believe he will.

    The popularity of Sanders, who’s got the youth totally on his side and has won eight out of nine of the last caucuses and primaries, shows where the Democratic Party’s heart, and future, lies. But the Party machine won’t give him the nomination, which will increasingly reveal the Democratic Party as being very non-democratic.

    With a little luck, this election will expose both parties as the corrupt machines that they are and destroy them both. But will the evil two party system be replaced by something even worse?

    The Candidates

    Let’s review them in decreasing order of disastrousness.

    Sanders is a lifelong government employee (like Hillary, Cruz, and Kasich). The self-declared socialist is an economically ignorant, hostile, mildly demented old man—the Democrats answer to John McCain. He gets traction by pushing the envy button effectively.

    This works in a world where many are not only ignorant of economics but have a distorted set of moral principles and no respect for property rights, while some others are cynically exploiting the system to become super wealthy. The machine approves of his basic principles, which are like Obama’s. But he’s probably just a bit too rabid to win a general election in 2016. Obama got in because, unlike Bernie, he seems so reasonable and nice.

    I know the pundits believe Hillary will win the Dem nomination and then the election, but I don’t buy it. For one thing, she’s (correctly) seen as the Establishment personified. And in a time of widespread resentment—especially if we’re in the middle of a meltdown by November—that’s the kiss of death.

    Assuming she’s not already indicted for any of a number of crimes. I’m not just talking about Benghazi and the email brouhaha, although some think that alone will sink her ship of state. Additionally, there are the persistent rumors of health issues. So, if neither Hillary nor Bernie gets the nod, who will it be? I expect the Dems will find a left wing general. Americans do love their military at the moment. Which is especially scary.

    If Trump is the Republican nominee, he’ll draw attention to a long string of corruption that surrounds Hillary like a miasma, starting in 1978 with the $100,000 bribe disguised as cattle-trading profits. And her numerous friends and associates that have died suspicious deaths in years past, not the least of them Vince Foster and Ron Brown. And her abetting Bill’s sleazy rape episodes with lower-middle-class bimbos. And persistent rumors (which I tend to credit) that she’s an aggressive lesbian.

    These things aren’t going to help her. Nor will the fact she’s a woman automatically help her with other women. To believe that is to believe that women are less perceptive than men. In fact, they tend to be shrewder at reading personalities. And Hillary’s personality traits scream “liar,” fraud,” and “dishonest.”

    What about Cruz? His shifty, beady, squinty little eyes speak of duplicity. He seems to be a genuinely dislikable person, which itself is the kiss of death in an election. Elections, after all, have very little to do with ideology; they’re really just popularity/personality contests among the hoi polloi. He’s a borderline religious fanatic, a Christian version of the type of Muslim imams that really scare people. He’s a genuine warmonger. And his wife, an ex-Goldman partner, an ex-Condi Rice counselor, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is exactly the kind of Deep State person that voters are rejecting and despise. He may have beaten Trump in a few Heartland states with big fundamentalist populations, but even the tone deaf management of the Republican Party will see that he’s a complete non-starter in a general election.

    Kasich? A lifelong politician, with nine terms as a congress critter, a stint as a governor, and one as a managing director of Lehman Brothers when it failed. These are the opposite of qualifiers in today’s world. He’s on the conventional statist side of almost every important issue—guns, global warming, drugs, medical care, and civil liberties. He’s about as dangerous as Hillary or Cruz when it comes to involving the U.S. in foreign adventures. He’s getting traction only because he seems low-key and “reasonable”—a Republican Obama. My guess is that the Deep State will try to give him the Rep nomination. After all, anyone but Trump…

    So let’s look at Trump. I’m not a fan, per se, and I explained why at length here. But in October, I said I thought he was going to go all the way. I’ll explain why below. It’s not because I believe polls, or pundits, or keep my finger on the pulse of the capita censi (i.e., those who inhabit the ghettos, barrios, and trailer parks of the U.S.).

    Why is Trump as popular as he is? Two reasons. First, he’s outspoken and politically incorrect. He doesn’t read from a script, like all the others. He says what his supporters are thinking, things that no other public figure is willing to say. Second, he’s not part of the Establishment, the Deep State. He’s the only candidate that’s not a professional politician. These are simple things but extremely important characteristics for this election, which is going to take place during a social and economic hurricane.

    By the time November rolls around, however, three other qualities will come to the fore, and they’ll be even more important.

    First, he’s a businessman, and therefore presumed to know how to make things work. People, at least those who aren’t Democrats, don’t want a politico. They know politicos are just about lies and self-dealing. What most people will want in the face of a collapsing economy is somebody who has credentials saying they’re competent to kiss things and make them better. A truth teller who says that the U.S. is in trouble and thinks markets are overpriced. Someone whose slogan is “Make America Great Again!”

    Second, he projects certainty. In times of fear and confusion, which is what I expect in six months, certainty trumps everything in a public figure. No other candidate even comes close. A man who exudes certainty gets the confidence of voters.

    Third, the Establishment hates him. Despite all the free press he gets, practically all pundits and public figures loathe him. They label him as an unqualified, irresponsible, dangerous clown and a reality show star. But since the general public now despises the Establishment in general and the media, in particular, this will help him, not hurt him.

    P.S. Here’s Some Full Disclosure

    You may be wondering, having said all this, if I will vote for Trump. The answer is: no. He’s an authoritarian, not a libertarian. He’s got only a marginal grip on either economic freedom or social freedom, and he says lots of stupid things that he may actually believe. That said, I still signed up for my friend Walter Block’s Libertarians for Trump movement. Why? Partly because he’s vastly less scary than any other candidate. And he’s certainly the least likely to start World War 3—which is actually the biggest risk with any president.

    So why won’t I vote for him? Longtime subscribers are aware that I don’t choose to be complicit in crimes, including national elections. I give five reasons why you, too, should consider opting out. But I hope Trump wins. Not just because he’s actually the least warlike but because he’s the only candidate who’s not a puppet on a string. He stands a chance of upturning the Deep State’s apple cart and spilling all the rotten apples it carries. A small chance, perhaps, but probably the only chance.

    Could he succeed in doing it? Unlikely, but it’s important someone try. He’d be no more likely to succeed than Ron Paul, if he’d won the last election. As I pointed out then, anyone who steps out of line would first get a sit-down with the heads of the praetorian agencies and a bunch of generals. They’d politely, but firmly, explain the way things work. Failing that, Congress would impeach him. Failing that, I expect he’d meet with an unfortunate accident.

    In conclusion, you can put the Rolling Stone’s “Street Fighting Man” on continuous loop to replace the audio whenever you watch the news. I expect a long, hot, violent summer. That’s somewhat counterintuitive, in view of the fact that the American public is more apathetic than ever.

    Apathy and ignorance. How else to explain their complacence at getting 0% on their savings? How better to explain that they’re more driven by fear than ever, evidenced by so many things, from the acceptance of “helicopter parenting,” to the bizarre hysteria over practically non-existent terrorism. Americans seem like zombies in many ways. Maybe that’s because something like 25% of the population are on medically prescribed psychoactives, like Ritalin, Prozac, Ambien, and scores of others. And even more are addicted to sugar, alcohol, overeating, recreational drugs, and Kardashian-style TV. Even so, as Ferguson, Missouri, proved last year, they’re still capable of rioting.

    America, which was much more a concept than a place, is long gone. What’s left of the white middle class correctly feel they’re losing what’s left of the U.S. Their children are being both bankrupted and corrupted by politically correct schooling. To them, the society appears to have been captured by gender feminism, LGBT preferences, and racial quotas. And I’d say they’re basically right.

    That’s why, even if they won’t admit it out loud, most Americans (hard-core Democrats excepted, of course), will vote for Trump.

    Hold on to your hat.

  • California Fault Lines Are "Locked, Loaded, & Ready" For The Big One, Expert Warns

    The San Andreas fault is one of California's most dangerous. While the last big earthquake to strike the southern San Andreas was in 1857, as LA Times reports Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, explained this week "the springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight. And the southern San Andreas fault, in particular, looks like it’s locked, loaded and ready to go."

    Have you noticed that the crust of the Earth is starting to become a lot more unstable? 

    As The End of The American dream blog's Michael Snyder explains, over the past couple of months, major earthquakes have shaken areas all over the planet and major volcanoes have been erupting with a frequency that is more than just a little bit startling.  Here in the United States, the state of Oklahoma absolutely shattered their yearly record for quakes last year, we just saw a very disturbing earthquake right along the New Madrid fault just recently, and as you will see below one scientist is telling us that the San Andreas fault in southern California “looks like it’s locked, loaded and ready to go”.

    The name of the scientist that issued that very ominous warning is Thomas Jordan, and he is the director of the Southern California Earthquake Center.  The following quote from Jordan comes from a Los Angeles Times article that was published this week that is getting a huge amount of attention right now…

    “The springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight. And the southern San Andreas fault, in particular, looks like it’s locked, loaded and ready to go,” Jordan said in the opening keynote talk.

     

    Other sections of the San Andreas fault also are far overdue for a big quake. Further southeast of the Cajon Pass, such as in San Bernardino County, the fault has not moved substantially since an earthquake in 1812, and further southeast toward the Salton Sea, it has been relatively quiet since about 1680 to 1690.

     

    Here’s the problem: Scientists have observed that based on the movement of tectonic plates, with the Pacific plate moving northwest of the North American plate, earthquakes should be relieving about 16 feet of accumulated plate movement every 100 years. Yet the San Andreas has not relieved stress that has been building up for more than a century.

    Jordan went on to say that when the tension that has been building along the San Andreas fault is finally relieved, it could potentially produce a magnitude 8 earthquake. What a Magnitude 8 quake would look like…

     

    Back in 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that just a magnitude 7.8 earthquake along the southern San Andreas fault would cause more than 1,800 deaths, 50,000 injuries and 200 billion dollars in damage.

    So we are talking about a truly historic event.

    Many people out there believe that someday large portions of California will fall into the ocean as the result of an absolutely massive earthquake, but the USGS is convinced that is not likely to happen.  However, they do openly admit that someday the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco will be located right next to one another…

    Will California eventually fall into the ocean?

     

    No. The San Andreas Fault System, which crosses California from the Salton Sea in the south to Cape Mendocino in the north, is the boundary between the Pacific Plate and North American Plate. The Pacific Plate is moving northwest with respect to the North American Plate at approximately 46 millimeters per year (the rate your fingernails grow). The strike-slip earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are a result of this plate motion. The plates are moving horizontally past one another, so California is not going to fall into the ocean.

     

    However, Los Angeles and San Francisco will one day be adjacent to one another!

    But of course it isn’t just California that we need to be concerned about.

    According to the Daily Mail, one team of scientists has concluded that giant chunks of the Earth’s mantle are “breaking off and sinking into the planet” under the North American plate, and that this is what has caused some of the unusual earthquakes in the eastern part of the country in recent years…

    The southeastern United States has been hit by a series of strange unexplained quakes – most recently, the 2011 magnitude-5.8 earthquake near Mineral, Virginia that shook the nation’s capital.

     

    Researchers have been baffled, believing the areas should be relatively quiet in terms of seismic activity, as it is located in the interior of the North American Plate, far away from plate boundaries where earthquakes usually occur.

     

    Now, they believe the quakes could be caused by pieces of the Earth’s mantle breaking off and sinking into the planet.

    I don’t know about you, but that sounds rather ominous to me.

    The crust of our planet already somewhat resembles a giant cracked egg, and to hear that pieces may be breaking off and sinking into the interior is not exactly comforting.

    And those same scientists are telling us that the process that has been causing this is ongoing and will continue to produce more earthquakes

    The study authors conclude this process is ongoing and likely to produce more earthquakes in the future.

     

    ‘Our idea supports the view that this seismicity will continue due to unbalanced stresses in the plate,’ said Berk Biryol, a seismologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and lead author of the new study.

     

    The [seismic] zones that are active will continue to be active for some time.’

    Those that follow my work closely know that I have been writing about seismic activity a lot lately, and that I believe that major earth changes are coming to the North American continent.  I am deeply concerned about the New Madrid fault, the Cascadia Subduction zone, the major faults in southern California and Mt. Rainier up in Washington state.

    In the end, I don’t believe that we will see just one or two major seismic events in the years ahead.

    For those of us that are fortunate enough to live long enough, I believe that all of those areas that I just mentioned will experience major events.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 6th May 2016

  • Establishment Republicans plan to solve wage stagnation and entitlements … on your back

    from The Great Recession Blog by David Haggith

     

    Establishment Republicans have a plan to help workers because they hear you after all the clamor that has formed around Donald Trump. That is how they bill it anyway — a plan to help laborers. They have heard through their marble walls that some of you are not happy with wages that have been stagnant for decades. So, they have hatched a brave new plan.

    Are you ready to see some innovative thinking now that they have had the better part of a decade to come up with something?

    Their creative plan to help the common worker is to make it illegal for unions to withhold union dues automatically “so that you have more money in your paycheck.” That’s it. Boost your pay by stripping as much away from unions as they can. The marvelous creativity here is in how they manage to construe that as being for the benefit of the American worker to such a degree that they even believe it themselves.

    Never mind that unions are the only thing that might give you enough unified strength to get your pay or benefits improved against cost-slashing corporations. Never mind that your pay stopped going up as soon as Reagan started breaking unions and as soon as Bush I started shipping factories to Mexico in that great sucking sound to the south.  That is when pay stagnated while corporate profits soared … unless you were working in upper management where your pay rocketed into the Vanderbiltian stratosphere.

    What the Republican establishment calls “the Employee Rights Act” (ERA) is just another disembowelment of unions to make sure that the corporate execs and stockholders continue to get the lion’s share of corporate fat. How else will they build up their bonuses and dividends and buy back the company’s own stocks in order to inflate the value of their stock-options? Money going to union bosses could be going to them.

    Now, some of you hate unions. I can understand that because unions have used a lot of their own evil tactics to coerce membership. I used to hate unions, too, because of all their goldbricking; but it’s a well established historic fact that — corrupt as they have sometimes been — they are the only thing that significantly forced up wages, working conditions and benefits for decades. Even non-union shops only paid more in many cases because they had to match or beat union shops in order to keep the unions out.

     

    The Heritage Foundation has a plan for the working man

     

    (And woman. I just wanted that line to rhyme.) Steve Moore, a visiting fellow of the Heritage Foundation, is concerned that union leaders are getting rich and fat off these dues. Maybe they are, but corporate executives also get rich and fat when there are no union leaders, and the Heritage Foundation wants to assure you they have what is best for your income in mind.

    According to Moore, “The ERA puts the GOP firmly on the side of working-class Americans and higher pay. (“Stephen Moore: Republicans Can Give Workers a $1 Billion Pay Raise“) You see, the neocons are not formulating their plan for the sake of helping their rich constituents — the one percenters who back both parties. No, they are doing it to put a billion dollars in your pocket. They are glad to do that since all of that money would otherwise go to people who campaign against the wealthy corporate bosses who own the politicians.

    If you’re going to give money back to the proletariate, do it by stripping it from unions that seek to diminish the grasp of the one-percenters. Take the money from the one area that might in the long run help workers get more money for their labor because unions just help workers redistribute wealth to themselves. We know the wealth rightfully belongs to the corporate leaders and stockholders and that redistribution to the people doing the work simply appeals to the envy of the working class. It is most important that we keep the wealthy rich so the workers have something to aspire toward. For all those reasons, you can know by the ERA that the GOP is now firmly on the side of the working class.

    Why is it that the only plan establishment Republicans can ever come up with to help labor and improve wages is a plan that helps the establishment, such as giving tax breaks to stock investors that put their taxes lower than the middle class. They repeat inanely that those investors are the “job creators” until people believe it is true because it has been said so many times. True, they are the job creators … in Mexico … in China … in India where they moved all of their factories.

     

    The “entitlement” trap

     

    Have you noticed that governments, whether they are run by Democrats or Republicans, have no problem with underfunding their employee retirement plans? Even the most liberal cities have struggled to find ways to get out of paying the pensions they promised. The only thing that stands in their way is government employee unions. The citizens of those governments (municipal, county and state) had no problem deriving the benefits of new roads and parks, etc., off the backs of government employees by promising them “great government benefits.”

    We have probably all talked at one time or another about how so and so that we know got a good government job with great government benefits like that was a good move for them. We probably even recommended a job like that to a friend or two: “The benefits are great, man.” We knew the benefits were the one thing that could drive our neighbors or relatives to take a government job in spite of all the red tape that comes with working for the government.

    Will we now insist that our fellow citizens be treated fairly by taxing ourselves what it takes to honor those promises that we knew were being made? I doubt it. For many, those coveted government benefits have turned out to be a lie all along because governments never paid for the program as they went … always figuring some future government would deal with the problem of underfunding, but that never stopped them from continuing to hold out the promised retirement benefits. We’ve known these programs were underfunded for decades now.

    Several states and municipalities declared bankruptcy during the Great Recession just so their citizens could escape the higher taxes that would be pushed on them in order to make good on the promises made to those other citizens who served them. Can you believe those nasty employees felt “entitled” to what was made as a promise of deferred gains in their retirement years if they would work below going wages at present? Greedy bastards.

    I’m not talking about the wealthy people who serve at the head of local government and who sit on counsels. I’m talking about the gal who mowed your park lawns or sat in a back office drawing up sewer plans or drove the bus. I’m also not talking about the lazy four guys who stood around a hole while one guy leaned on a shovel and sometimes pretended to dig.

    We all know those inefficiencies in government existed and were inexcusable, but there are many government employees in low-paying and mid-level positions who worked diligently for benefits for twenty years that they are now being deprived of just as they hit retirement. What about them? Do the bad apples we sometimes tolerated justify shorting our promises to those who worked dutifully at their tasks?

    The reason they are said to be “entitled” is because you and I already extracted the work out of them. They are entitled to the benefit because they already paid for it with their labor. Now, surprise, surprise, they want what our leaders promised them for decades. Greedy bastards.

    And what about your entitlements?

     

    The Social Security slough

     

    Nowhere are fraudulent promises more true than in Social Security. Some people who talk about balancing the budget by taking the money from entitlements like Social Security have forgotten that the reason they, themselves, are entitled to those benefits is that it was their money in the first place! They only allowed the government to take it (and very reluctantly even then) based on the government’s pledge of the United State’s good faith and credit that the money would be there for them when they retire or become disabled.

    They probably even mumbled that the money wouldn’t be there when they retired, and now here they are. Some of them are such saps they are already willing to lie down and let the government keep that money without a fight, accepting the mantra that it is bad to feel entitled to that which you created and provided in the first place.

    Establishment Republicans have a similar answer to solve the federal government’s huge deficit problems. Their solution is to whittle down your retirement benefits under social security because YOU are the problem, not them. Their talking point is targeted at making anyone who expects to receive those benefits appear greedy via a concerted plan of turning “entitlement” into a dirty word.

    Before you let them strip you of your dignity, try to remember that you’re “entitled” to those benefits because the money was actually yours in the first place. You’re simply entitled to get your own money back. So, talking about these “entitlement” people as if they are someone other than you and are the problem with America is the same as talking about homeowners as being the problem with real estate because they think they have a right to own the home they’ve been paying for. If they’d just let the banks keep the home, we wouldn’t all have to bail out these miserable banks. Greedy homeowners, feeling they are entitled to retire in the home they have been paying for all these years!

    Politicians, however, want to use Social Security funds to balance the budget that both parties have refused to balance for thirty-plus years. Republicans mostly railed against Social Security when it was created as something that was taking people’s money away and redistributing it to government to waste. Now they rail against those who want their money back.

    The only difference between Republicans and Democrats on Social Security is that Democrats still think it is the money is owed back to you (though they have no idea how to make the math work after decades of their own profligacy with the money). Republicans think the best thing to do with this money that they kept telling you you would never see once the government got it … is to make certain that you never do see it! They want to fulfill their own predictions.

    In the end, who was the greater thief? The group that promised your money back but now doesn’t know how to deliver on its promise and still balance a budget they never tried to balance in the first place? Or the group who kept warning you that, once you let government get its hands on the money, you would never see it again and now wants to make certain you actually never do see it again?

    While neither party has shown any will to actually balance the budget, they have no problem finding ways to make the wealthy wealthier. Republicans are concerned, of course, that union dues only make Democrats wealthier — the wrong people — because 90% of union political contributions go to Democrats. Is it any wonder that union contributions go mostly to Democrats when the ERA is the most creative thing the Republican-controlled congress could come up with as an answer for laborers who are finally concerned that their wages haven’t risen against inflation since 1977?

    This is their best plan? Give the unions one last stab in the back so that laborers have even less strength in negotiating wages? A little candy now to deprive you of a lot more later?

    You see, everyone could have a job if everyone were willing to work for scrap meat as they ought to; but greedy American workers keep thinking they are entitled to some of that corporate revenue so they can live better than their Central American competition. If they wanted to be competitive, they would downsize to corrugated metal shacks. Unions are the reason people don’t have good paying jobs. They keep insisting that the jobs pay better, which forces those jobs to leave the country.

    That’s how much establishment Republicans care about wage stagnation. They care enough to make certain it continues so that corporate leaders can keep inflating their overstuffed bonuses and pack their golden parachutes and puff up their stock options. The Employee Rights Act is the establishment’s most creative plan in years to help the flagging economy.

     

    The government’s self-created entitlement trap

     

    Now, to be sure, there is a lot of greedy entitlement thinking in this world, too — the kind where people feel entitled to assistance just because they need it or want it and where they endlessly suck off the government and give nothing productive back — but what I want to remind people of here is there is also genuine entitlement where you are only receiving something that you personally earned and that was promised to you; it came out of your paycheck in the first place, and it was supposedly held in trust for you.

    You are not greedy if you refuse the idea of pushing back your retirement age from what was originally stated and demand the government provide the retirement benefit that it promised you when it took your money that you were reluctant to trust to government in the first place. So, before you let politicians strip away the retirement benefits you already put in your labor for on the basis that it is inevitable now, make certain you strip away every benefit they ever promised to themselves first. (And watch how fast they sue the government they helped create.) Make sure they do a lot of other things first. Don’t make it easy for them to get out of their promises by making “entitlement” a nasty word.

    It’s nasty when people feel entitled to other people’s things, and apparently your politicians feel entitled to your things, which they already extracted from you for decades based on a pledge to give it all back. Why bend over and make it easy for them to kick you in the keister? Force them to end every entitlement of every politician alive today, especially those who have already retired, before they touch one cent of yours … for those retired politicians are the ones who made the promises in the first place.

    It is one thing to feel entitled to things you never earned; quite another to feel entitled to that which you already did earn.

  • Lawmakers To Obama: Don't Supply Syrian Rebels With Stingers

    Authored by Brendan McGarry via DoDBuzz.com,

    More than two dozen U.S. lawmakers are urging President Barack Obama to refrain from supplying Syrian rebels with American-made shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.

    The 27 members of Congress, led by Reps. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, and Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, on Tuesday sent a letter to the president “urging him to maintain his policy of refusing to transfer shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) to Syrian combatants,” including those trained by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency.

    The missiles are primarily designed to target helicopters. One type is the FIM-92 Stinger, made by Raytheon Co., whose use against Soviet aircraft in Afghanistan during the 1980s was popularized by the book and movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War.”

    “While we may have differing perspectives regarding the appropriate US response to the horrific violence in Syria, we agree that MANPADS would only lead to more violence, not only in Syria, but potentially around the world,” Conyers said in a statement released Wednesday by his office.

    The release cites an April 12 article in The Wall Street Journal by Adam Entous that reported the CIA and its partners in the region had prepared plans to arm moderate rebels in Syria with more potent weapons than the Soviet-era BM-21 “Grad” truck-mounted rocket launchers:

    The agency’s principal concern focuses on man-portable air-defense systems, known as Manpads. The CIA believes that rebels have obtained a small number of Manpads through illicit channels. Fearing these systems could fall into terrorists’ hands for use against civilian aircraft, the spy agency’s goal now is to prevent more of them from slipping uncontrollably into the war zone, according to U.S. and intelligence officials in the region.

     

    Coalition partners have proposed ways to mitigate the risk. They have suggested tinkering with the Manpads to limit how long their batteries would last or installing geographical sensors on the systems that would prevent them from being fired outside designated areas of Syria. But Washington has remained cool to the idea.

    Syrian rebels have also reportedly acquired other U.S.-made weaponry.

    A YouTube video published Feb. 26 appears to depict a Syrian rebel in Sheikh Aqil, a town near Aleppo, firing a BGM-71 TOW (for tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided) missile at a T-90 tank, Russia’s main battle tank that entered service in the 1990s, presumably operated by Assad forces.

     

    U.S.-backed rebels in the country may have acquired both the older TOW, developed in the 1970s and also manufactured by Raytheon, as well as the newer FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile, developed in the 1990s and made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Corp.

    In his letter, Conyers cites recent instances in which extremist organizations captured U.S.-supplied weaponry in Syria:

    In late 2014, the headquarters of the CIA-backed militia Harakat Hazm — one of the biggest recipients of U.S. arms including powerful TOW anti-armor missiles — was overrun by Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s primary Syrian affiliate. Harakat Hazm fled its positions, leaving behind many of their weapons that were seized by al-Nusra. Last September, Syrian rebels vetted and trained by the United States handed over their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, and just last month, Nusra attacked a Western-backed rebel faction, taking over bases and seizing U.S.-supplied weapons including antitank missiles.

     

  • Natural Gas is Sexy Once Again from a Macro Fundamentals Standpoint (Video)

    By EconMatters

     

    The mild winter has Nat Gas stocks at record levels, but the last time this many natural gas rigs went offline in 2012, prices rebounded to the $5 level nicely on a long trending trade. Traders and Investors are trying to anticipate and evaluate the likelihood of this move in Natural Gas happening again.

     

    © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle    

  • The Number Of Americans Renouncing Citizenship Just Keeps Going Up

    Today the IRS published the latest figures on renunciation, showing that yet another 1,158 Americans have renounced their citizenship in the first quarter of 2016.

     

     

    While this may not be setting a record for a single quarter, the trend is quite clear.

    Source: SovereignMan.com

  • Deep State Democrats & The Donald – Ron Paul Destroys The 2-Party System Myth

    Submitted by Nick Bernabe via TheAntiMedia.org,

    Longtime congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul made it clear in a recent interview on CNN that he will vote 3rd party if the presidential race comes down to Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton.

    Though Paul didn’t specify which candidate he would vote for, he did say Libertarian or Independent party candidates are a possibility. Paul also said he couldn’t support Ted Cruz, who has since dropped out of the race, because he’s a “theocrat” who wants to rule with religion. Paul didn’t comment on his specific reasons for not supporting Clinton, but one can speculate the fiercely anti-war Paul opposes her militaristic tendencies.

    Then Paul went even further, saying both the Republican and Democratic parties — from Reagan to Obama — are controlled by the “Deep State” and powerful special interests.

    Watch the interview below:

  • Churn, Baby, Churn – The China Commodity Bubble Exposed In 1 Simple Chart

    The frenzied trading that smashed Chinese commodity markets through the roof in the last month has begun to unfurl rapidly as authorities crackdown on the speculative fever and force exchanges to curve excess ‘churn’. Of course, there are still some who cling to the belief that any of this was ‘real’ demand, real buying, and real economic growth (just don’t look at The Baltic Dry in the last few days) but, as Bloomberg reports, it was nothing but “churn baby churn” as trading volume exploded but open-interest remained flat.

    “With more speculators being let in on this secret, more money poured in
    the game,”
    Fu said. “Prices went higher and higher with explosive
    growth in trading volumes.”

     

    As Bloomberg reports,

    The slowdown marks a return toward normality after a frenzy that drew comparisons with the credit-driven stock market rally last year that preceded a $5 trillion rout. Investor appetite has waned after the exchanges raised transaction fees and margins amid orders from regulators to limit speculation.

     

    “It’s pretty crazy to see such a quick move in trading volumes, compared with historical levels,” Zhang Yu, an analyst with Yongan Futures Co., said by phone from Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province. “Some investors are exiting after the exchanges’ measures.”

    Crazy Indeed…

     

    Open interest, or the amount of outstanding contracts at the end of the day, has remained relatively unchanged throughout, indicating that the trading was short-term speculation, with traders holding positions for a few hours and cashing out before the end of the day. At the peak of the trading boom, daily aggregate volume across the contracts was more than four times open interest. It was 1.4 times by May 4.

  • Will Turkey Become An "Islamic State"?

    Submitted by Emad Mostaque via GovernmentsAndMarkets.com,

    “Erdogan once said that democracy, for him, is a bus ride … ‘once I get to my stop, I’m getting off’ ”

    Jordan’s King Abdullah recalling a conversation with the Turkish President

    Tonight is H?drellez in Turkey, celebrating spring and the day on which the Prophets al-Khidr and Elijah.

    Traditionally wishes come true today and it would seem that President Erdo?an’s wish for an executive Presidency has come one step closer to reality with the resignation of Prime Minister Davuto?lu.

    When we downgraded Turkey in last week’s Governments and Markets update, it was primarily due to negative shifts in governance as the pressure to move to a Presidential system and crack down on the Kurds increased. We weren’t sure of the timing of these events, although key factors like the HDP being effectively banned and the President needing to assert control over more elements of the government seemed certain.

    Taking some cash off the table after a period of Turkish outperformance seemed sensible and we must now consider where we go from here with Turkish equities having fallen 10% this week alone.

    Fighting for the right not to be prosecuted

    AKP and HDP members of parliament express their disagreements

    While the resignation of the Prime Minister is the main headline news, the start of this week saw jitters following a brawl in the Turkish parliament as the process to strip MP’s of immunity to prosecution began, something that would impact HDP members given accusations of PKK ties, but also some MHP members.

    This move was in line with our expectations and unsurprising given the continued escalation of deadly suicide attacks by the Kurdish TAK, linked by the government to the PKK, who are in turn linked by them to the HDP. The March 13th suicide car bomb attack on Ankara was particularly alarming as it confirmed the return of Kurdish attacks on civilian targets, with 37 being killed.

    The Syrian civil war has dramatically increased the available ordinance for such attacks, designed to maximize casualties with the car in this case being packed with nails and pellets, injuring a further 127 individuals. The moves by the security forces to push Kurdish separatists out of their urban areas are likely to increase the frequency of such attacks, providing a grim echo of the 90s when they first started.

    This is a continuation of the process of reducing Kurdish political influence that we outlined in our notes “A Kurdish Conundrum” on July 31st last year and “Ankara: Cui Bono?” on 20th October 2015, where we predicted the AKP majority and continued political polarization that has occurred.

    We also saw continued developments in the chaos that has surrounded the MHP and efforts to oust Bahçeli as leader after 19 years, with the judiciary blocking the proposed extraordinary congress that could make the rule change necessary for a vote to kick him out and accusations by Bahçeli that Gülenist forces are behind this move.

    This puts the opposition to the AKP in a bad spot even as the leadership of the AKP becomes ever more streamlined, a process that we saw with Cabinet III and likely required after the public splits that we started to see last March with the running of Fidan and the Gökçek-Ar?nç feud.

    There can be only one

    Given the current constitutional powers of the President versus the Prime Minister, Davuto?lu was the only potential political force that could stop the President from exercising almost unlimited executive powers, although this would have amounted to a semi-coup within the AKP that Erdo?an officially left upon taking up the Presidency, but clearly still controls.

    The expectation of Davuto?lu that he would be able to exercise his constitutionally mandated powers versus being effectively a Vice President appears to have been the real catalyst that led to the current situation, something hinted at with the arrival of the “Pelican Brief” blog on May 1st, a pro-Erdo?an blog accusing Davuto?lu of helping the cause of Erdo?an’s enemies (conspiracy theories are popular in Turkey) and not doing enough to advocate the Presidential system. He was also accused of not protecting Erdo?an against attacks, notable when 1,800 have been charged with insulting the President as the space for public dissension continues to narrow, supporting Kurdish peace, something that Erdo?an no longer cared for and other such calumnies.

    While the blog is anonymous, it fit with news that broke shortly after that, after agreeing a politically important military base in Qatar for Turkey, Davuto?lu had been stripped of many of his powers as party leader by almost all of the members of the AKP’s Central Decision and Administration Board, backed by Erdo?an.

    This was referred to by Davuto?lu as a key reason for his resignation, although he still voiced his full support for Erdo?an.

    Any new Prime Minister is now certain to be a Erdo?an loyalist when the party congress meets at the end of May, raising the question as to why any constitutional amendment is now needed given the President controls almost all elements of governmental power and has consolidated influence over key institutions such as the central bank.

    We may see elections in October if they decided to try and kill off the HDP and MHP, for now it appears that, absent a possible reshuffling of some of the AKP ranks, this is merely the latest step in the formalisation of the President’s rule. Polls show support for a Presidential system isn’t tremendously high, which would argue against putting it to a public vote when the powers are all in place already.

    What foreign investors dislike

    Where does that leave Turkey in terms of governance and likely asset performance?

    Markets were troubled last year by the prospect of a shake up in the AKP as they lost their parliamentary majority, before jumping after elections and subsiding once more.

    By and large, the bourse, dominated by foreign investors, tends to favour a firm hand at the tiller and predictability, which should augur well for the Presidential system.

    Turkish assets have outperformed broader Emerging Markets since last summer’s elections as fears of decision-making chaos proved unfounded and double digit carry proved attractive, particularly on a Euro investor basis. This can be seen in the below chart of dollar returns for equities, although the performance has started to reverse dramatically with this week’s events

     

    Source: Ecstrat, Bloomberg. Indexed to 1st June 2015, just before summer general elections

     

    Economic policy is unconventional, but now quite predictable and Turkey has benefited from the tailwind of lower oil prices, although we are now starting to see pressures resume upon the economy and current account.

    What investors hate, however, are governance regimes in which the state interferes with private enterprise, something that we have seen in the crackdown on and seizure purported Gülenist companies and continued consolidation of the press, with the takeover of Feza Media and Zaman the latest in this series on terror support charges.

    It should now be the case that Erdo?an has sufficient support and has shown enough strength not to go after additional targets like Isbank, where the CHP has a 28% stake.

    If so, our neutral rating is optimistic.

    If not and we now get a period of relative stability as all challengers have been dealt with, then the market looks good here on a relative basis, with banks in particular the second cheapest in EM after Chinese banks and in a supportive rate policy environment, but still offers little upside on an absolute basis with most of the action likely continuing to be on FX and bonds.

    If this rally in EM is just that and not a secular turning point as we expect as Chinese vulnerabilities continue to expand, then the real test for the government and its relationship to the corporate sector will be when the market turns south once more.

    Will Turkey become an “Islamic” state?

    On a final note, we have had a couple of queries as to whether Turkey is headed toward Shariah law implementation as the Presidency is consolidated, particularly given Parliament Speaker Ismail Kahraman’s comments that secularism should be taken out of Turkey’s new constitution last week, moving it instead to a “religious constitution”.

    While we are dubious on the impact of any constitution (look at North Korea’s, its fabulous), we think that an overall shift to an Islamic state is unlikely in Turkey as the impact the AKP is looking to achieve, namely normalisation of Islamic practice in public as a foundational support for party control and roll back of the restrictions of prior governments.

    This doesn’t require a change in the constitution, nor does it require a formalisation of Islamic law within the country as a guide to government policy, something which is better served by the use of “public interest” (maslaha) doctrine by the government in any case, which provides significant flexibility in promulgating policy.

    This is similar to the interaction between religion and government we are seeing today in Russia and a sensible step to take as Turkey goes down a more conservative route for a leader who wants to consolidate control.

    The decisions made on state capitalism on this path will likely be the ones that determine the success of Turkey in the coming years and something the President will be judged on as he gets his wish.

  • How Jeff Gundlach Is Preparing For A Trump Presidency

    Two weeks ago, long before the outcome of the Indiana primary was known, we first reported that it was Jeff Gundlach‘s opinion that Donald Trump would be the winner of the 2016 presidential race. For those who missed it, here are the key excerpts from his interview posted on April 22.

    Q. Who do you think will win the race for the white house?

     

    Gundlach: Trump is going to win. I think Clinton and Sanders are both very poor candidates. I know the polls are signaling the opposite. But the polls said the opposite four years ago, too.

     

    Q. How would the financial markets react should Trump win?

     

    Gundlach: In the short term, Trump winning would be probably very positive for the economy. He says a lot of contradictory things and things that are not very specific. But he does say that he will build up the military and that he will build a wall at the border to Mexico. If he wins he’s got at least to try those things. Also, he might initiate a big infrastructure program. What’s his campaign slogan? Make America great again. What that means is let’s go back to the past, let’s go back to the 1960s economy. So he might spend a lot of money on airports, roads and weapons. I think Trump would run up a huge deficit. Trump is very comfortable with debt. He’s a debt guy. His whole business has had a lot of debt over time and he has gone bankrupt with several enterprises. So I think you could have a debt-fuelled boom. But the overall debt level is already so high that you start to wonder what would happen after that. 

     

    Q. How do you explain that a guy like Trump might actually win the election?

     

    Gundlach: His popularity is very similar to the popularity of unconstrained bond funds. About two or three years ago, unconstrained bond funds became the most popular thing in the United States retail market and in the institutional market probably, too. Because when investors analyzed all the bond segments they were familiar with, they didn’t like what they saw. They didn’t like treasuries, they were scared of the Fed, they didn’t like traditional strategies. So, if everything you think you know looks unattractive, you go for something that you have no idea about. And that’s an unconstrained bond fund. The thinking was: «Don’t even tell me what you are doing, I do not want to know. Because if I know, I won’t like it. » The same is true with respect to the elections: «Don’t give me a traditional candidate. Give me someone who I have no idea what he is going to do» – and that’s basically Donald Trump.

    * * *

    Two weeks later, CNBC caught up with Gundlach to report essentially the same: following the Sohn Conference, Gundlach once again stated that he believes that Trump would become president.

    The CEO of DoubleLine, which manages $84 billion for clients, told CNBC he’s apolitical but said, “I think it’s important for investors to deal with reality.” Repeating his previous comment, Gundlach said that Trump will have a very large deficit while in the Oval Office. “He’s very comfortable with debt. We know that about Donald Trump.” 

    Gundlach added that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is just like another man many in the GOP idolize: former President Ronald Reagan. “Reagan was a debt-based economic guy and I think Trump will be,” Gundlach noted.

    “It will probably look like it’s working at first. The question is, will the boost to the economy from infrastructure projects and the like off-set the potential drag from shrinking global trade.”

    So how is Gundlach preparing and trading in advance “Trump presidency”? “Look at arms manufacturers, said Gundlach. He would avoid companies that are susceptible to global trade slowdowns, particularly those related to Mexico and China.

    A Trump presidency would also be perceived as negative by the market. Recall that on April 26, Gundlach told Reuters that Trump’s protectionist policies could mean negative global growth: “As he gets the nomination, the markets and investors are going to worry about it more. You will see a downgrading of global growth based on geopolitical risks. You must factor this into your risk-management.”

    In summary: buy guns, stay away from FedEx, start legging into market shorts, oh and also Gundlach seemed to fully agree with Druckenmiller’s speech, which to us simply means Gundlach is yet another advocate for the Fed “dead end” trade which ultimately ends in gold.

  • Jim Grant Asks When The World Will Realize "That Central Bankers Have Lost Their Marbles"

    Authored by James Grant via Grant's Interest Rate Observer,

    April 15 comes and goes but the federal debt stays and grows. The secrets of its life force are the topics at hand— that and some guesswork about how the upsurge in financial leverage, private and public alike, may bear on the value of the dollar and on the course of monetary affairs. Skipping down to the bottom line, we judge that the government’s money is a short sale.

    Diminishing returns is the essential problem of the debt: Past a certain level of encumbrance, a marginal dollar of borrowing loses its punch. There’s a moral dimension to the problem as well. There would be less debt if people were more angelic. Non-angels, the taxpayers underpay, the bureaucrats over-remit and everyone averts his gaze from the looming titanic cost of future medical entitlements. Topping it all is 21st-century monetary policy, which fosters the credit formation that leads to the debt dead end. The debt dead end may, in fact, be upon us now. A monetary dead end could follow.

    As to sin, Americans surrender, in full and on time, 83% of what they owe, according to the IRS—or they did between the years 2001 and 2006, the latest period for which America’s most popular federal agency has sifted data. In 2006, the IRS reckons, American filers, both individuals and corporations, paid $450 billion less than they owed. They underreported $376 billion, underpaid $46 billion and kept mum about (“nonfiled”) $28 billion. Recoveries, through late payments or enforcement actions, reduced that gross deficiency to a net “tax gap” of $385 billion.

    This was in 2006, when federal tax receipts footed to $2.31 trillion. Ten  years later, the U.S. tax take is expected to reach $3.12 trillion. Proportionally, the 2006 gross tax gap would translate to $607.7 billion, and the net tax gap to $520 billion. To be on the conservative side, let us fix the 2016 net tax gap at $500 billion.

    Then there’s squandermania. According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal monolith “misdirected” $124.7 billion in fiscal 2014, up from $105.8 billion in fiscal 2013. Medicare, Medicaid and earnedincome tax credits accounted for 75% of the misspent funds—i.e., of those wasted payments to which government bureaus confessed. “[F]or fiscal year 2014,” the GAO relates, “two federal agencies did not report improper payment estimates for four risk-susceptible programs and five programs with improper payment estimates greater than $1 billion were noncompliant with federal requirements for three consecutive years.” It seems fair to conclude that more than $125 will go missing in fiscal 2016.

    Add the misdirected $125 billion to the unpaid $500 billion, and you arrive at a sum of money that far exceeds the projected fiscal 2016 deficit of $534 billion.

    Which brings us to intergenerational self-deception. The fiscal outlook would remain troubled even if the taxpayers paid in full and the bureaucrats stopped wiring income-tax refunds to phishers from Nigeria. Not even a step-up in the current trudging pace of economic growth would put right the long-term fiscal imbalance. So-called non-discretionary spending, chiefly on Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, is the beating heart of the public debt. It puts even the welladvertised problems of Social Security in the shade.

    Fiscal balance is the 3D approach to public-finance accounting. It compares the net present value of what the government expects to spend versus the net present value of what the government expects to take in. It’s a measure of today’s debt plus the present value of the debt that will pile up if federal policies remain the same. To come up with an estimate of balance or—as is relevant today, imbalance—you make lots of assumptions about life in America over the next 75 years. Critical, especially, is the interest rate at which you discount future streams of outlay and intake. Jeffrey Miron has performed these fascinating calculations over the span from 1965 to 2014.

    The director of economic studies at the Cato Institute and the director of undergraduate studies in the Harvard University economics department, Miron has projected that, over the next 75 years, the government will take in $152.5 trillion and pay out $252.7 trillion —each discounted by an assumed 3.22% average real rate of interest. Add the gross federal debt outstanding in 2014, and—voila!—he has his figure: a fiscal imbalance on the order of $120 trillion. Compare and contrast today’s net debt of $13.9 trillion, GDP of $18.2 trillion, gross debt of $19.2 trillion and household net worth of $86.8 trillion. Compare and contrast, too, the estimated present value of 75 years’ worth of American GDP. Miron ventures that $120 trillion  represents something more than 5% of that gargantuan concept.

    There’s nothing so exotic about the idea of fiscal balance. In calculating the familiar-looking projection of debt relative to GDP, the Congressional Budget Office uses assumed rates of growth in spending and revenue, which it also discounts by an assumed rate of interest. It’s fiscal-balance calculus by another name, as Miron notes.

    Nor is the fiscal-balance idea very new. Laurence J. Kotlikoff, now a chaired professor of economics at Boston University, has been writing about it at least since 1986, when he shocked the then deficit-obsessed American intelligentsia with the contention that the federal deficit is a semantic construct, not an economic one. This is so, said he, because the size of the deficit is a function of the labels which the government arbitrarily attaches to such everyday concepts as receipts and outlays. Thus, the receipts called “taxes” lower the deficit, whereas receipts called “borrowing” raise it. The dollars are the same; only the classification is different.

    Be that as it may, Miron observes that the deficit and the debt tell nothing about the fiscal future. Each is backward-looking. “The debt,” he points out, “. . . takes no account of what current policy implies for future expenditures or revenue. Any surplus reduces the debt, and any deficit increases the debt, regardless of whether that deficit or surplus consists of high expenditure and high revenues or low expenditure and low revenues. Similarly, whether a given ratio of debt to output is problematic depends on an economy’s growth prospects.”

    Step back in time to 2007, Miron beckons. In that year before the flood, European ratios of debt to GDP varied widely, even among the soon-to-be crisis-ridden PIIGS. Greece’s ratio stood at 112.8% and Italy’s at 110.6%, though Ireland’s weighed in at just 27.5%, Spain’s at 41.7% and Portugal’s at 78.1% (not very different from America’s 75.7%). “These examples do not mean that debt plays no role in fiscal imbalance,” Miron says, “but they illustrate that debt is only one component of the complete picture and therefore a noisy predictor of fiscal difficulties.”

    So promises to pay, rather than previously incurred indebtedness, tell the tale. Social Security, a creation of the New Deal, did no irretrievable damage to the intergenerational balance sheet. It was the Great Society that turned the black ink red. Prior to 1965, the United States, while it  had run up plenty of debts related to war or—in the 1930s—depression, never veered far from fiscal balance. Then came the Johnson administration with its guns and butter and Medicare and Medicaid. From a fiscal balance of $6.9 trillion in 1965, this country has arrived at the previously cited $120 trillion imbalance recorded in 2014. And there are “few signs of improvement,” Miron adds, “even if GDP growth accelerates or tax revenues increase relative to historic norms. Thus, the only viable way to restore fiscal balance is to scale back mandatory spending policies, particularly on large health-care programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.”

    We asked Miron about the predictive value of these data. Could you tell that Greece was on the verge by examining its fiscal imbalance? And might not Japan be the tripwire to any future developed-country debt crisis, since Japan—surely—has the most adverse debt, demographic and entitlement spending profile? Miron replied that comparative statistics on fiscal imbalance among the various OECD countries don’t exist. And even if they did, it’s not clear that they would tell when a certain country would lose the confidence of its possibly inattentive creditors. The important thing to bear in mind, he winds up, is that the imbalances— not just in America or Japan or Greece but throughout the developed world—are “very big and very bad.”

    Of course, government debt is only one flavor of nonfinancial encumbrance. The debt of households, businesses and state and local governments complete the medley of America’s nonfinancial liabilities. The total grew in 2015 by $1.9 trillion, which the nominal GDP grew by $549 billion. In other words, we Americans borrowed $3.46 to generate a dollar of GDP growth.

    We have not always had to work the national balance sheet so hard. The marginal efficiency of debt has fallen as the growth in borrowing has accelerated. Thus, at year end, the ratio of nonfinancial debt to GDP reached a record high 248.6%, up from 245.4% in 2014 and from the previous record of 245.5% set in 2009. In the long sweep of things, these are highly elevated numbers.

    In the not-quite half century between 1952 and 2000, $1.70 of nonfinancial borrowing sufficed to generate a dollar of GDP growth. Since 2000, $3.30 of such borrowing was the horsepower behind the same amount of growth. Which suggests, conclude Van Hoisington and Lacy Hunt in their first-quarter report to the clients of Hoisington Investment Management Co., “that the type and efficiency of the new debt is increasingly nonproductive.”

    What constitutes a “nonproductive” debt? Borrowing to maintain a fig leaf of actuarial solvency would seem to fill the bill. Steven Malanga, who writes for the Manhattan Institute, reports that state and municipal pension funds boosted their indebtedness to at least $1 trillion from $233 billion between 2003 and 2013. Yet, Malanga observes, “All but a handful of state systems have higher unfunded liabilities today than in 2003.”

    Neither does recent business borrowing obviously answer the definition of productive. To quote the Hoisington letter: “Last year business debt, excluding off-balance-sheet liabilities, rose $793 billion, while total gross private domestic investment (which includes fixed and inventory investment) rose only $93 billion. Thus, by inference, this debt increase went into share buybacks, dividend increases and other financial endeavors, [although] corporate cash flow declined by $224 billion. When business debt is allocated to financial operations, it does not generate an income stream to meet interest and repayment requirements. Such a usage of debt does not support economic growth, employment, higherpaying jobs or productivity growth.”

    The readers of Grant’s would think less of a company that generated its growth by bloating its balance sheet. The composite American  enterprise would seem to answer that unwanted description. Debt of all kinds—financial and foreign as well as nonfinancial— leapt by $1.97 trillion last year, or by $1.4 trillion more than the growth in nominal GDP; the ratio of total debt (excluding off-balance-sheet liabilities) to GDP squirted to 370%.

    The United States is far from the most overextended nation on earth. Last year, Japan showed a ratio of total debt (again, excluding off-balancesheet items) to GDP of 615%; China and the eurozone, ratios of 350% and 457%. Hoisington and Hunt, who dug up the data, posit that overleverage spells subpar growth. In support of this proposition (a familiar one in the academic literature), they observe thataggregate  nominal GDP growth for the four debtors rose by just 3.6% in 2015. It was the weakest showing since 1999 except for the red-letter year of 2009.

    The now orthodox reaction to substandard growth is hyperactive monetary policy. Yet the more the central bankers attempt, the less they seem to accomplish. ZIRP and QE may raise asset prices and P/E ratios, but growth remains anemic. What’s wrong?

    Debt is wrong, we and Hoisington and Hunt agree. With the greatest of ease do the central bankers whistle new digital money into existence. What they have not so far achieved is  the knack of making this scrip move briskly from hand to hand. Among the big four debtors, the rate of monetary turnover, or velocity—“V” to the adepts— has been falling since 1998.

    “Functionally, many factors influence V, but the productivity of debt is the key,” Hoisington and Hunt propose. “Money and debt are created simultaneously. If the debt produces a sustaining income stream to repay principal and interest, then velocity will rise because GDP will eventually increase by more than the initial borrowing. If the debt is a mixture of unproductive or counterproductive debt, then V will fall.
    Financing consumption does not generate new funds to meet servicing obligations. Thus, falling money growth and velocity are both symptomsof extreme over-indebtedness and nonproductive debt.”

    Which is why, perhaps, radical monetary policy seems to beget still more radical monetary policy. Insofar as QE and ultra-low interest rates foster credit formation, they likewise chill growth and depress the velocity of turnover in money. What then? Why, policies still newer, zippier, zanier.

    Ben S. Bernanke, the former Fed chairman turned capital-introduction professional for Pimco, keeps his hand in the policy-making game with periodic blog posts. He’s out with a new one about “helicopter money,” the phrase connoting the idea that, in a deflationary crisis, the government could drop currency from the skies to promote rising prices and brisker spending. Attempting to put the American mind at ease, Bernanke assures his readers that, while there will be no need for such a gambit in “the foreseeable future,” the Fed could easily implement a “money-financed fiscal program” in the hour of need.

    No helicopters would be necessary, of course, Bernanke continues. Let the Fed simply top off the Treasury’s checking account—filling it with new digital scrip. The funds would not constitute debt; they would be more like agift. Or the Fed might accept the Treasury’s IOU, which it would hold “indefinitely,” as Bernanke puts it, rebating any interest received—a kind of zero coupon perpetual security. The Treasury would then spread the wealth by making vital public investments, filling potholes and whatnot. The key, notes Bernanke, is that such outlays would be “money-financed, not debt-financed.” The “appealing aspect of an MFFP,” says he, “is that it should influence the economy through a number of channels, making it extremely likely to be effective—even if existing government debt is already high and/or interest rates are zero or negative [the italics are his].”

    Thus, the thought processes of Janet Yellen’s predecessor. Reading him, we are struck, as ever, by his clinical detachment. Does the deployment of helicopter money not entail some meaningful risk of the loss of confidence in a currency that is, after all, undefined, uncollateralized and infinitely replicable at exactly zero cost? Might trust be shattered by the visible act of infusing the government with invisible monetary pixels and by the subsequent exchange of those images for real goods and services? The former Fed chairman seems not to consider the question— certainly, he doesn’t address it.

    To us, it is the great question. Pondering it, as we say, we are bearish on the money of overextended governments. We are bullish on the alternatives enumerated in the Periodic table. It would be nice to know when the rest of the world will come around to the gold-friendly view that central bankers have lost their marbles. We have no such timetable. The road to confetti is long and winding.

Digest powered by RSS Digest